Evolution and true belief in God and His Word are COMPLETELY uncompatible.
I’ve had “Christians” argue with me that God created through evolution and so there... they’re on both sides of the fence safely.
The Word of God says that death entered the world through Adams sin. IF one believes the Word of God, there was NO death prior to Adam and so evolution could not be possible.
On the other hand, one can choose to not believe in God or a creator and go with the evolution theory too. My point is that you cannot have both.
Just saw the IMAX movie here in Cleveland of the Monarch Butterflies and got really sick and tired of the incredible “evolution” attributions to this beautiful creature of God.
And I’m sick and tired of people looking at me crosseyed when I poo-poo evolution . . .
“Almost six of ten who identify as Republicans now reject evolution, but so do a third of Democrats.”
If one ever wanted solid evidence that Republicans are more educated, smarter than Democrats, here is the proof.
It is time Republicans move forward to eliminate the teaching of Evolution in our schools and colleges which would not only increase the percentage of people that would reject Evolution, but further marginalize the Democratic party.
The idea that life happened by accident is proof that people will believe whatever they want to believe, no matter how ridiculous.
Evolution is an attempt to explain how life as we see it today came from nonliving chemicals. Supporters of evolution studiously avoid any discussion of “origins”, yet they depend on this seminal event to have the theory they cling to. They are in grotesque denial.
God promises to judge all humanity, and logic dictates that everyone who fervently believes that evolution is true will have their opportunity to find out from the Author of life to what extent what we see today is the end result of natural selection and to what extent it comes from His design.
I can accept that lizards in an isolated ecosystem will have their genetic expression tuned by long time survival rates. That seems to be a consequence of sexual reproduction and the very nature of DNA. However that does not explain how higher forms of life appear especially in the absence of intermediate species. That does not explain how a fish became a bird, and idea that I think is absurd as much as unicorns traversing rainbows of gold while defecating Skittles are absurd.
Funny stuff. Evolutionists keep repeating the logical fallacy of “settled science.” This is just a variation of argumentum ad numerum, an argument or appeal to numbers. At the same time they can’t see that their religion, their worship of materialism, is just as much faith-based as Christianity’s.
But the main show-stopper for evolution is their belief in abiogenesis, life from lifeless chemicals. Even the most “simple” of cells is mind numbingly complex. To believe that such complexity can spring up spontaneously is ridiculous. Pasteur devised the law of biogenesis, that life always comes from life, many years ago, and it’s still a law of science, unlike their fairytale belief in the opposite, which requires blind faith on their part.
And Christians try to push their faith onto others?
“On one point, however, Krattenmaker is certainly right: he argues that it is possible to believe in God and to affirm evolution. That is certainly true, and there is no shortage of theistic evolutionists who try to affirm both. But that affirmation requires a rejection of the dominant model of evolution in favor of some argument that God intervened or directed the process. The main problem with that proposal, from the scientific side, is that the theory of evolution as now taught in our major universities explicitly denies that possibility.”
This seems inaccurate. There is no way you can deny the possibility of divine intervention. By its nature, it is undeniable as a possibility, since it is divine.
The ‘dominant model’ of evolution appears to refer to that taught to young people in science classrooms, but this is not a very in-depth version at all. It is far more likely to be a general overview with blind sports colored by the teacher’s own biases. If evolution as a whole were settled science, why would anyone be studying it at all? I mean, why study the intricacies of a question you already know the answer to? In this field, as in pretty much every other field of science, there is vehement disagreement about mechanisms, time scales, and lineage. It is not some monolithic theory, which is a view only propounded by T.V. scientists like Richard Dawkins and *chuckle* Billy Nye the Anus Guy.
Shroud of Turin
Tilma of Juan Diego
Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
Out of curiosity, what about evolution do you think is true? Do you believe in what’s known as “creationism” (young earth theories)?
Some do, some don't. Half-truths are the most seductive lies.
It always has been.
Still,.....
ping
Seems to me scientists has changed their opinion much more in the last 2000 years than has the Christians, not sure about the religionists.
And the last i heard they were still trying to find a missing link that is not there, no doubt they will invent one.
Mohler rightly emphasizes that the “Laws of science” are assumed to have always been the same. But we really have no way of knowing that instruments we devise to measure phenomena today would produce the same measurements if they, or least their specifications could somehow be transported back in time, and used to make observations like the ones being made today.