Posted on 03/08/2002 7:55:48 AM PST by JediGirl
One has to wonder how Christians can agree with evolution when the purpose of evolution - an attack on Christian beliefs - is so brilliantly displayed by this article.
The above is a malicious slander on Christians which you in no way can back up.
Interestingly, these mass murderers who killed some 50 million of their own citizens were atheists.
I have seen medved post that article quite a few times, but I have yet to see any sort of intelligent response to it by the evos. Perhaps if you folk tried to refute the statements made in it instead of complaining about his posting it, he might stop.
Funny thing about evolutionists is that they admit the fossil record is inadequate themselves but they continue to make categorical statements proclaiming evolution to be true based on the very fossil record which they find inadequate!
Not only are there tremendous gaps in the fossil record, but also fossils tell us very little about a species. Fossils (except in very special circumstances which can be counted on the fingers of one hand) do not provide DNA. Fossils often do not provide a complete skeleton, just bits and pieces of the specimen. Fossils more importantly do not provide evidence of 99% of what makes up an individual, what makes each species, each individual different. With so many pieces missing, paleontology is just a game of who can make up the most fantastic interpretation for the smallest evidence possible.
Oh, you mean like repeatable experiments? Write it down, show me, tell me, (and I'm NOT talking micro-evolution like fruit flies, etc).
Evolution is taught is public schools like it's theology, crammed down our kids throats like it is actual proven science - IT IS JUST A THEORY - at least they could acknowledge that there are serious questions to this theory.
That's correct, evolutionists are unwilling to discuss the facts of evolution, to provide proof for their assertions. They would rather keep chanting the mantra "evolution is true" than to show that it is true.
This article was markedly anti-Christian. No doubt about that.
But the author doesn't speak for everyone who accepts evolution as fact, any more than the Rev. Al Sharpton speaks for all Christians.
The purpose of evolution is not to attack Christian beliefs, and I can't imagine that you meant that statement literally. The Theory seeks to explain all available evidence on the basis of the evidence, not any pre-existing religious or theological belief. The theory is indifferent to Christian beliefs in the same way that the theories of gravity or relativity are.
I assume that you see evolution as an attack on your Christian beliefs, but this is certainly a case where that judgment is in the eye of the beholder, namely you.
I don't have any problem believing in both evolution and Christianity. That requires me to believe that the creation accounts in the book of Genesis are allegorical, but that would be obvious to me regardless.
Christians can easily accept evolution as fact. I'd argue that they should, except that I'm indifferent as to what people privately choose to believe.
A Theory, in science, indicates that the subject in question is supported by observation and/or experimentation. That is why Relativity is just a theory, why quantum mechanics is just a theory, etc. The word you are looking for is "hypothesis." Evolution stopped being a hypothesis a long time ago and became a theory.
Sure there are difficulties with evolution -- but it is over the methods of evolution, not over the existence of the phenomenon.
Here is a quotation from a book on the subject. Feel free to examine the book and check out the author's original sources. Judicial Watch also has information on this movement if you are interested. It calls itself the Christian Identity Movement.
"This system of beliefs is called Christian Identity, and adherence to it is probably the single greatest common denominator among all the various fragmented factions of the radical right wing in America. It is practiced by the neo-Nazis of the Aryan Nations, by the leaders of the Militia of Montana, and by remnants of the Ku Klux Klan in the South.
Its foremost preacher is the Reverend Pete Peters, a Colorado-based minister whose 1992 gathering in Estes Park - drawing such luminaries as John Trochmann, Ku Klux Klan leader Louis Beam, and onetime Pat Buchanan adviser Larry Pratt - is often credited with being the chief formative event behind the militia movement.
The core beliefs of Christian Identity are so far astray from those of mainstream Christianity - and so repellent to average Americans - that they induce in the religion's followers a cult-like closed mindset: a sense of persecution coupled with self-righteousness that is supported by the group's social peers. True believers - often drawn from the ranks of the disenfranchised - will not be dissuaded by any amount of logic and reason.
They live in a kind of alternative universe, complex and wholly unlike anything in mainstream life. It is populated by soulless non-humans, satanic conspirators and a handful of true Christians who abide by ''God's law.'' By closing off the other world, they reinforce each other's beliefs in the confines of their tight social circle."
The Patriot Movement and the Pacific Northwest, by David A. Neiwert, Washington State University Press, 1999, pages 11-12
I don't see the point of accepting microevolution but denying macroevolution. Microevolution occurring over a long period of time is basically all that's necessary to produce macroevolution. It's like a ripple effect - small changes or discrepancies at the beginning of the process can produce big changes down the road.
Regards,
Snidely
Specifically, it [Piltdown Man] was the sole scrap of evidence for the "Out of England" theory, just as that famous pig's tooth was the sole evidence for the "Out of Nebraska" theory. Evolution actually gives you a framework that says some things shouldn't be found. If they turn up you either have a hoax, a misinterpretation, or something is really wrong with what we think we know.The point you don't answer (because it never got through your anti-cognitive dissonance filter) is that creationism/ID can make no such claim. There's only one story to creationism, "Goddidit." No data falsify this claim. No data are excluded. Anything that happens is "within the realm of the predictions of creationism." Anything might happen or have happened, as the Arabs put it, "Inshallah!" (If Allah wills!)
Anyway, if any evidence at all can turn up and that's OK, as is certainly true with creationism/ID--nothing falsifies--then your alleged theory isn't a theory at all, or even a decent hypothesis. It has no implications. It tells you nothing about the real, observable, testable world.
Your side likes to carp about evolution being "only a theory." It is a theory in the good, scientific sense of the word, a theory buttressed with a huge catalog of factual evidence.
Creationism is not a theory, and it's certainly not a fact. It's not about anything you can ever test or see. Thus, it doesn't belong in any science class, anywhere.
There is no concrete evidence that Human Beings are descended from anything other than Humans.
Macro-evolution is NOT a fact, it is a supposition, but it is presented as a foregone conclusion.
Are there problems with Creation Theory? You bet.
Much of what we believe is based striclty on faith - much like those who believe we are descended from simpler life forms.
Sure, because one takes place within the species, and modifies the existing; and the other creats a whole new species.
The quantity of new information required is just staggering, and where there is proof of the one, there is no witness to a brand new, unique species coming into being.
If we can only believe what we can see and measure, how can you accept the total macro-evolution theory as fact?
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.