Posted on 03/20/2009 7:59:40 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
In a recent book review, Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, admitted that the secular worldview of macroevolution (the development of complex life from “simpler” forms) is at odds with Christian faith...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Have you really been on pins and needles for a month? My God, how pathetic. But if you wish, I'll tell you tomorrow.
You are not smart enough to know what my beliefs are or are not, but you are foolish enough to think that you do.
ARE YOU CALLING THE BIBLE WRONG??!!
Moreover, if 6 is metaphorical, why not 1 through 5?
:)
Many of these people remind me of equally ardent Islaamists. And look what that kind of behavior brought us.
I have been a Republican all my life. My first ever vote was for Regan, I have been a member of my counties Republican Party Executive Committee, I have given money to Republican candidates, I have always voted straight Republican party tickets. I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social issues libertarian, which means there is no way I could ever be a Democrat.
But I have to tell you that social issue conservatives are starting to sour me on the Republican Party as currently constituted which is: Fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
What is my incentive to support Republicans who call people who don’t believe in creationism “Evos” (first time I heard this word was when I read this thread), push to have creation “science” taught in schools and push all the other religious based social issues that are near and dear to Christians hearts (abortion), when the best that can be said about the Republicans fiscal policies is that they are not as bad as the Democrats?
The Republican party as currently constituted is too focused on the social issues and not enough on the fiscal or federal issues. You want to teach your kids creationism? Fine by me, but don’t try to force it into the public school curriculum, as you are going to turn away lot people from the Republican party with that tactic. Instead, get vouchers passed where you can send your kids to a school that teaches them creationism (just don’t blame me when they are incapable of getting any kind of job in a science field when they grow up).
You want to outlaw abortion nationwide? Not going to happen and your absolutionist stance turns away a lot of people from the Republican party. Instead, focus your attention to where you can actually accomplish something. Namely, getting originalist judges appointed to the Supreme Court so at least Roe v. Wade can be overturned on Constitutional grounds, allowing states to set their own abortion laws.
As things stand now, the Republican parties obsession with these social issues and abandonment of any pretense of fiscal responsibility is going to doom the country to continued fiscal ruin at the hands of the Democrats.
And don’t bother making a religious argument in rebuttal. I don’t believe in ghosts, goblins or gods.
Thanks for that phrase Buck W.....
Puts it in perspective well...
Christian fascists. It doesnt’t need to be so, but you nailed it. Peace be to you.
Jeff Gordon — you had written “How dare Dr. Coyne tell me that I can not believe in God and evolution at the same time.” I interpreted that to mean that you considered yourself a Bible-believing Christian. I’m sorry that I misunderstood what you were saying.
You’re free to believe that evolution is compatible with whatever concept you have of “God.”
Twink — you confess to being a Catholic. The tone of your comment comes across as pretty un-Christ-like. Just sayin’ ...
I think the weaker your faith, the more you will crave certitude. You will even go out of your way to invent things about which one must be certain and make legalistic claims for your inventions. This way you can convince yourself of your superior faith.
There are some things in the Bible that we don't know the exact meaning of, and there are disagreements about what can be read literally. And some who claim to read the Bible literally are not really reading it literally - they read current events and contemporary American culture into the Bible, as if the Bible has no historical context from ancient Israel or the early Church. Many claim to be experts about the future, and they have invented very detailed timelines, but they disregard history. Then there is science that we think is pretty much settled but things might look different in 100 years as more things are discovered. So the dogmatic atheist might find much to be disappointed about, just like the believer in certitude who has God all figured out is in constant fear of losing his faith.
Interesting. Are we pushing the idea that the “scientitsts” should be authoritative on whether people’s religious beliefs are “correct” now?
Evolution can only occurwith HETEROSEXUAL relationships.
There is obvious discomfort in certain “scientific” circles with this FACT...
Genetics: Sperm + Ovum = Baby
Hey, wait a minute, that’s not how the stork evolved!
Storks are reproduced in a Xerox machine.
You didn’t really just say that, did you????
In the Bible, the EARTH was the first created event.
Just WHERE in Evolutionary theory is the EARTH before the SUN or the STARS???
Catholics are LITERAL in our understanding of “Peter, you are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church.
That's not what the verse says...You can make it mean anything you want when you change it...That's why you change it...
Catholics understand that “For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and Glory, for ever and ever Amen” were NOT spoken by Jesus.
No, they don't understand it...They just believe what they are told...
'thine is the kingdom' is missing in Nestles' text and Cantabrigeinis (5th-6th century), and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Jerome's Catholic revision (5th century)...However; the reading is found in every Greek manuscript but 10 of them (there are over 5000), including Freerianus (5th century) which is older than Cantabrigeinis...Sigman and Phi texts (6th century) and it is quoted by Chrysostom and also cited by Isadore Of Pelusium (370-440)...
If the vast majority of Greek manuscripts that originated in the area where Jesus lived, preached and died, contain the ending to the prayer, then so be it...
Besides, the FACT that the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory of Jesus Christ is stated so many times in Scripture, why would anyone want to mess with the statement here???
However, NO WHERE in the Bible does the Bible say that all faith must come from the Bible.
I agree...FAITH comes from Jesus Christ...Faith comes from 'hearing' (or reading) the word of God...And just as God didn't expect the OT Jews to remember what He said and pass it along, God had the NT apostles write the words down so we would know what we are hearing is actually the word of God...
In fact, all of the Books of the New Testament are ignorant of the existence of the other New Testament Books, they only refer back, individually, to the Old Testament.
How can you say that with a straight face???
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
It's clear they know who wrote and preached what...
Jesus often quoted the OT to remind the JEWS he was speaking to that 'their' bible pointed to HIM...
For the Early Church, the BIBLE did not exist
That's the early Catholic church...They had no need for the scriptures...They still don't...
so to insist that the Bible is the only way to salvation is to condemn the fast majority of Christians, from the First Easter to about 1500 AD, to Hell.
No one said that...But what is true is that the 'only' way to salvation is contained in the written words of God, and for a religion to teach that salvation comes from some tradition outside of what God revealed in the written scripture will definately lead someone to Hell...
Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Yes, He certainly did...Were these things passed on to your church to further guide us to salvation??? Absolutely NOT...
Joh 20:31 But these are written, NOT the the other signs that no one wrote about...THESE THINGS ARE WRITTEN, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
You better make sure everything you believe pertaining to your salvation comes out of the scriptures...
I don't need to explain it...If you are interested to know, you need to study church history inside AND outside of the Catholic church...
Here's a good place to start:
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
This is part of the region where the vast majority of available manuscripts can be traced to originate from...
Act 13:17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with a high arm brought he them out of it.
EGYPT...That's where the Catholic bible and ALL of the modern translations originated from...
Now, you've got a place to start your research...
That doesn’t answer either question.
What are the 70 branches of science that testify to the earth being more than 6,500 years old and how do they testify to that? What are the proofs, as it were?
I’m aware of some of them like radiometric dating. What about the other 69 branches of science? Could we have one proof from each branch of science?
Well no kidding, but Princeton theologian Charles Hodge explained that in 1874. Interestingly, Plantinga mentioned Hodge in his debate with Dennett.
No one has denied that variation within species has occurred. Even groups like AiG recognize that change has occurred as kinds, which had a complete, 100% useful, non-mutated DNA, got separated and certain characteristics got lost, thus giving the appearance of different species.
But scientists are finding more and more of these allegedly different species are capable of interbreeding, just choose not to.
The one problem is, evos look at the fossil record which shows variation within species and presume that just because that happens, evolution must therefore be the next *logical* step. Not necessarily.
The fossil record shows interrelationships, no doubt. It does NOT conclusively demonstrate species to species evolution.
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.