Scientists May Have Found How Life Began

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.


__________________

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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 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.

 

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.”

 

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

 

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.

 

That is not how God created in Gen. 2.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

 

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

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

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.”

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

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

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

Your posts indicate otherwise!

Again I say: EVOLUTION IS NOT CREATION.

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

You already have!

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.

Surely you cannot believe these are evolution?

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.

 

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.