Posted on 05/27/2009 7:43:04 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
A member of Free Republic recently posed a couple of questions to me. This is not the first time these questions have been asked of me, or on this forum, and it most likely will not be the last. I’d like everyone on both sides of the issue of the Evolution/Creation debate to have the chance to chime in, so here goes.
“I would like to see the statistics to back up your assertion that “Most Church going, Bible believing Christians believe in Creation and not Evolution.””
This answer is not cut and dry, but it is a response to the question, nonetheless. It is also indicative of the reasons why the debate on Evolution is so strong. The linked reference is a poll, so take that for what you will. I could probably find polls more supportive of my argument, and others no doubt, could find ones more supportive of their point of view. That’s one question none of us can definitively answer.
“May I ask why you insist that Genesis must be an unequivocally literal account?”
I answer by asking this; “Why must Evolutionists insist that Genesis must be an unequivocally metaphorical account?”
This goes deeper than the faith of Creationists or the faith of Evolutionists. It goes to the heart of the present “scientific” ideology. The recent discovery of the Monkey-Lemur scientists named Ida and the scientific community’s reaction more closely represents the current train of thought in the scientific world than most of the believers in Evolution care to admit. Many of those who believe in Evolution were embarrassed at the robust support scientists and those in the media gave to the idea that Ida is the direct, perfect example of Evolution’s missing link. It was with a great amount of audacity that the bones of a Monkey-Lemur were paraded out as proof positive for the theory of Evolution. This 25 year-old “discovery” was, transparently nothing more than a sacrifice offered to the Obama administration in hopes scientific funding would not be cut in these “grave economic times”. Though the fossil is interesting and a wonderful example of the historical record, it is laughable at best to presume Ida was the precise point at which man and monkey would eventually part ways.
In the same way, science has evolved into a caricature of its early beginnings. Scientists have devolved from being individuals dedicated to discovery and the propagation of hidden, factual detail, to being political animals bent on using their findings for agenda and profit. I would guess some Evolutionists would be the first on the bandwagon to admit this in some respects. In everything from Global Warming to the scientific gymnastics that occur in relation to health and nutrition… in some cases even medicine, they bend and shape facts to create perception, policy and for self-perpetuation. But when it comes to other scientists or ardent Evolutionists calling them out on their obvious scams and ploys? Well; nobody likes to shoot one of their own.
The truth be known, the radical support scientists lend to Evolution leaves them grasping at straws to make something materialize out of thin air. There is precious little difference between what the scientists do when divining information from bones and rocks and what a Gypsy does when reading tea-leaves or the bumps on ones’ head. What we hear from Discovery or Public Television, most media outlets and in our mis-education system, are pontifications of how creatures walked, lived breathed, ate, what they sounded like, thought like, and even defecated like with absolute authority, until what we actually do know about history becomes as much a part of the “joke” as the misrepresentation of supposition as fact. As a result, it has left the followers of the cult of Evolution supporting something that looks not unlike an episode of the Flintstones… only not quite so believable.
Now… to answer the question:
Why do I believe in the Biblical account of Creation?
Faith is a major part of it. I am certainly not ashamed to admit this. You see, the Evolutionist was not there 6000 years ago, 100,000 years ago or 100 Million years ago. They were not there 150 years ago. Neither was I. What I do know is that when science challenges the scriptures, the scripture wins time and again.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, Evolutionists shiver in the corner like whipped puppies at the thought they might have to admit to their chosen faith… And, who am I to question them? I suppose if the religious “crutch” of Evolution makes them feel better, I wouldn’t want to take that away from them.
If you don’t mind, please pass it on...
Thanks. GG
In answer to your questions...
Thank you for your time.
Ping...
And if anyone here is worried about being on my “Ping” list, I don’t have one. You were all targeted by my Creation/Evolution Gatlin gun...
Please comment even if it ain’t nice. I’m a big boy. I can take it.
You can debate the merits of evolution. But the theory of the evolution is based on the scientific principles of observations and applied biology.
The fact that humans might of evolved doesn't threaten my belief in Christianity whatsoever. Christianity itself evolved. Christianity evolved from Judaism, Judaism evolved from Zoroastrianism, Zoroastrianism evolved from tree worshiping.
My wife is French and having not been exposed to Christianity in that society I am the basis for our families Christian heritage and bringing up the kids in the church. When discussing Christ during Easter, I mentioned he was Jewish, she chimed in - I thought he was a Christian!
“However, creatism is not science and should not be taught as such. It is faith. There is nothing wrong with faith, I have faith, but science and faith are two different things and should remain as such.”
Sorry to tell you, but you’re wrong. If I believe that God created everything then science is interwoven with my faith. It would be stupid to believe that everything just “is” and God had no hand in it, and to believe in the Bible also. It’s either true or it’s good fiction, and I ain’t worshipping no science fiction writer.
I’m not questioning your faith here... I doubt very seriously you had time to read the entire post, though. I apologize if I’m incorrect about that.
Science doesn’t support evolution in the Darwin sense. There’s nothing in science that proves it. There is plenty of science to show species variation but nothing to support massive changes from one species to another.
One of our own ping!
God put in motion the events that created of the universe.
Can I prove that God did this? no. Because my assertion of a God is based on faith not science, therefore the two are separate. If God's existence could be proven, then it would probably be wrong since God wants us to believe in him, or have faith. John 3:16 states whoever believes in Christ will have salvation, not whoever proves that God Christ will have salvation.
The Old Testament, then is simply a fable... or at least Genesis. If you believe in the Word of God, then where does the fable end and the truth begin? And if you believe in God but not the Word, then what is your knowledge of God based on?
If faith in God and Science are separate issues, then where does science end and faith begin? At what point is science truth and God a lie?
I am certainly not doubting your salvation. I’m just trying to gain perspective.
Bump!
“Can I prove that God did this? no. Because my assertion of a God is based on faith not science, therefore the two are separate. If God’s existence could be proven, then it would probably be wrong since God wants us to believe in him, or have faith. John 3:16 states whoever believes in Christ will have salvation, not whoever proves that God Christ will have salvation.”
Forgot to respond to this...
What John 3:16 says is, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” Jesus made it nothing but clear that His mission was to bring glory to the Father. The idea that we would prove the existence of God with science is odd... God has revealed Himself to us but not in a physical way. That is, until Jesus was born. He was God in the flesh so that we could “see” God. I know you already know all this, but I have to point it out. To think the proven nature of God could possibly be a wrong thing to know is not the point of faith, in my humble opinion.
Sorry perdogg, but that statement is categorically false.
Observations have to the last instance demolished the faith known as evolution. You cannot cite a single instance where a solid, palpable object has supported the evolution pipe dreams. I don't mean opinions about an object, as we have been treated to thousands of those, but opinions are not fact, nor science.
That's the point, isn't it? The current state-of-the-art in science -- the assertion that rocks turned into people is based on faith, also. Science changes. The Word of God doesn't. I prefer to have faith in the latter. Because the more science changes, the more it conforms to the Word of God, the less it conforms to Darwinian evolution.
Did you ever go back and read the post?
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
"But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
-- John 5:46-47
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
“But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
— John 5:46-47
Excellent. Thank you.
Thanks for the ping
Absolutely...
Yeah!
Word fitly spoken.
Or as it may be in this case, posted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.