Evangelist Takes On Darwin (Temple of Darwin cries blasphemy!)

CEH ^ | September 27, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Sept 27, 2009 — What would Darwin do? Just in time for the 150th anniversary of The Origin of Species, his magnum opus has been reprinted with an introduction not by a scientist or historian, but by a Christian evangelist. He and a Christian movie actor are trying to get their special edition to students at major universities. Talk about brashness. Darwin’s defenders are stepping on themselves to condemn this – well, blasphemy...

[Just mythoughts]

v 6 whereby the world that then was being overflowed with water perished That isn’t talking about the flood? Three different earth/heaven ages? the world that was - the past the world that now is - the present the world that is reserved- the future It isn’t speaking of three different ages of earth and heaven but of the past present and future.

v6 is telling us about Genesis 1:2, when the devil rebelled and took with him a third of the Sons of God, as some are described in Genesis 6 and the book of Jude. The first rebel was in the Garden of Eden called the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So what can this knowledge of good and evil possibly be that the tree/serpent whispered into the woman's ear? We are not told anything about the creation of Lucifer/serpent/tree of the knowledge of good and evil by Moses only that he was in the Garden.

It is the holy prophets Isaiah 14:12-27 and Ezekiel 28:12-19 that tell us about the creation and the rebellion that caused Genesis 1:2 that cause this earth to become without form, and void; and darkness (another name given the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) was upon the face of the deep

Now Paul describes this 'time' in Ephesians 1:4 According as He hath chosen (election) us in Him *before* the 'foundation of the world', (foundation of the world is a verb that means casting down - overthrow and world is age) that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.

Note it does not say we can be perfect but that our love for Him should be holy and without blame.

Now how can someone be chosen or of the election before the casting down - overthrow of an age if they did not exist. Paul is not describing the existence of the flesh, but instead of the soul/spirit during that world (age) that Peter says WAS, but perished being overflowed with water.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Interesting. Have a good night!

[allmendream]

So in answer to the question of if you think the Pope believes in the Bible, you say you do not think he believes in “Creation as recorded in Genesis.”

So Genesis being the first part of the Bible, I can only assume that you mean ‘Yes, I do not think the Pope believes in the Bible.”

Pope Benedict XVI not only believes in the Bible, he has made Biblical scholarship his life's work. He is a renowned Biblical scholar.

To believe in your own interpretation of scripture despite a mountain of contradictory evidence is the same mindset that leads some of our FR Creationists to insist that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the Sun moves around it. And why not? Once you interpret “For HE set the foundations of the Earth so that it should not be moved forever.” to mean that the Earth doesn't move, the creationist mindset has no mechanism to correct such a fundamental error.

[Natural Law]

"To believe in your own interpretation of scripture despite a mountain of contradictory evidence is the same mindset that leads some of our FR Creationists to insist that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the Sun moves around it."

I do not resent that christianhomeschoolmommaof3 holds different views and interpretations of Genesis than you and I and Benedict XVI and 600 million other Christians. God could easily have commanded uniformity, reverence and obedience but chose not to. God gave us reason, original sin (the knowledge of good and evil) and a free will. If in a chakra like way we arrive at the conclusion that God created the heavens and the earth and love God, even though we arrive at it differently as a result if the infinite variation in the universe and each of us that He created that is enough.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

“To believe in your own interpretation of scripture despite a mountain of contradictory evidence is the same mindset that leads some of our FR Creationists to insist that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the Sun moves around it. And why not? Once you interpret “For HE set the foundations of the Earth so that it should not be moved forever.” to mean that the Earth doesn’t move, the creationist mindset has no mechanism to correct such a fundamental error.”

You make a claim without a name. What FREEPER said that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun moves around it? No one is taking a literal meaning of the foundations of the earth being set. It is poetic language. Like saying the sun set or rose. However, the Lord DID set the Earth to be immovable from it’s orbit. Nothing that young earth creationist believe clashes with true science. It does however clash with a religious belief in evolution which is not and never will be based in real science.

[allmendream]

No one is taking a literal meaning of the foundations of the Earth being set?

Why not?

Why do you allow that passage to be not literal, but insist that the “morning” and “evening” of a “yom” without a Sun must be an exact span of 24 hours?

And for your information there are at least two Geocentric Freepers that frequent these discussions. They are clear that if you reject the notion that the Sun circles the Earth you are ‘putting the word of man over the WORD OF GOD’.

Everything a YECreationist believes about the earth clashes with science. Radiometric dating, the speed of light, plate techtonics, the fossil record, geological epochs, genetics, etc, etc. You may try to claim that somehow it is ‘just evolution’; but one must reject wholesale the data from several independent lines of evidence to cling fanatically to one's own supposed infallibility in Biblical interpretation in lieu of acceptance of a mountain of replicable scientific data.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Nothing a YEC believes clashes with science. All of those things you mentioned are INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence and they are based on an evolutionary worldview. I can see the fossil record, the rock layers etc etc. Just because you SAY that they support evolution that doesn’t make it so. You believe that the layers were laid down over millions of years. I believe they were laid down by the flood. Same facts and we reach different conclusions. You weren’t there to see it happen so don’t tell me that your conclusion is based on science. Radiometric dating has it’s own set of problems beginning with the fact that it has to presume ALOT. Presumption isn’t science.

You again CLAIM that there are geocentric freepers but you name none. Besides the Bible doesn’t say that the sun revolves around the earth.

The plain reading of Genesis is a regular day. Genesis is history. You have to jump through hoops to explain it away. Psalms is songs and poetry. You don’t read it literally. That is what I mean by a plain reading of scripture. You read history as history, allegory as allegory. It really isn’t hard to understand.

[allmendream]

Yes, the “interpretation” is that that if you see light from an object one hundred million light years away, that light took one hundred million years to get here.

The “interpretation” is that if the half life of a radioisotope is a million years, you would expect to see only half of it radioactive after a million years.

Presumption IS science.

Science starts with a presumption, which is called a hypothesis.

But unlike your presumption of infallibility of scriptural interpretation, science actually TESTS its presumptions against the evidence.

Everything a YEC believes clashes with science. It is antithetical to the scientific method to claim “I know the answer, and I know just how to twist the data to fit what I already know from religious doctrine.”

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

The assumptions I am talking about aren’t hypothesis. I am talking about an uniformitarian presumption in radiometric dating. And no creation scientists don’t twist anything. However when evolutionist find data that doesn’t fit within their worldview it gets buried or twisted or explained away.
No one is claiming to know all the answers. The Bible isn’t a science textbook but where it does touch on scientific topics I would rather trust the Word and Witness of the One who was there over the ideas and presumptions of fallible man. Have a good evening.

[allmendream]

Creationism isn't science. There is no such thing as a “creation scientist” in the same way there are “physics scientists”. All a creation “scientist” can do is twist the data to fit his YEC model, and that is not now and never will be science.

You trust only your own word, and against a mountain of evidence; but the key to being a creationist is to NOT test your assumptions of infallibility of scriptural interpretation against reality.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

I am done with you. You can’t seem to be civil. There are plenty of scientists that believe in YEC. They practice real science not the religion of evolution. Don’t bother posting to me again. Good night!

[allmendream]

You are done with reasoned discourse. You are not civil. There is no such thing as “creation science”. Evolution is a scientific theory not a religion. Just because something contradicts your interpretation of the Bible doesn’t make it religious in nature, it makes it something we call “reality”. Don’t botyher posting to me again. Good night!