Posted on 07/29/2023 1:30:23 AM PDT by spirited irish
“The intimidation to remain silent is insidious and growing…what American Christians are facing is the 21st century version of the question, ‘Am I ashamed of the Gospel?”
If anything, some heterodox evolutionary theologians and their gullible Christian flocks, both evolutionary theist and progressive creationist, are at least as hostile if not more so toward orthodox defenders of the Genesis origin account than are their evolutionary atheist and occult pantheist counterparts: evolutionary materialists, Darwinists, Teilhardians, Luciferians, god-men, goddesses, shaman, Satanists, witches, necromancers, and astrologers.
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotandliberty.com ...
ping
And to be a good Christian, I must believe that the earth is flat, the stars are little lights on a dome, and that every word in the Bible is literal, with no use of metaphores. I must hate science and not use the brain God gave me to ask questions. Who is being divisive? If you want to believe those things, I am not bothered. I don’t consider free thought to be “dangerous”.
And to be a good evolutionist, one must believe that order emerged from chaos, that life emerged from chemicals, that animals emerged from plants!
To me, believing in a Creator is just so much easier, when you really think about it.
It’s not that difficult, really. And who’s saying God didn’t create life? Not me. I just think he could have created it in a way that doesn’t defy all the evidence. Or that he had to do it in a way that pleases us.
By extension, being a good Christian evolutionist means abusing the free will and mind given him by God in order to think condemnatory thoughts of God and embrace evolution, an unseen energy that from ancient times was known as serpent power.
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics debunks the entire notion of evolution...
Matter and or Energy cannot be created or destroyed...
That’s a myopic and false view of Christian beliefs, and there is no Creationist anywhere that says that. You have buikt a straw man, beat it into the ground and exulted over your foe as if you were the champion of intellect.
Romans 1:22
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,”
The last few days I have been thinking about this a lot while I drive. To me there is no difference between the faith in God as the creator and evolutionists having faith in a theory that is not provable.
A theory requires observation and repeatability. Even if you grant that evolution takes a long time so observation would be difficult, where is the evidence. Believing in God and evolution require faith. A belief based on something one can’t see or prove.
What got me thinking about this of all things are trees and plants. What is the evolutionary point of all the species of trees? I will grant that some trees grow better in different climates, but take a forest in Ohio. Why are there so many varieties of trees and varieties within types of trees . Oak, maple….
Then I thought about fruit trees. What is the point of a tree that produces so many complex seed mechanisms like pears, apples, oranges, something very energy intensive
The thought that came to mind was food for other creatures. A simple seed pod would be enough to keep the species reproducing, what is the evolutionary point of producing a food product as reproductive mechanism. What is the evolutionary advantage to the tree and how would that develop as “the strong survive…”
Another random thought, chickens. They produce on average almost an egg a day, fertilized or not. How many other bird species do that and what is the evolutionary point or advantage for the chicken to do that. It requires more energy ie food to do that. Perhaps again it is to provide food for others
Just random thoughts
To the whole idea that everything came to be by some “miraculous” accident, and became all we see is far more difficult to accept than a creator. I go back to one single cell ameba requires 120+ proteins in an exact order for them to exist multiply that trillions of times for more complex organisms and the variety and I just don’t see it.
So it goes back to faith one way or the other
My 2 cents
More science than you can shake a stick at...
I’m posting this for all who love righteousness and science.
Not for anyone who resurrects ridiculous arguments (flat Earth, really?!) from history.
Betting you don’t have the discipline to read this and apply critical thinking skills.
Center for Scientific Creation
https://www.creationscience.com/
Bkmk
Oh yea of little faith. Moses could tell you how priceless his faith was, when it was credited to him, see Gen 15:6.
It’s only *denying the evidence* if you hold that science is true and supercedes Scripture.
On the day Adam was created as a man, he no doubt had the appearance of age. So exactly how old was he? Basically one day old, but appeared as many years old. So who is right here? The scientists who would insist on years, or the believer who said one day old and is mocked by unbelievers because of how Adam looked?
Why did God do that? Was it to deceive us as He is accused of doing by the God haters? Or for practicality and blessing?
God created a beautiful world for us to inhabit. And it also had the appearance of age. Why did God do that? To deceive us or to provide an appropriate environment for the man He was going to create to be able to life in?
If someone’s knee jerk reaction to creation is to immediately accuse God of deceit because it doesn’t allegedly line up with current *scientific* thinking, their issue is with them and their attitude towards God. They are looking for an excuse to reject Him and any will do, even if they have to make it up.
And those, of course, are baseless false accusations used by those who hate God and meant only to disparge believers.
Dr. Walt Brown began his work on hydroplate theory over 40 years ago, prior to this he attempted to teach evolution,
but found it completely void of true science, not one proven fact to support evolution.
Inspired in part by Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980.
2 Corinthians 5:7
Not sure your point, my point was “the world” is too complex to be explained by evolution. My examples were too that point
The other was that those who believe in evolution (adaption which I do believe happens is not evolution according to Darwin which requires a change of kind), are operating on a kind of faith somewhat like my faith in God, neither is demonstrably provable, but you believe
Evolutionist will say it is science, but it is an unproven theory, back to observable and repeatable
So ya I have faith
Just that having faith is priceless while following evolution is worthless, they are not worthy to be compared one with the other.
The navel/belly button thing also comes up.
Did Adam and Eve have navels?
If they famously didn’t, that’s a lot of potential street cred.Adam was 930 years old when he died ( Genesis 5:5 ). That’s a lot of children, grandchildren, great grandchildren’s questions asked by the town pool, and marvelously answered.
Well, the fruit does feed the seed. But your point is spot on - producing the seed takes energy and weakens the plant. What is the evolutionary advantage in that? Sure for future generations it is a good thing. But here is a bigger point to ponder - When life came into being, it had to be 'born' with the ability to reproduce at the same time!
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.