Skip to comments.
The Dirty Little Secret Is Out: Religious Faith and Evolution Are Incompatible
ICR ^
| March 20, 2009
| Frank Sherwin, M.A.
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 ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: catholic; christian; corruption; creation; darwin; darwinism; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; jerrycoyne; judeo; judeochristian; moralabsolutes; neenerhijack; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 741-749 next last
To: Kansas58
They certainly were, Kansas58. What shape was the mother church in at the time? How much direction or assistance did these monks up in Glendalough, County Wicklow and elsewhere receive?
All the credit rests with them. The Catholic Irish will be the first to admit that.
To: Kansas58
Until the various councils of the Catholic Church created the Bible, all we had was a few, scattered, separate manuscripts. It was rare to have all of those manuscripts in the same place, at the same time.Now there you go again...You're just repeating what 'they' tell you...Do some actual research...
362
posted on
03/21/2009 7:59:42 PM PDT
by
Iscool
(I don't understand all that I know...)
To: RegulatorCountry
Decayed animal and plant matter is humus, a component of soil, yes, but not soil itself.
Soil is mainly composed of minerals and rocks.
Nevertheless, using it to form something is not the same as animals evolving from each other.
363
posted on
03/21/2009 8:00:12 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: RegulatorCountry
All the life on this planet shares the same environment. It makes sense that a successful common design would be used.
Animals eat the same kinds of foods and need to digest those same kinds of foods. Why not use similar forms of digestion?
We all breath the same air. Why wouldn’t lungs all be designed similarly? Same for blood.
Similarities can imply common design as much as some think it implies common descent.
364
posted on
03/21/2009 8:05:10 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: LomanBill
Why should any tree bear fruit if it’s going to live forever? You certainly are mired in looking at Creation from a single point of view ... your own.
Trees bear fruit to feed the rest of creation. They bear seed to reproduce. Your notion of reproduction being inevitably tied to death is another presupposition that indicates your inability to internalize the Biblical account, that corruption, decay and death were not present in Creation until after the fall.
The carrying capacity of the Earth, prior to the fall, is not something you or I could possibly answer, since it's little understood even now, dire, death-ridden, politically Malthusian tomes notwithstanding.
To: LomanBill
Since when did GOd say a day or second was anything other than a day or second?
And you can try Peter’s comment that a day is like a thousand years, but then YOU ARE STUCK with that, and you still cant explain an Earth for 1000 years with no Sun or Stars created for at least several thousand years
So, Since the Bible says what it says, stop calling it a lie
366
posted on
03/21/2009 8:11:29 PM PDT
by
RaceBannon
(We have sown the wind, but we will reap the whirlwind. NObama. Not my president.)
To: RegulatorCountry
>>They bear seed to reproduce.
And how many trees could have grown in the Garden?
>>The carrying capacity of the Earth, prior to the fall, is not something you or I could possibly answer,
But you do admit that there was a carrying capacity - and that it was not infinite.
Did any of the bacteria in Adam and Eve's feces ever dry out and die?
What about bacteria that were consumed by Adam and Eve? Were those bacteria immune to digestion?
367
posted on
03/21/2009 8:14:40 PM PDT
by
LomanBill
(Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
To: Iscool
To: LomanBill
How many angels fit on the head of a pin, LomanBill?
Are you sure you’re conservative? You have an absolutely progressive obsession with poop.
A world without decay and death of living creatures is not terribly likely to incorporate the same bacterial behavior as the world of today, now is it?
Think. Wrap your mind around the implications, even though you don’t accept it. Envision it as an exercise for debate team. Have you never debated from a point of view other than your own?
To: Iscool
Nice post, but it refutes nothing that I have posted.
There were VERY few copies of the original Scriptures.
That is what I said.
I was correct! There were very few copies and they were kept separately from each other, before the first Bible.
You post that there were several thousand. To me, that is still very few, since there are literally MILLIONS of Bibles available now.
A full, complete Bible was RARE prior to the printing press.
Such works were hand made, and they were PRICELESS and kept under lock and key for good reason.
To: Fichori
Without comment, (snide or otherwise) the last month's posting history of the FReeper under discussion:
371
posted on
03/21/2009 8:34:17 PM PDT
by
TXnMA
("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
To: Iscool
This from YOUR post and link:
“Here is why this is important. Nearly all ancient English Bibles (except the Wycliffe & Douay-Rhimes Catholic Bible), and in fact all the Reformation English Bibles follow the same text family. That family is the Received Text, also called the Textus Receptus. It must be noted that Elzevir first gave the title, Textus Receptus, to the Traditional Text in 1633. This text type has been called by various names by Bible scholars…the Constantinoplian text, Antiochian text, Byzantine text, Traditional text, Apostolic text, the Majority text and the Textus Receptus (Latin for Received Text). The Textus Receptus belongs to the stream of early apostolic manuscripts that were brought from Judea. The Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Dr. Hort admits this when he says, “It is no wonder that the traditional Constantinopolitan text, whether formally official or not, was the Antiochian text of the fourth century. It was equally natural that the text recognized at Constantinople should eventually become in practice the standard New Testament of the East.” (Revision Revised, John Burgon, p. 134.)
Regardless of where you stand on the “textual debate,” this is the fact; the foundational text of all English Bible New Testament translations from 1525 to 1880 was from the Byzantine, Traditional or Majority Text group. The sole exception was the Jesuit Rheimes New Testament of 1582.”
The “Byzantine” is a direct link to Rome.
In the 4th Century, Constantinople was in Union with the Roman Catholic Church.
Your post in no way at all refutes what I have been trying to tell you: There would be NO Bible at all if not for the Catholic Church.
“Eastern Orthodoxy traces its history back to the Hellenized eastern portion of the Roman Empire, especially Constantinople or New Rome (now Istanbul). It shares the first ecumenical councils, concerning the Trinity and the Nicene Creed, with nearly all other Christians. After the Western Roman Empire fell, East and West slowly grew more separate. Meanwhile, internal schisms and the advance of Islam reduced Eastern Orthodox territory, but the faith spread to the Slavs to the north (including the Russians). Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism split in 1054 over theological issues concerning Western additions to the creed (the filioque clause) as well as the issue of Roman primacy. Later in 1204 Constantinople was sacked by crusaders enlarging the rift between the two. Reunification was attempted during two councils but they were rejected by the Eastern Orthodox people, being considered “robber councils”. After Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, the Russian Orthodox Church became more powerful.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
To: TXnMA; Fichori
Wow, I didn’t realize my posts get so many hits. Thanks, TX.
To: LomanBill
All fruit in the Garden was seedless, because there was no need for seeds. After sin, Satan invented seeds.
After sin, Satan invented teeth good for for biting live animals. He probably even invented the dinosaurs.
We don’t know much about Adam and Eve’s poop, but we do know they had no belly buttons. Before the fall, it’s unclear what happened when Adam accidentally stepped on a ladybug and squashed its guts out. It apparently didn’t result in death.
To: Kansas58
Again, can you refute any of this:Just did...Post 360...
375
posted on
03/21/2009 8:45:17 PM PDT
by
Iscool
(I don't understand all that I know...)
To: TXnMA; GodGunsGuts
“Without comment, (snide or otherwise) the last month's posting history of the FReeper under discussion:” [excerpt]
Wow!
Thats impressive!
Looks like they are actually pretty popular!
Good work GGG!
Hey, whata ya know, I've visited every one of those links!
376
posted on
03/21/2009 8:49:32 PM PDT
by
Fichori
(The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
To: Kansas58
Such works were hand made, and they were PRICELESS and kept under lock and key for good reason.The thousands of copies and fragments of copies of the scriptures remaining today prove otherwise...
And if many thousands survived, think of the hundreds of thousands or more that would have perished in the process...
377
posted on
03/21/2009 8:54:14 PM PDT
by
Iscool
(I don't understand all that I know...)
To: Dog Gone
After sin, Satan invented teeth good for for biting live animals. He probably even invented the dinosaurs. If you're going to mock, even in attempted humor, try and get your facts straight. Your wit would be greatly sharpened if you actually understood your material. Meat eating is much more associated with the aftermath of the Biblical deluge; Christianity and Judaism both agree on this.
As far as dinosaurs, if they were an abomination, not of God's Creation, they were the creation of human-angelic hybrids that are described in the Bible and in the Apocrypha, specifically Enoch 1, although the Bible makes little or no specific mention of such creatures. The speculation that they were the result of antediluvian tinkering is an attempt at interpretation, based upon current understanding.
That Noah was described as "perfect in his generations" has a meaning that few are willing to explore, that much of the sin that so angered God as to wipe out all of Creation, save those men, women and other living creatures aboard the Ark, was due to altering and contaminating His creation.
Now, go have your fun. It's not a joke to some of us, though.
To: Fichori
Thanks! It would appear many FReepers and lurkers are genuinely interested in this subject :o)
To: metmom; DallasMike; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
Metmom, now that was an interesting post! Thank you.
"in Gen 2:7 it specifically says that God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And man became a living soul.
"Formed". Not "Created" (from nothing) -- "formed from the dust of the earth".
Behold -- the "dust of the earth":
My interpretation: When God had (finally) formed (developed) man's physical body and brain (of physical elements that He had previously created) to the state where they could accommodate Him, He breathed His Spirit into Adam (the first "ensouled" man) and, for the first time, Man existed "in the image of God" (Who is Spirit). The physical body of man is formed for survival on this earth; it is his "soul/spirit) that is "in the image and likeness of God".
Therefore, I see no reason for all the arguments over how the physical body of man reached its present form. God formed it that way.
380
posted on
03/21/2009 9:11:55 PM PDT
by
TXnMA
("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 741-749 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson