How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[PurpleMountains]

All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.

[metmom]

It takes real humility to accept the likelihood that God formed us by way of the lowly ape.

It takes twisting of Scripture to read anything more into Gen 2:7 than what it says.

Gen2:7 ..the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Pride has nothing to do with a common sense reading of Scripture.

Pride also has nothing to do with rejecting the interpretation of the fossil record as showing common descent instead of common design.

Have you ever considered that the fossil record showed something besides common descent?

[tacticalogic]

The difference is irreconcilable.

Then what is to be gained from these debates, other than animosity?

[Finny]

Metmom, ignorant people are gullible people. You are ignorant about evolutionary theory, and do no credit to God because you are gullible.

Science is to scripture what math is to fishing. It appears to me that science hurts your pride where your faith is concerned. Your ignorance is willful, and I personally cannot believe that willful ignorance is a Godly thing. For certain sure, I know that ignorance leads to gullibility, such as those so ignorant of basic earth science that they endorse man-caused global warming claptrap. Regardless of their faith, if they were educated, they'd no more buy it than they'd buy that the moon is made of cheese. Faith does not insulate one from the consequences of willful ignorance.

[Alamo-Girl]

In my view, the debate has always been for the Lurkers.

[tacticalogic]

In my view, the debate has always been for the Lurkers

I hope they find public displays of vitriol enlightening.

[Alamo-Girl]

Always. Travelers rubber-neck to see pile-ups on the expressways. If it bleeds, it leads.

[tacticalogic]

Hopefully, it yields lessons in how not to drive.

[ZX12R]

I hope they find public displays of vitriol enlightening.

I mostly lurk here, and scan through the crevo/evo wildfires, and to me they are sometimes entertaining and almost never enlightening. The majority of the participants are incapable of enlightenment on any point. But keep up the good fight, for whatever reason. Maybe one side or the other will make headway eventually, but I'm not optimistic.

[betty boop]

...these debates can never end. Parties on opposing sides cannot make the other accept what they see, as Dog Gone suggested earlier on this thread.

I don't have an interest in "making" the other person "accept" what I see. I'd be completely satisfied if I could just get some indication that they actually "saw" it. Then if they want to dispute my statements regarding the "seen thing" on rational grounds, truly I'd welcome them to do that.

But that rarely, if ever happens around here. Mostly we engage in "spitting matches" — all heat and no light. Nobody learns a thing. Sigh....

Of course you know I'm a mathematical Platonist, just as you are. I wholly concur that mathematics exists in an independent, indeed one could almost say sovereign manner; and thus becomes susceptible to being "discovered."

Roger Penrose refers to the ontological status of mathematics as the Platonic world of mathematical forms, which are universal and thus completely "objective." To say that mathematics is "invented" by human beings is, to my mind, foolishness on the verge of hubris. For this is to make mathematics constructible on the basis of "subjectivity." How could such a thing attain the status of universality? FWIW.

Thank you dearest sister in Christ for your most excellent essay-post!

[CottShop]

What’s that got to do with hte facts he presented? This info on exponential bits is verifiable- His past actions don’t mean squat to the facts presented here.

[[If Baugh wrote that the sun rose in the east, I would check several references — and look eastward in the morning — before I would believe his statement.]]

And that’s what I suggest with any info- however, we can’t simply dismiss something because someone proved less than reputable in the past if it is indeed true that he was- I’m not calling your claim into question, however, all we have is your word for this at hte m oment- but again, it’s irrelevent to what is being discussed

[Just mythoughts]

So we can’t use science to support Scripture, except when we want to use science to support Scripture? When Jesus used parables, there was usually a comment like this proceeding it.....”Then he told them many things in parables” or “Jesus told them another parable:”, or “He told them still another parable: “ or using the word *like*. All that is missing from the creation account. The sentences are declarative in nature, simply statements of fact.

And Metmom, Jesus always privately explained the parables to the disciples. His disciples ask Him why he spoke in parables to the multitudes and He said because it is NOT given for them to receive..... (They can't handle the truth.) Then Christ would explain the parables and we this day have benefit of the parable and the explanation.

Even that parable of the sower Christ privately explained what the parable was about.

Christ also said one cannot serve two masters, which is why the theorists reject the Heavenly Father, even by law out of their houses of worship. Now some will claim Christ but so long as He is kept at the back of the proverbial bus.

Even way back in Jeremiah's time the Heavenly Father knew His children....Jeremiah 4:22 For My people is foolish, they have not known ME; they are sottish (word means stupid) children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

Peter gives another description regarding the children. IIPeter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, "Where is the promise of His coming:

for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

The Heavenly Father knew full well what some of His children would be doing, Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse:

21 Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful;

but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen.

Even in the parables Christ was explaining the 'creation' and the purpose of man being placed into a flesh body.

I cannot see why these that are now in complete control are having such a bad day.... their theory is now under governmental control and untouchable, their methodology (science) is the only belief system allowed by law in public education. They won, yet they are still miserable.

Now didn't Jesus have something to say about who would sit in the seat of Moses (the law giver)?

[tacticalogic]

I mostly lurk here, and scan through the crevo/evo wildfires, and to me they are sometimes entertaining and almost never enlightening. The majority of the participants are incapable of enlightenment on any point. But keep up the good fight, for whatever reason. Maybe one side or the other will make headway eventually, but I'm not optimistic.

On the rare occasions that you find something of value, what kinds of arguments are you impressed with?

[CottShop]

[[Do you agree that an event having the appearance of being a miracle may later be found to have a natural explanation? ]]

I tackled this one a few posts ago- many people innocently call natural phenomena ‘miracles’, and attribute the power of the phsyche to miracles, however, TRUE miracles are a whole nother animal- Christ, the prophets and disciples (as well as the common TRUE Christians during Christ’s stay here) all performed TRUE miracles until the church age began as proof that Christ was who He said He was-

We had a Jewish Scholar present a fascinating lecture once about the Jewish implications and meanings behind hte Miracles of Christ, and it was just astounding how Culturally significant and specific Christ’s miracles were- they were so steeped in Jewish tradition, and had implications that were so specifically Jewish in nature, that there was no way a Jewish person could have denied that Christ was indeed the Messiah, unless they simply hardened their hearts and would not beleive. Christ’s miracles weren’t just simple superficial miracles- they had purpose beyond the imediate results that was really quite fascinating to learn about- Wish I had kept hte notes omn tha lecture- but hte info is probably available online- and is WELL worth a read to gain a deeper understanding of how important the miracles really were to the Jews (and Gentiles that followed)

[tacticalogic]

Roger Penrose refers to the ontological status of mathematics as the Platonic world of mathematical forms, which are universal and thus completely "objective." To say that mathematics is "invented" by human beings is, to my mind, foolishness on the verge of hubris. For this is to make mathematics constructible on the basis of "subjectivity." How could such a thing attain the status of universality? FWIW.

A valid observation, but removed from the context of the original line of debate.

I submitted that of the things we all agree on, the common denominator is observable, empirical evidence. It was countered that this is not necessarily so, because we don't always agree on mathematics. Mathematics is not a good example to use, because it is not something that exhibits quantifiable properties. If anything, the disagreements demonstrate the argument I originally made.

[hosepipe]

[ But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:1-9 ]

By this verse.. some have the SPirit of Christ(God) and some DO NOT.. WHich implys not all christians are christians.. or that being a christian is not a matter of what you say you are.. You might not be... Jesus said.... "You MUST be born again".. the first birth is not good enough..

About going to "church"... You can put puppies in a muffin tin and put them in an oven(church) but that don't make them muffins after processing..... Puppies are puppies and muffins are muffins..

[tacticalogic]

Can you articulate a methodology whereby an objective determination can be made between a TRUE miracle, and an innocent mischaracterization of natural phenomena?

[metmom]

It appears to me that science hurts your pride where your faith is concerned.

Then you know nothing about me. Your observations are wrong. Imagine that.

Your ignorance is willful, and I personally cannot believe that willful ignorance is a Godly thing.

And now you're accusing me of being ungodly because I don't agree with you?

Regardless of their faith, if they were educated, they'd no more buy it than they'd buy that the moon is made of cheese.

So, if I were educated, I'd agree with you?

Wow, the arrogance of the self -appointed elite.

So basically you're saying that you're right and science is right and the Bible is wrong and that if I weren't so stupid I'd agree with you.

Gotcha.

What do you think that I'm going to do? Have a meltdown because you claim that you think that I'm ungodly or you've accused me of it? I do not manipulate well.

Faith does not insulate one from the consequences of willful ignorance.

Such as?

[hosepipe]

[ To say that mathematics is "invented" by human beings is, to my mind, foolishness on the verge of hubris. ]

Human Mathematics is based on linear concepts.. i.e. zero,1 to infinity.. lineal..
Could be the whole system is NOT lineal.. but circular.. or some direction not noticeable in this realm..

[CottShop]

[[Your contempt for science and scientists does credit to neither God nor Jesus Christ. I think your denial springs out of prideful conceit, not humility and faith.]]

And your failures to bring anything relavent showing macroevolution is a reality to the table does even less for your cause. ‘Denial’? Lol- Try reasonability and understanding.

[[I am humble enough]]

Well pat yourself on the back for being so ‘humble’ and outspoken and self-professing abotu your humility

[[to accept that if God used evolution to form me from such a lowly creature as an ape or a chimp, then that’s how He did it.]]

And God looked around the animal kingdom and He found NO suitable mate for Adam- Are you inferrign that you don;’t Beleive God’s word and think that He instructed His people to write lies?

[[You, on the other hand, are so prideful that you reserve the right to reject His miracles as you see fit.]]

Which ‘miracle’ is he rejecting? The miracle of hte biologically impossible Macroevolutionary Hypothesis that has NO scientific evidence to support it? That miracle? For indeed it would HAVE to be a miracle- perpetrated By nature- Violating it’s own laws, and supernaturally overcoming biological impossibilites. Yes Finny- We’re all just ‘deniers’- those who don’t bow down at the silly alter of Darwin are just ‘deniers and haters’ who apparently are so ‘full of pride’ that we don’t follow hte hseep and simply take the word of Macroevos at face value without ever questionign hte scientific validity of their wild fatnastical claims

[CottShop]

[[Further, evolutionary theory doesn’t challenge the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, nor any of the spiritual, moral teachings in the Bible, from incest to prohibition on homosexuality]]

Nope- but it DOES Challenge God’s own word! Either God lied to us in His owrd, or His owrd is true- which is it Finny?

[[Evolutionary theory doesn’t challenge God; it challenges man’s pride.]]

Lol- Not sure how you can say that with a straight face- but whatever- Beleive You evolved from a ape if you like, and Beleive that God’s word doesn’t really mean what it means, and beleive that God lied to everyone if you like- As for us, We’ll take God at His word, and not rely on the deceitful rantings of Scientists who are hell bent on Assigning the miracles of creation to Nature despite hte FACT that they have NO support for such a Godless claim. It’s revealing that you prefer to beleive the lies of Macroevos over God.