Skip to comments.
Evolution Disclaimer Supported
The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^
| 12/11/02
| WILL SENTELL
Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,901-1,920, 1,921-1,940, 1,941-1,960 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
To: viaveritasvita
"If the Christ of God, in His sorrowful life below, be but a specimen of suffering humanity, or a model of patient calmness under wrong, not one of these things is manifested or secured. He is but one fragment more of a confused and disordered world, where everything has broken loose from its anchorage, and each is dashing against the other in unmanageable chaos, without any prospect of a holy or tranquil issue. He is an example of the complete triumph of evil over goodness, of wrong over right, of Satan over God,-one from whose history we can draw only this terrific conclusion, that God has lost the control of His own world; that sin has become too great a power for God either to regulate or extirpate; that the utmost that God can do is to produce a rare example of suffering holiness, which He allows the world to tread upon without being able effectually to interfere; that righteousness, after ages of buffeting and scorn, must retire from the field in utter helplessness, and permit the unchecked reign of evil. If the cross be the mere exhibition of self-sacrifice and patient meekness, then the hope of the world is gone. We had always thought that there was a
potent purpose of God at work in connection with the sin- bearing work of the holy Sufferer, which, allowing sin for a season to develop itself, was preparing and
evolving a power which would utterly overthrow it, and sweep earth clean of evil, moral and physical. But if the crucified Christ be the mere self-denying man, we have nothing more at work for the overthrow of evil than has again and again been witnessed, when some hero or martyr rose above the level of his age to protest against evils which he could not eradicate, and to bear witness in life and death for truth and righteousness,-in vain...
(not!/link)---."
To: gore3000
With the post showing that the site calls the definition you gave MISLEADING (which you dishonestly did not post) and with the article named THE EVOLUTION SHELL GAME you dare to say that the site supports your definition?Okay, okay. Look, I did not deliberately lie. Your post DOES highlight a fairly significant lapse in reading comprehension, but my statement was not an intentional falsehood. Fair enough?
To: viaveritasvita
... what I don't understand nor do I condone is your stooping to such hurtful and unnecessary insults to PatrickHenry. I appreciate your concern, but I am neither insulted nor hurt by the posts in question. The poster appears to have no capacity to formulate any malicious intent. He is an embarrassment to his side of the debate, but you will eventually learn to ignore him, as most of us already do.
To: PatrickHenry; gore3000
>>"Then I should be overwhelmed. But I'm not."<<
Perhaps this is because you ignore the possibility of supernatural intervention!
>>"It may help in understanding my attitude to know that I've been actively participating in these evolution/creationism threads for more than three years, and the ID arguments and authors have been rather exhaustively dealt with."<<
Three years! I can't even imagine! I was frustrated and exhausted with this thread alone! This does shed some light on your attitude and thank you for telling me.
>>"I find their claims lacking, at least at this stage."<<
I understand.
>>"But as I said, when they produce some truly persuasive evidence, I'll be there."<<
I truly hope and pray so, kiddo, because (in the words of Geisler, continuing from the previous quote): "Love only works persuasively!" I admire your not squandering your skepticism without good reason. Of course, I believe there is good reason and truly persuasive evidence and hope I'm not mistaken in believing that you are going to continue the search -- NOT necessarily in these exhausting debates, but by reading the Bible cover to cover before making any decisions. I also again recommend Lee Stroebel's book as well as Colson's for your level of intellect.
>>"He repeatedly claims that "all of science" disproves evolution, that "all Nobel prize" winners (in the relevant categories) disprove evolution, that he has successfully refuted all claims against creationism, etc. So it's not unreasonable to press him for his opinion on the age of the earth."<<
Hmmm. Does 3000 agree that your characterization of his beliefs are correct? I would say this for the sake of discussion: That all of science points to evolution, but probably not for the reasons you'd like. Science has been misappropriated and is used however fantastically to "prove evolution." There once was a time when science was used to build the case for God.
3000: Have you claimed that you have successfully refuted all claims against creationism? If so, that's one hell of a claim, kiddo! I do believe that there have been many successful refutations of claims against creation and claims for evolution, but I don't believe any one person can claim authorship -- I believe, first of all, that God refutes these claims quite successfully in both word and deed, and secondly that the refutations of claims against creation have been an accumulative effort, which continues.
May the best ideology and true worldview win!
To: viaveritasvita
I hate it that mankind instituted slavery, but I love it that God has (1) given rules for proper treatment of servants...It would have been just as easy to forbid slavery. And, of course, a slave is not a servant. A slave is property. Do you consider beating another human being to the point where he takes two days to get up "proper treatment". Never mind that this may have been an improvement over previous standards. The discussion began with the assertion that the Bible, and specifically the Old Testament, did not contain obsolete or incorrect information. So are these rules for the treatment of other human beings correct for all time?
To: viaveritasvita
To: PatrickHenry
Main Entry: su·per·sti·tion
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'sti-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English supersticion, from Middle French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand -- more at STAND
Date: 13th century
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
28 posted on 12/11/2002 10:12 AM PST by f.Christian
To: viaveritasvita
There once was a time when science was used to build the case for God. I'm not sure that's true. Greek science was, of course, developed in a culture which is outside of our theology, and I don't think the Greeks used their logic, geometry, etc. to build a case for their Olympian gods either. Science in the modern world pretty much started with Galileo, and you know the story of his problems with religious authorities. Before Galileo, there was Aquinas, who tried to use logic (not what we'd call "science") to prove the existence of God. His proofs, although ingenious, never really succeeded (otherwise, faith wouldn't be necessary). The Five Ways of Proving that God Exists. So I really don't know of any attempts to use science to prove God's existence. I don't see how science -- which is limited to working with testable phenomena like matter and energy -- could deal with such an issue.
To: viaveritasvita
Perhaps this is because you ignore the possibility of supernatural intervention! Yes, for lack of evidence. As long as a natural explanation is available, and testable, and it fits the evidence, I see no need to leap to supernatural causes, which cannot be tested. Admittedly, it's a mindset, but that's the mindset that has created our technological civilization.
Three years! I can't even imagine! I was frustrated and exhausted with this thread alone! This does shed some light on your attitude and thank you for telling me.
That's only the beginning of it. When you've been around a while, you'll see the same old arguments being refuted again and again, only to be brought up yet again in a new thread -- by the same people! It does get tiresome, and it can shape one's attitude toward those who play by such rules.
To: Doctor Stochastic
"As Stalin was explicity anti-Darwinist . . . "Anti-Darwinist, perhaps, but certainly not anti-evolutionist. It was Darwin who "won" Stalin over to atheism. The following quote referencing Henry Morris sheds some light on evolution and communism:
Another interesting facet of history is the connection between evolution and communism. With communism the struggle of "race" is replaced by the struggle of "class" as history is viewed as an evolutionary struggle.
Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were evolutionists before they encountered Darwin's "The Origin of Species" - (Dec 12, 1859) Engels wrote to Marx: "Darwin who I am now reading, is splendid" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Zirkle). Like Darwin, "Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life... In keeping with the feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Borzin). "There was truth in Engel's eulogy on Marx: 'Just as Darwin had discovered the law of evolution in organic nature so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Himmelfarb).
"It is commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Barzum). Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to Darwin but "Darwin 'declined the honor' because, he wrote to Marx, he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset 'some members of my family'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky).
Other Soviet Communist leaders are evolutionists as well. Lenin, Trostsky, and Stalin were all atheistic evolutionists. A soviet think tank founded in 1963 developed a one-semester course in "Scientific Atheism" which was introduced in 1964. Also, a case can be made that Darwinism was influential in propagating communism in China.
Interestingly, according to Morris, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University, the co-founder of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution is a Marxist in philosophy, along with other distinguished Harvard evolutionary scientists and university professors across the country. One has to ask - could a person espouse the Marxist view and tolerate creationism?
Evolutionism has proven itself to be blight not only upon intellectualism but also general morality, your disingenuous claim ("one must assume that it's other countries that are based on evolution, not communist . . . ones") notwithstanding. No wonder folks are beginning to clamour for disclaimers!
Hey. If you want to keep company with the likes of Lenin, Trotsky, and Marx, be my guest. I prefer Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, and others who are not so stupid as to omit God from the bigger picture.
To: Fester Chugabrew
Evolutionist have the advantage...everything is changeable---lies/liars!
To: Fester Chugabrew
Potential (mis)application of a theory is irrelevant to the validity of said theory.
Shirley, you cannot have forgotten the last time this was pointed out to you.
To: Fester Chugabrew
I prefer Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, and others who are not so stupid as to omit God from the bigger picture. And Cardinals Ximenez and Richelieu. And Leopold of Belgium. And Ian Paisley. And the Taliban. It's a package deal - you also get all those who have perpetrated evil in the name of God, as well.
To: titanmike
tm...
The evolutionists are going to lose in America and they may end up having to find some other place to peddle their wares. Perhaps Haiti...
1877 posted on 01/01/2003 7:14 AM PST by titanmike
fC...
yeah...doc henry---retroll!
To: f.Christian
"Evolutionists have the advantage...everything is changeable---lies/liars!Creationists have an advantage, too. They can claim divine intervention for any and every kind of inexplicable phenomenon. This may not sit well with those who depend upon senses and experience alone as a determinent of truth, but it does not have to.
The fact that scientists of both stripes conclude the universe entails substances dating in the billions of years bears not the slightest impediment toward what the Bible teaches in all its simplicity, considering they attest to a Creator with no beginning or end. A curved universe (as scientist are beginning to learn exists!) is fine testimony to a single creator eternal in nature, for a circle has no beginning or end.
But I'm with you entirely in viewing as rather comical the scurrying and obfuscation evidenced by these die hard atheist/evolutionist types. Nonsensical, really. Oh well. It is unbecoming of us to relish in their self-delusions. Such are we ourselves by nature, right?
To: general_re
It's a package deal . . . If, with respect to the sciences they believe the same thing, then I suppose so. But insofar as their religious beliefs depart from Scripture, I must part their company and I have.
To: Fester Chugabrew
Hmmm.... guilt by association and arguing from the consequences, n'est-ce pas?
1,936
posted on
01/01/2003 2:29:20 PM PST
by
BMCDA
To: general_re
And Cardinals Ximenez and Richelieu. And Leopold of Belgium. And Ian Paisley. And the Taliban. It's a package deal - you also get all those who have perpetrated evil in the name of God, as well. No, no! They weren't real Christians! But Stalin, now there's a true evolutionist!
</idiotic double standard>
To: general_re
Oh, but didn't you know, they weren't true Scotsmen - uh.. dammit, I mean true Christians.
1,938
posted on
01/01/2003 2:33:24 PM PST
by
BMCDA
To: Fester Chugabrew
Right. More or less the response I get every time I point that out - the classic "one true Scotsman" argument. Anyone who supports evolution gets lumped in with Marx and Stalin, but you get to disclaim anyone who does evil in the name of God, because they aren't "good Christians", or whatever the particular formulation is.
Very clever, but it's still an invalid and illegitimate argument. The truth of a theory or belief does not depend on the niceness or nobility of its believers, luckily for Christians.
To: PatrickHenry; BMCDA
It would be nice to occasionally see new arguments on the other side of the aisle....
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,901-1,920, 1,921-1,940, 1,941-1,960 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson