Scientists May Have Found How Life Began

[Jedi Knight]

There is no conflict between evolution and the Bible ... but there is confusion in the minds of many over this topic. The order of creation in Gen. 1 is basically from the simple to the comples ... same as evolution.

Now where we all get in trouble is trying to learn spiritual lessons from evolution or scientific lessions from the Bible.

There are good lessons of a very practical nature in the Bible. For instance there is good financial advice in the Bible ... hmmm, might be an interesting thread.

No conflict? Evolution NEVER happened! More like NO CONTEST!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by Jedi Knight
Evolution was created to kill the God of the bible BECAUSE they don't want Him to be Judge!

Response Posted by Crabtownboy
There is no conflict between evolution and the Bible ... but there is confusion in the minds of many over this topic. The order of creation in Gen. 1 is basically from the simple to the comples ... same as evolution.

We see in the posts of Crabtownboy the same arrogance of those scientists? who dismiss as stupid anyone who accepts the Biblical account of creation.

Earlier I stated that evolution is a pseudoscience. Science is based on a series of observations which can be replicated. There has never been an observation that demonstrates evolution much less one that can be replicated. Evolution is an atheistic philosophy or religion and was such for many pagan societies. Sadly the mind of many scientists and those they have duped are entangled within the meandering mindset of primitive man.

The present purpose of evolution is not to understand the how but simply to eliminate the GOD who is judge of all the earth from the consciousness of man.


__________________

 

[OldRegular]

Depends on how you view scientific discoveries. I vew them as showing how God created an interdependent ecosystem of which mankind is a part.

That is the theology of PETA, the tree huggers, and other assorted environmental whacko's.

That is a matter of opinion. I have known quite a number of Christian scientists, engineers and other technical types. I am not sure what you mean by pseudoscience. Do you mean science that does not agree with your view of the Bible? Or something else?

Actually most of the early scientific discoveries, at least in the western world, were made by Christians. It is only in the last 100 years or so that scientists?? have rejected Creation for evolution. [Read A Brief History of Eternity by thermodynamicist Roy E. Peacock]

I repeat for your edification:
Evolution is a pseudoscience. Science is based on a series of observations which can be replicated. There has never been an observation that demonstrates evolution much less one that can be replicated. Evolution is an atheistic philosophy or religion and was such for many pagan societies. Sadly the mind of many scientists and those they have duped are entangled within the meandering mindset of primitive man.

 

[Jedi Knight]

http://www.gty.org/AudioPlayer/Sermons/90-220 Crabtownboy listen to this from John MacArthur on Evolution. He sums it all up!

 

[Crabtownboy]

http://www.gty.org/AudioPlayer/Sermons/90-220 Crabtownboy listen to this from John MacArthur on Evolution. He sums it all up!

The fellow is a good speaker. I found him interesting until he made a huge leap of logic that showed either fuzzy thinking or dishonest twisting. In fact he makes several leaps of logic that I find amazing or attempts to mislead people. I also find it not very philosophical or convincing to use subtle insults.

I wish this recording had a button to stop the recording so I could make quotes, but it does not.

A number of minutes into the recording he quotes a scientist as saying something to the effect that evolution or science cannot be used to make ethical decisions. That science and ethics operate in separate rhelmes.That is the jest of the statement. MrArthur then suggesta this is a horrible idea and that the two are very intertwined. I believe McArthur is very much in error here. Science does not and should not attempt to tell us what is ethical or unethical. That ends up being bad science. Religion should not attempt to make scientific pronouncements, that ends up being bad religion.

McArthur then tries to insult the scientist by saying he, the scientist, is a better scientist than a philosopher. Is that susrprising. I expect that most philosophers are better philosophers than scientists.

So, while McArthur is a good speaker, he is not very good at his logic and I find his rather snide attempts at insult not very Christian nor convincing.

So, I am sorry, but I find McArthur does more harm to his point of view than provide anything really enlightening. The logic and points he made I have heard before, long before and after examining them find them lacking.

But I do thank you for the link.

 

[Crabtownboy]

That is the theology of PETA, the tree huggers, and other assorted environmental whacko's.

For me your post would have a bit more credibility if you did not resort to name calling. That simply shows, to me, that your reply is emotional in nature and not a thought out one. Simply repeating other emotional people who probably have not sat down and rationally thought out the issue.

Actually most of the early scientific discoveries, at least in the western world, were made by Christians. It is only in the last 100 years or so that scientists?? have rejected Creation for evolution. [Read A Brief History of Eternity by thermodynamicist Roy E. Peacock]

You are right about the scientists, almost all early ones were Christians and many scientists today are Christian. Believing in evolution does not necessarily mean a person has rejected God creating the universe and the world. I believe the creation stories in Genesis was God's way of letting people know in a way they could understand that He did create the world. If God had given a scientific explanation of how the world was created the stories would have been rejected because no one would have understood them and they would have been rejected. Indeed, if God gave us a complete explanation of how he created today we would not understand. The Bible is not a scientific book and should not be used as one. Scientific books and theories are not spiritual and should not be used to explain ethics or theology.

I repeat for your edification:

Evolution is a pseudoscience. Science is based on a series of observations which can be replicated. There has never been an observation that demonstrates evolution much less one that can be replicated. Evolution is an atheistic philosophy or religion and was such for many pagan societies. Sadly the mind of many scientists and those they have duped are entangled within the meandering mindset of primitive man.

I find the statement you quoted that "evolution is an atheistic philosophy of religion and was for many pagan societies" completely lacking in credibility as this is simply not true for many people. What pagan societies? Almost all pagan societies that I have read about saw God in almost everything and most tried to appease many gods. Evolution is not a philosophy, it is a scientific theory. There is a huge difference between a philosophical stance and a scientific theory.

I do thank you for the reply, though I do not agree with much in it.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by Crabtownboy
Depends on how you view scientific discoveries. I vew them as showing how God created an interdependent ecosystem of which mankind is a part.

Response Posted by OldRegular
That is the theology of PETA, the tree huggers, and other assorted environmental whacko's.

Originally Posted by Crabtownboy
For me your post would have a bit more credibility if you did not resort to name calling. That simply shows, to me, that your reply is emotional in nature and not a thought out one. Simply repeating other emotional people who probably have not sat down and rationally thought out the issue.

I did not call you any name. I simply stated that your response was "the theology of PETA, the tree huggers, and other assorted environmental whacko's."

All my responses are though out, though they may be emotional. Any Christian should be emotional when he observes an atheistic philosophy like evolution twisting the minds of the unlearned.

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell writes:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

 

[donnA]

whats wrong with simply believing God. But it seems even christians don't even believe Him

 

[OldRegular]

You are right about the scientists, almost all early ones were Christians and many scientists today are Christian. Believing in evolution does not necessarily mean a person has rejected God creating the universe and the world. I believe the creation stories in Genesis was God's way of letting people know in a way they could understand that He did create the world. If God had given a scientific explanation of how the world was created the stories would have been rejected because no one would have understood them and they would have been rejected. Indeed, if God gave us a complete explanation of how he created today we would not understand.

God gave us a simple, complete explanation of how he created everything including man: HE spoke and it was! Simple isn't it?

If you believe that GOD created the universe including the world why is it necessary to believe in biological evolution. It is a fact that a true evolutionist rejects GOD. Furthermore, evolution does not rise to the level of a theory. I simply call it a concept. At best it is a mere hypothesis.

Theory and Hypothesis are both often used colloquially to mean an untested idea or opinion.

A hypothesis is defined as a proposition or set of propositions set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena.

A theory properly is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena.

Nothing regarding evolution has been verified by the scientific method defined as: A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from those data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

But you can believe that evolutionary nonsense if you think it makes you superior to all us common mortals.

 

[Crabtownboy]

God gave us a simple, complete explanation of how he created everything including man: HE spoke and it was! Simple isn't it?

That is not how God created in Gen. 2.

If you believe that GOD created the universe including the world why is it necessary to believe in biological evolution. It is a fact that a true evolutionist rejects GOD. Furthermore, evolution does not rise to the level of a theory. I simply call it a concept. At best it is a mere hypothesis.

I didn't say it is necessary to believe in evolution. I simply say that with physical evidence we have now that is probably how God created. And, we do not have a complete understanding of how that process may have worked ... just that God did it.

Theory and Hypothesis are both often used colloquially to mean an untested idea or opinion.

A hypothesis is defined as a proposition or set of propositions set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena.

A theory properly is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena.

Nothing regarding evolution has been verified by the scientific method defined as: A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from those data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

Using the explanation then Gen. 1 is untested and untestable, thus also a hypothesis.

But you can believe that evolutionary nonsense if you think it makes you superior to all us common mortals.

Believing or not believing in evolution has nothing to do with feeling superior or inferior. It simply has to do with trying to understand.

 

[OldRegular]

I didn't say it is necessary to believe in evolution. I simply say that with physical evidence we have now that is probably how God created. And, we do not have a complete understanding of how that process may have worked ... just that God did it.

You apparently find it necessary to believe in evolution and EVOLUTION IS NOT CREATION.

I posted a statement earlier by evolutionist Mattel who correctly pointed out the danger of Christian belief in evolution. If you believe that GOD could not create man but allowed "time and chance" to do what HE was unable to do what will your children and grandchildren believe: There is no GOD? Incidentally the entire concept of evolution violates the premier Law of Science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Using the explanation then Gen. 1 is untested and untestable, thus also a hypothesis.

Well you got something correct. Since the only Persons present at creation was the Triune Godhead [and perhaps some angels] then creation cannot be proven. Neither can evolution. That is the reason I call evolution a religion, no better than the animist religions of primitive man. It will eventually come to the choice between the Creator Jesus Christ and evolution. As for me and my house we will follow GOD.

Believing or not believing in evolution has nothing to do with feeling superior or inferior. It simply has to do with trying to understand.

You are sadly, perhaps deliberately, incorrect. All you need do is read some of the writings of the evolutionary scientists. Back up a few posts and read the words of Mattell. I assume you have read something about evolution haven't you? You are so eager to defend it while denying the clear teaching of Scripture.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You apparently find it necessary to believe in evolution and EVOLUTION IS NOT CREATION.

I posted a statement earlier by evolutionist Mattel who correctly pointed out the danger of Christian belief in evolution. If you believe that GOD could not create man but allowed "time and chance" to do what HE was unable to do what will your children and grandchildren believe: There is no GOD? Incidentally the entire concept of evolution violates the premier Law of Science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I respectfully disagree. I do not say that God could not have created the universe or mankind and I do not see any danger in my believe in Christ if I believe or do not believe in evolutoin.

Also if, note the if, God created by evolution then it was not by chance, but by direction.

If God used evoution to create and it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics I still have no problem. God can do whatever God wants to do. God is outside of time and probably God is outside of natural law. [I'll mull this over some more.]

Well you got something correct. Since the only Persons present at creation was the Triune Godhead [and perhaps some angels] then creation cannot be proven. Neither can evolution. That is the reason I call evolution a religion, no better than the animist religions of primitive man. It will eventually come to the choice between the Creator Jesus Christ and evolution. As for me and my house we will follow GOD.

Ah yes, as for me and my house we will serve the Lord also and never try to limit what God can do. And it never comes down to a choice between my savior and evolution. Evolution, if true, was/is only a tool God uses. It is not spiritual, it has nothing to do with salvation. It is information only.

I guess it is because you feel God is limited in how he could have created. I do not see evolution as religion. Surely I do not put my faith in it. I simply see it as a way God might have created all. It seems the most rational, logical way that we have before us at the current time. If it is proven totally wrong it will not bother my belief in God one whit. I will never set limits on what God can do.

You are sadly, perhaps deliberately, incorrect. All you need do is read some of the writings of the evolutionary scientists. Back up a few posts and read the words of Mattell. I assume you have read something about evolution haven't you? You are so eager to defend it while denying the clear teaching of Scripture

Well, believe it or not it is not deliberate .... and I have read on evolution.

You know there is:

Microevolution

and

Macroevolution.

We see the one in our own lifetime. Secies have disappeared. Rivers have changed course, earthquakes have changed features of the earth. Mutation has changed some life on earth, the flu for instance mutates rapidly and that is why new shots have to be developed each year.

Macroevolution is a different kettle of fish. This is evolution that we are discussing ... and if it has happened and/or is happening it is God directed.[/SIZE]

 

[OldRegular]

You apparently find it necessary to believe in evolution and EVOLUTION IS NOT CREATION.

I did not speak of the effect of belief in evolution on you [though there obviously is] but on your children and grandchildren.

Also if, note the if, God created by evolution then it was not by chance, but by direction.

You obviously do not understand evolution. EVOLUTION IS NOT CREATION.

If God used evoution to create and it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics I still have no problem. God can do whatever God wants to do. God is outside of time and probably God is outside of natural law. [I'll mull this over some more.]

If GOD can do what HE wants to why did HE use the horror of "survival of the fittest" to bring man into existence.

Nobel prize winning biologist Jacques Monod writes:

“Natural selection is the blindest most cruel way of evolving new species. .... I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Ah yes, as for me and my house we will serve the Lord also and never try to limit what God can do. And it never comes down to a choice between my savior and evolution. Evolution, if true, was/is only a tool God uses. It is not spiritual, it has nothing to do with salvation. It is information only.

You say: And it never comes down to a choice between my savior and evolution. Does evolution come between your LORD and you.

I guess it is because you feel God is limited in how he could have created.

No it is now you who limit GOD and sadly you do not realize it or do not care.

I do not see evolution as religion.

Just shows that you do not understand what evolution really is. Sad!!

Surely I do not put my faith in it.

Your posts indicate otherwise!

I simply see it as a way God might have created all.

Again I say: EVOLUTION IS NOT CREATION.

It seems the most rational, logical way that we have before us at the current time.

NO! The only logical way for the Christian is the Scriptural account of creation ex nihlo.

If it is proven totally wrong it will not bother my belief in God one whit. I will never set limits on what God can do.

You already have!

Species have disappeared.

It is people who think like you who have placed animal life above the welfare of man, hence my earlier statement about the theology of PETA.

Rivers have changed course, earthquakes have changed features of the earth.

Surely you cannot believe these are evolution?

Macroevolution is a different kettle of fish. This is evolution that we are discussing ... and if it has happened and/or is happening it is God directed.

I leave you in your delusion that you are more open minded and perhaps superior to those of us who believe the GOD of the Bible.

 

[Jedi Knight]

I agree with what John MacArthur said that the number one lie being thought in today's society is Evolution. If you say we cannot go back to the beginning to test it.......what about Jesus power to do miracles? Do you need a scientific explanation for that as well? Evolution to me is doctrines of demons and should not be accepted as a part of Christianity. OldRegular is telling it like it is...."scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35

 

[Amy.G]

God said:

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.


He also spoke this about the grass, trees, herbs, fish, fowl and every other living thing. They all reproduce after their kind.


Now if evolution is true, and somewhere down the road a mouse became a bird, it certainly did not reproduce after it's kind. According to God, a mouse can only produce more mice (after his kind). Somebody is wrong and it ain't God.

 

[Crabtownboy]

God said:

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.


He also spoke this about the grass, trees, herbs, fish, fowl and every other living thing. They all reproduce after their kind.


Now if evolution is true, and somewhere down the road a mouse became a bird, it certainly did not reproduce after it's kind. According to God, a mouse can only produce more mice (after his kind). Somebody is wrong and it ain't God.

Are you suggesting that some things are impossible for God? Just curious.

Also there is more than one creation story in the Genesis.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As this thread is well over thre pages it is closed fortwith.