Sanity Returns to Kansas

Ah yes, evolution is so unsure of itself it cannot afford to be looked at via common sense, let alone real science.

 

As Solomon so aptly observed, "He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17) Evolutionists obviously understand this basic truth, which is why they will go to any length to make sure evolution is taught to students without any 'other' teacher or teaching allowed to examine it. Contrast that to the creationist position, which is that BOTH models should be taught side by side (and studies have shown that kids learn evolution better through the two-model system then with one-model indoctrination, but with evolutionists it's only the indoctrination that matters, not how much is learned). Creationists aren't afraid to be examined by the 'other' the way evolutionists are. That one fact speaks volumes about which model better explains the actual evidence in nature.

 

I see christians who do not want the Bible or it seems god in any way in our government and our schools. The two do not line up.

 

Let's give the stork theory equal time in biology class. Why indoctrinate kids with the idea that sperm & ova make babies? Or maybe we give geocentrism equal time with the idea the earth revolves around the sun?

 

Sanity?

I don't know why people continue to be surprised at what happens at the Gov't schools. Gov't regulated and funded, philosophies abound that show paganism rampant and then all the killing, stealing, rapes and mayhem (that's why the police units and metal detectors are needed), sounds like a wonderful environment for learning.

Bartimaeus

 

Oh yeah...that happens every day.

 

==If this is the case evolution cannot be taught in public schools either. Evolution, intelligent design, and creationism are all models which attempt to explain the physical evidence. Not one of the theories is based on solid evidence. All three are man's interpretation of the physical evidence.

Besides evolution is not totally accepted by all secular scientists. What you find, when you listen to them, is that most of them accept parts of the theory while rejecting other parts. Evolution is far from real science.

Also let's not confuse intelligent design with creationism, they are two different theories. The only thing they have in common is the belief in an intelligence that created the universe which, btw, is a theory some evolutionists also hold. The intelligent design view is compatable with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Deism, and almost any other system that allows for a creator. Even the former atheist Anthony Flew now accepts intelligent design (he is a deist).

==Religion should not be taught in science classrooms however theories, like evolution, should not be passed off as "real science". The two major "secular" theories (evolution/intelligent design) should be explained as possible theories and then the class should move on to physical science.

 

==Of course the separation of church and state is a historic Baptist position. The first Baptist church in America was founded by a man who believed in separation of church and state. That man was a Calvinistic, Separatist Christian by the name of Roger Williams.

Indeed I would argue that separation of church and state is a New Testament position.

Of course the separation of church and state has been perverted by the left.

 

What's really sad is Christians accepting, without question, a scientific theory over the Word of God.:tear:

 

What I see is people demanding the government teach their kids, and then bellyachin' about what they get taught.

Option one, home school.
Option two, Christian school. (my choice)
Option three, daily deprogramming. (That's what my dad did.)

 

Testable theories are how real science gets done.

 

==Macro evolution is not a testable theory. Neither is creationism or intelligent design for that matter.

 

Evolution is a theory to account for evidence. It is based on presuppositions such as naturalism. It is not a necessary conclusion for the evidence, and indeed cannot account for some evidence.

Evolution cannot be tested. It is, by definition, random and it is not repeatable. The fact that new varieties of animals have "evolved" is hardly proof against creationism. Creationism admits that such "evolution" takes place. It is called microevolution.

Evolution is a religious belief. It believes (without evidence) that God was not controlling creation. It believes (without evidence) that Genesis is not an accurate account of creation. It is a belief system. The reason is keeps changing is because it is a belief system. It has to change to account for the evidence, and in so doing, reveals just how much theory and belief (without evidence) went into the prior belief that had to be changed.

 

==Evolution is not evidence based, at least not any more than creationism (etc) is. It is a theory constructed by men to explain the physical evidence they see. If you think intelligent design is religious then I doubt you know many people who hold to intelligent design (not creationism). Many of them are deists at best or agnostics.

==Personally I don't know how old the earth is, second I don't know who Coffin is.

==With that last statement I think you are failing to separate what is sometimes referred to as macro evolution from micro evolution. All creationists that I am aware of believe in micro evolution.

==Macro evolution is not testable. Come to think of it neither is intelligent design or any form of creationism.

==Wrong. Creationists believe that the God of the Bible created the universe. There are young earth creationists (Ken Ham, etc) and then there are old earth creationists (Hugh Ross, etc). Intelligent Design does not believe that the God of the Bible created. In that view any intelligent being could have created the universe.

==People like Flew are the major reason I still consider what you refer to as "ID" and creationism to be two very different animals. Maybe related somewhat, but still different.

==Teaching only one side of any controversy is not teaching.

 

That is simply not true. The reason they keep changing their theories is because the previous one couldn’t account for the evidence. And they are asking you to believe some preposterous things in defense of their commitment to naturalism, even though it is completely irrational.

Actually, it is both. But the belief that natural phenomena always has natural causes is simply not true. Furthermore, how objective can a theory be when you start out with the absolute denial that one possibility cannot be true?

It denies the miracle of creation, in favor of evolution.

No its not. Macroevolution has never been tested or proven. Microevolution has, and creationists admit that. It is perfectly consistent with Scripture.

Please be serious, Galatian.

When was the last time it was tested and proven that something evolved into a higher life form?

Creationism has never denied the existence of microevolution, which you should know. And “science” has never proven the even the possibility of macroevolution, much less its existence.

Duh. This is what was being discussed.

Faith is only as good as its object. Sincerity of faith is of no value when it is in a bad object. To say that evolution is a belief system is axiomatic.

I think you don’t understand the presuppositions behind evolution. It is naturalistic view that excludes the supernatural.

If you read Genesis, it says that God created the world in six, successive, 24 hour days. That is a claim about evolution, and evolution says that God did not create the world in six, successive, 24 hour days, but rather through long processes of time over billions of years. These are two distinct views.

It’s a belief system. They believe that the world evolved. They have not proven that. That’s why it is a belief system.

This is simply incorrect. Creationism accounts for the evidence, but it admits the possibility of the explanation that evolution won’t. Evolution changes because it has no answers. It has to change to keep from demonstrating its absurdity.

Here’s the bottom line: You are committed to a philosophical explanation that does not take into account the reality of God and his declaration of his work in this universe. That reveals a fatal flaw in your understanding. Which we should expect, based on that declaration of God’s work in his word. He tells us of people who profess to be wise because have become fools (Rom 1), of people’s whose understanding is darkened, and who are ignorant, being hard of heart (Eph 4:17-19). So as believers in Scripture, we expect the responses like you have given. We do not expect them from people who claim to believe God and follow him.

 

Pastor Larry, Galatian, alias Barbarian, alias tons of other names, has been giving these same somewhat supercilious replies for about eight years or more on the net. I remember him from a long time ago and he hasn't changed a bit. Facts don't phase him.

However, macroevolution is NOT the evolution of new species. We can declare new species whenever we like, actually, depending on which definition we use. But a new species of hummingbird is still a hummingbird. Macroevolution claims that single celled life forms evolved into multicellular life forms and they evolved into everything we see today. And THAT sort of change has NEVER been seen anywhere except in anyone's imagination.

They say it is too slow. But the fossil record is so sparse that something called 'punctuated equilibrium' was fabricated in order to account for that; it says that evolution was too FAST to be seen in the fossil record. No matter the problem, they have a trick to 'solve' it, even if one trick is directly in opposition to another trick. It doesn't matter.

Galatian wants you to have faith in faith. That is an absurdity. One has to have faith in something or someone, not in faith itself. However it does show the word plays he will use to try to make something sound right.

And as Larry said, Genesis directly opposes the fantasy of evolution. The two simply cannot be reconciled to one another without doing serious damage to one of them! Sadly, it is usually the Bible which is the 'victim.'

And yes, evolution is a belief system. It is the approach necessary to secular humanism, which is the religion behind it, whether or not those who claim to be Christian recognize that or not.

Finally, what evolutionists won't admit and usually won't even consider looking at is that the data itself denies evolution and supports a recent creation.