Believing the Bible in the Face of 'Evidence to the Contrary'

Explain the evolution you don't consider a myth.

 

Subtle and not so subtle changes within kinds.

 

Its called micro evolution where as macro evolution is a myth

 

My wife and I like to watch nature programs and the narrator always says because one of natures creatures acts that way it does, is because they evolved into a certain trait... She always says no you idiot God made them that way... Case in point:

They showed how this toad who lives on a cold desolate mountain escapes his predators, one of his main ones is a tarantula... When approached by the tarantula, his body is turned into a little ball as he rolls down the mountain out of danger, finally into a small pond at or near the bottom.

Then there is the archer fish who shoots insects off of leaves into the water and then eats them... And the narrator say... If this fish didn't adopt this talent, the species would have starved for lack of food and they would now be extinct... No you idiot God made them that way!... Love those nature shows with commentary by my wife... Brother Glen

 

Basically what I just said. Follow along.

 

Seriously? The narrator said that? Then what of all the species of fish that don't shoot insects off of leaves? Why aren't they extinct?

 

"Follow along"...boy you are a piece of work. You "basically" said it but I gave it specific names. Apparently it is you who needs to "follow along".

 

Definition of evolution | Dictionary.com

 

Yes, I am a piece of work, thanks, and definitely in progress.

Regardless, no you did not give the specific names, but thanks for the effort. I should have been more gracious. I steer away from the micro-macro language. Too confusing, and undermines the real issue.

From CMI's "arguments we believe creationists should not use."

• “Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.” These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information (e.g., specifications for manufacturing nerves, muscle, bone, etc.), but all we observe is sorting and, overwhelmingly, loss of information. We are hardpressed to find examples of even ‘micro’ increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off. Importantly, the term microevolution will be seen by many as just a ‘little bit’ of the process that they think turned bacteria to people. In other words, it implies that simply given enough time (millions of years), such ‘micro’ changes will accumulate to amount to ‘macro’ changes. But this is not so; see The evolution train’s a-comin’: (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction).
  Interestingly, even high profile evolutionists (e.g. Mayr, Ayala) disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution.

 

So, if someone forms a puddle of urine in front of your house, that's evolution . . . . .

Ok. I can admit that that "evolution" exists.

 

That's a con game Evolutionists play. They define Evolution as any inherited change. And, since inherited change is a fact, Evolution is a fact. And, then they say fish evolved into people, while reminding you that Evolution is a fact therefor it's a fact that fish evolved into people.

 

Hi, I'm new to this forum, and yours is the first post that I read. To your last paragraph I would add this comment. It is not possible for science to prove that the earth is older than the Biblical narrative, as empirical science requires observation and testing which cannot be done regarding past events. And while I absolutely believe that God created the world with the appearance of age, it would have been deceptive on His part to create evidence of death (fossils) before Adam sinned. Since God cannot lie the only rational explanation for those fossils is that those creatures died and were buried during the flood, just as God told us. I believe in science, and as long as it follows the truth it will eventually bring us to God.

Phillip

 

Truth.

Yes, there can be no 'evidence' for some other 'process' and there isn't any, for that reason.

God Created. GOD IS ALL- KNOWING.
God is Omniscient, i. e., All- Knowing.

God Created All Science.

From indetectable minutability, to the indetectable exspance of space, every Created instance of Physical ans Spiritual Reality testify to God, as it's Creator, scientifically.

(The illigitamate definition of 'science', as 'what Scientists say', for example, is attempted, but irrational, if what they say is simply a wild rash guess.

That would define them as, 'Wild Rash Guessers'.

'Evolutionists' never 'evole' out of that characterization).

 

If science is a search for the truth, how can that ever be achieved when the "wild rash guessers" demand that the consensus opinion cannot be questioned? Doesn't that make them anti-scientists? And if that is so, then their pronouncements are religious dogma. I have known for many years a man who literally is a rocket scientist, and a believer, but if I broach the subject of Creation and evolutionism he won't talk to at all. Instead of reconciling science to the Word, he does the opposite. Science may be self-correcting, but it is never "settled".

 

"Religious"!!!!!

WE HAVE A WINNER!

I attempt to chronicle Bible Teachings, including this.

There one on their being the opposite of science, 'anti-scientists', as you said and ARE EXACTLY RIGHT.

2.0.0.0 Intro & Bibliography/ CREATION Looks Like ‘INTELLIGENT DESIGN’. Science Doesn’t Say ‘a speck of dust’ Different – ‘Scientists’ Do.


I believe this is all Boyce in this 2.0.0 and I must have his credit in a series of this, or at the end, and need to add link at beginning, which I always try to get done, because that is the point= references.

2.0.0: Creation was The First Step in MANKIND Having Extra-Divine Knowledge, BECAUSE: A SPIRITUAL GOD Must REVEAL HIMSELF to us before we can KNOW of HIM.


That: “Flies come from Cow-piles”, is NOT “An ‘EVOLUTIONARY’ THEORY”, because, Scientists Observe that Life Only Comes from Existing Life.


Here's the one about them expecting us to buy the Absolute Opposite of observable science.

= psychotic.

“Evolution believers” like to Play-Pretend that the Established LAWS of SCIENCE ARE THE OPPOSITE of OBSERVABLE REALITY. Basing Your Eternal Soul on LIES is ETERNALLY FATAL.

 

And who was the brilliant evolutionist that who suggested that a lizard laid an egg and out hatched a bird. The term they use for this monstrosity is "Hopeful Monsters". Just when you thought evolutionism couldn't get any more ridiculous, they dig a little deeper in stupid pit.

Phillip

 

Psalm 19 says that the heavens declare the glory of God, not godless naturalism. How could Paul say in Romans chapter one that people who consider the world around us have no excuse for rejecting the God of Creation, if in fact God left reasonable evidence for naturalism? Wouldn't that make God responsible for man's unbelief? I think not.

 

When I was a teen, a godly but uneducated Christian man was encouraging me to read good books on spiritual inspiration and growth. He lamented the fact that he knew few Evangelicals who were avid readers like him. Then in frustration, he added words that have greatly influenced my spiritual journey through the years: "You don't have to be stupid to be a Christian, but sometimes I think it sure helps!" Later, as a college student, I was extensively exposed for the first time to evidence for evolution that was far more compelling than biblical creationism. I was plagued by doubts under the spell of the evil Domino Theory of Scripture. But the errors I increasingly perceived in Scripture didn't come to my attention as a result of a rebellious spirit; they came to my attention after llong fasts and prayer vigils from the Sunday morning service until right before the Sunday evening evangelistic service, fasting and praying for lost souls to commit their lives to Christ in the evening service. God was challenging me to recognize the sin of bibliolatry and instead to love Him with all my mind, as well as all my heart. As my doubts grew and expanded, I sensed the need to seek the real God, not the God camouflaged and distorted by the cultural bias and superstitions of the biblical era. When I began to do that, I experienced signs and wonders and a far more intimate connection with Christ that helped sustain my vulnerable faith through the hard times of honest doubt.
But I knew that my faith depended on regular fellowship and guidance from the same Holy Spirit that inspired biblical writers, despite their errors. So I volunteered for a summer of witnessing door-to-door and house to house across eastern Canada with Youth with a Mission. That adventure helped me see the power of the Spirit-anointed Gospel. Our large bus was driven by the Founder of YWAM, whose life was just soaked in the Holy Spirit and miraculous intervention. For example, he shared his adventure in an Amazon jungle tribe whose language his interpreter could not understand. A native woman approached him, her eyes clouded by advanced cataracts. On impulse, he laid hands on her and she was instantly healed! Now many tribesmen wanted to learn more about this Jesus who was so helpfully powerful. Being Pentecostal, he was given the ability to witness effectively to them in their language!

I asked him what the secret of his powerful faith was and I was stunned but inspired by his response. He said, "I learned I could only operate in the power of the Holy Spirit when I was most willing to become an atheist!" In other words, rather than opt for the cheap comfort of an easily rationalized, but flawed coherent belief system, he chose the discomfort and stress of loose ends in his theology created by honest doubt and perceived errors in Scripture. That, too, is the cross I must bear to sustain a living vibrant personal relationship with Jesus Christ that empowers my own witness to the Gospel to needy souls.

 

I see arguments Atheists make that most Christians have no answer for. The Atheist probably thinks Christians are stupid for not buying his arguments. But, it's more an issue of stubbornness than stupidity. Stubborn people resist even arguments simple enough for them to understand.

The arguments of the Atheists are themselves stupid. I'm told the Earth can't be only thousands of years old because it allegedly takes millions of years for starlight to reach the Earth. Yet, the same Atheists expects me to believe that the universe expanded from something smaller than a pea to tens of billions of light years in a tiny fraction of a second. Maybe God did exactly that on a smaller scale, accounting for starlight in the Creationist model, making every Atheist a hypocrite who is twice as dumb as his target? (Except, I have another explanation for starlight.)

 

I don't believe the "gap" theory as generally presented, but I DO believe God re-arranged an already-existing earth. This ARRANGEMENT, not the earth itself, is only several thousand years old.