Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Claud
However, again philosophically speaking, his arguments from abiogenesis and on the phases of the moon show he wasn't opposed to the notion that God created things potentially which would come to perfection later.

Again, I don't see the appeal of evolution to you. Things develop all the time and always have. Why can't you simply be philosophically satisfied with the development of babies in the womb, of acorns to oaks, and of larvae to adult insects without seeing something appealing with de-literalizing the first two (three? eleven?) chapters of Genesis?

209 posted on 08/31/2009 4:31:45 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]


To: Zionist Conspirator; Claud; metmom; betty boop; Alamo-Girl

You know I don’t really see how this relates to whether or not the Church Fathers were Catholic, but I’ll give you my take on your subtopic.

My problem with most creationists is that for too long they have allowed the Darwinists to control the debate.

Darwinism is not now nor has it ever been about whether or not mankind descended from tadpoles. Darwinism is about the left’s desire to destroy traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and replace God with the intellect and their tool for this has been to use eugenics to create the “right” population (i.e. the Master Race).

They have been delighted to spend the past century debating evolution, because while this debate has gone on they have MURDERED ONE BILLION HUMAN BEINGS all while being able to hide behind the facade of science. The average person has NO CLUE the amount of deadly destruction that Darwinism has brought. And the Darwinists have been able to do this because they know that deep down most people DO NOT believe that the Universe was created in six 24 hour days. The Darwinists also know that most people DO believe in God and DO believe that He created the Universe, so they simply shift the debate to an argument about time, biology and geology. The result, they make it appear that most people agree with them, when the reality is that most people haven’t even got a clue about their real agenda.

It would be like having a debate about the Nazis and only focusing on the Nazi book burnings. The Nazis would simply debate the matter of censorship because they realize that deep down ONLY the anarchists are totally opposed to all forms of censorship (I don’t care what anyone says, but at some point there is SOMETHING that they will agree the government should ban, perhaps it has to do with politics, perhaps it is pornographic images of children, perhaps it is depictions of violence, but at some point EVERYONE says enough). Now, this would no doubt be a very lively and heated debate, but it could also go on indefinitely without EVER addressing the true evils of Nazism.


215 posted on 08/31/2009 5:00:14 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson