The Dangers of Evolution

[grumpywolfman]

Dr Francis Collins (Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute) explains why he believes in a personal God and how his faith is compatible with science.

[video=youtube_share;Ml0FqyFYfrU]http://youtu.be/Ml0FqyFYfrU[/video]

 

[Xue Sheng]

http://maryamrussel.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/evolution-theory.jpg

 

[crushing]

As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

Aunicornists are every bit as daring.

Rather than re-invent the wheel I will provide a link that provides a nice response to the myth in the Chesterton quote you provided.

http://atheism.about.com/od/fundamentalistatheists/a/AtheistDogmatic.htm

 

[arnisador]

Aunicornists are every bit as daring.

They always miss this point. (I often use a-vampirists.) But beyond that, the key difference is: I know what it would take to change my mind.

 

[Cyriacus]

Perhaps you should request MT change your screen name to Mr. Fantastic.

I *did* PM Bob about it, but he never got back to me. Im not sure if he knew i wasnt kidding, or if i was meant to get in touch with someone else some other way :spock:

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

How does this reinforce the notion of a literal six day creation (I don't believe in a literal six day creation, though I believe that God created the universe), the actual existence of God (which I do believe), or the need for Christ (a need that I see, though the need for Christ that I see may be different from the need for Christ that you see)?

 

[grumpywolfman]

How does this reinforce the notion of a literal six day creation (I don't believe in a literal six day creation, though I believe that God created the universe), the actual existence of God (which I do believe), or the need for Christ (a need that I see, though the need for Christ that I see may be different from the need for Christ that you see)?

It doesn't - it's a quote that reflects my personal opinion regarding Atheism which I posted it in response to a comment K-Man made (that's why I included his comment with my post).



Creation Science:

Macro -evolution doesn't happen. The firmament would explain longer lifespans for all life on earth before the flood, and the hydro-plate theory seems pretty solid to me. The erosion and deposition caused by the events associated with and following the Mount St. Helens eruption of 1980 is a good example of the flaws that I see in the assumptions made by uniformitarianism. These theories are covered well in Dr. Hovind's lecture titled "The Hovind Theory." Here is a closer look at the hydro-plate theory:

[video=youtube_share;xb4s362Hcys]http://youtu.be/xb4s362Hcys[/video]

Biblical Archaeology:

Despite the controversy over Ron Wyatt's credibility, I feel that the evidence found and Biblical correlation of the Exodus/Red Sea Crossing in itself is very moving (there have been follow up teams as well). Biblical archaeology is worth looking into in my opinion, worth saying "I want to see it for myself and then decide." If God is real, then so are His Commandments, His Word, His Spirit, His Son, and His enemies. If there is a spiritual war going on, then wouldn't it make sense that God's enemies wouldn't want people to know the truth about Him? If God is real, then isn't it probable that His enemies would want to indoctrinate the masses with their beliefs in order to subdue them?

Something to think about ...

 

[Cyriacus]

Is anyone going around doing Qur'an archaeology as well, by some chance?

 

[Sukerkin]

in case people get the wrong idea about Englishmen (and atheists), Chesterton is a distinguished Catholic author who lived and wrote in a time before we, as a nation, came to see the organisations of the 'great faiths' for the political animals they really are and, in general, shed our need to believe in a creator deity to deal with that which we don't yet understand. It is little wonder that he had some bias to him on religious matters being a child of the late Victorian era and being a student of such things as Christian Apologetics (tho' he was also known as the Prince of Paradox ); remember, context is always important.

Atheism is, in the end, a simple, rational, decision to not take 'on faith' a fundamentally outrageous assertion that all the multiverse was the product of an entity whose postulated existence can never be more than a postulate. I have often mused that if someone proposed the idea of a creator deity now, without there being prior traditions for such a thing, it would fail to obtain much traction. It is only because we, as a species, have had a few tens of thousands of years of accumulated 'divine' explanations for things (that are now explicable) that the mythic and mystic persists. They are rooted in our cultures and may, in fact, be with us always to some extent as the ability to 'have faith' in the unprovable is tied in with our ability to theorise about things we cannot see or which have not yet even existed.

The physics of life arise from the general physics of matter within the universe. Supposing the existence of a Creator for life was a decent "It'll do for now" explanation for things when it was impossible to see another way for it to have happened. But now, for "Meaning of Life stuff", there is a glimmer on the threshold of understanding that we might actually be able to explain it clearly without having to resort to unknowable, all-powerful, third-person actors.

Next stop, gravity and time .

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

It doesn't - it's a quote that reflects my personal opinion regarding Atheism which I posted it in response to a comment K-Man made (that's why I included his comment with my post).



Creation Science:

Macro -evolution doesn't happen. The firmament would explain longer lifespans for all life on earth before the flood, and the hydro-plate theory seems pretty solid to me. The erosion and deposition caused by the events associated with and following the Mount St. Helens eruption of 1980 is a good example of the flaws that I see in the assumptions made by uniformitarianism. These theories are covered well in Dr. Hovind's lecture titled "The Hovind Theory." Here is a closer look at the hydro-plate theory:

[video=youtube_share;xb4s362Hcys]http://youtu.be/xb4s362Hcys[/video]

Biblical Archaeology:

Despite the controversy over Ron Wyatt's credibility, I feel that the evidence found and Biblical correlation of the Exodus/Red Sea Crossing in itself is very moving (there have been follow up teams as well). Biblical archaeology is worth looking into in my opinion, worth saying "I want to see it for myself and then decide." If God is real, then so are His Commandments, His Word, His Spirit, His Son, and His enemies. If there is a spiritual war going on, then wouldn't it make sense that God's enemies wouldn't want people to know the truth about Him? If God is real, then isn't it probable that His enemies would want to indoctrinate the masses with their beliefs in order to subdue them?

Something to think about ...

I mean you no offense, but I am fairly well versed with creation science and I find it very unconvincing. More to the point, it is a distraction.

The real issue is this: How does arguing creation science address humanity's need for Christ?

 

[grumpywolfman]

I mean you no offense, but I am fairly well versed with creation science and I find it very unconvincing. More to the point, it is a distraction.

The real issue is this: How does arguing creation science address humanity's need for Christ?

These are the common questions/objections that I come across in order:

#1 - "A divine creator is a myth, everybody knows evolution is a fact!"

#2 - "I want evidence, give me some proof that your God exists."

#3 - "If God really loved the people he created, then why do bad things happen?"

#4 - "I want to live the way I want to live!"


#1 Some people will not want to listen of any need for Christ in their lives until their eyes are opened first to the lies of Evolution. #4 Is the real reason in my opinion, that most people don't want God to exist; because, it would mean they would have to make some serious changes in the way they are living. A person must be willing to open their heart to God to receive His Holy Spirit, and accept the free gift of salvation sent to us through His Son. But it can be so difficult to try and tell people of the Gospel message, when people immediately refuse to listen and reject the possibility, because they have been misled to believe that God doesn't even exist in the first place.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

These are the common questions/objections that I come across in order:

#1 - "A divine creator is a myth, everybody knows evolution is a fact!"

#2 - "I want evidence, give me some proof that your God exists."

#3 - "If God really loved the people he created, then why do bad things happen?"

#4 - "I want to live the way I want to live!"


#1 Some people will not want to listen of any need for Christ in their lives until their eyes are opened first to the lies of Evolution.

People who believe that a divine creator is a myth are unlikely to be swayed by creation science, as it is based on a book they see as mythological and possibly fabricated.

Also, evolution is not an elaborately crafted pack of lies and has more to back it than creation science does. In fact, I find that the grandeur of God is revealed in a much greater way through the factual evidence uncovered by science than in creations science. Unless one holds to a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible, then creation science is unnecessary.

I don't hold to a 100% literal interpretation of scripture, so I don't need to do intellectual contortions to come up with a way to justify my own beliefs.

Also, I find that people who push creation science are usually trying harder to convince themselves. Or they're selling a book.

#4 Is the real reason in my opinion, that most people don't want God to exist; because, it would mean they would have to make some serious changes in the way they are living. A person must be willing to open their heart to God to receive His Holy Spirit, and accept the free gift of salvation sent to us through His Son. But it can be so difficult to try and tell people of the Gospel message, when people immediately refuse to listen and reject the possibility, because they have been misled to believe that God doesn't even exist in the first place.

Sure. I'm with you. But as I said previously, either on this thread or one of your other threads, creation science is a very poor evangelistic tool. If you wish to truly share the good news of Christ, you would do well to find a tool that is suited to the job.

Creation science is a knee jerk reaction to people using evolution to demonstrate that God doesn't exist/the Bible is false/whatever else. The fact is that the rejection of Christianity is in great part due to the behavior of Christians. I see a lot of people wielding the authority of the Bible that I want nothing whatsoever to do with. They are vile, corrupt, and wicked people.

Ever notice that it was not the people who wanted to live the way they wanted to live that Jesus was at odds with? It was the religious leaders of his day that were his greatest foes.

Christians were once simple people who knew the grace of Christ and shared it with others, who found it refreshing and appealing, and they believed. At some point, it changed into the same legalistic nonsense that Jesus preached against. Then it became the state religion of Rome. Then it was forced on people at swordpoint. Then it was forced on them economically. Then it was institutionalized. And guess what? And then it was no longer the way of Christ.

Then it wasn't refreshing. It wasn't appealing. And it wasn't simple. It became negative and dogmatic. The very moment it became legalistic (thank you Paul), it ceased to be the way of Jesus. Why? Because the free gift was no longer free.

And no amount of pushing creationism (it really isn't science) is going to change that.

 

[Cirdan]

These are the common questions/objections that I come across in order:

#1 - "A divine creator is a myth, everybody knows evolution is a fact!"

#2 - "I want evidence, give me some proof that your God exists."

#3 - "If God really loved the people he created, then why do bad things happen?"

#4 - "I want to live the way I want to live!"


#1 Some people will not want to listen of any need for Christ in their lives until their eyes are opened first to the lies of Evolution. #4 Is the real reason in my opinion, that most people don't want God to exist; because, it would mean they would have to make some serious changes in the way they are living. A person must be willing to open their heart to God to receive His Holy Spirit, and accept the free gift of salvation sent to us through His Son. But it can be so difficult to try and tell people of the Gospel message, when people immediately refuse to listen and reject the possibility, because they have been misled to believe that God doesn't even exist in the first place.

Blahblahblah. Followers of the desert religions just whine and complain. Who would give up slaying giants and partying all night in Valhalla for that?

 

[Sukerkin]

:chuckles: A bit off-topic there, Cirdan. Funny and it makes me want to post a 'poster' of Odin I saw on Facebook the other day (put up by you I suspect ) but, this being the Study, we do need to "stay on target" as much as we can.

 

[arnisador]

#4 Is the real reason in my opinion, that most people don't want God to exist; because, it would mean they would have to make some serious changes in the way they are living.

About 99.25% of prisoners are religious. Over 90% of the National Academy of Science's members are not. Religiosity (as opposed to atheism) does not correlate with good behavior. It's the opposite.

 

[Cyriacus]

These are the common questions/objections that I come across in order:

#1 - "A divine creator is a myth, everybody knows evolution is a fact!"

#2 - "I want evidence, give me some proof that your God exists."

#3 - "If God really loved the people he created, then why do bad things happen?"

#4 - "I want to live the way I want to live!"


#1 Some people will not want to listen of any need for Christ in their lives until their eyes are opened first to the lies of Evolution. #4 Is the real reason in my opinion, that most people don't want God to exist; because, it would mean they would have to make some serious changes in the way they are living. A person must be willing to open their heart to God to receive His Holy Spirit, and accept the free gift of salvation sent to us through His Son. But it can be so difficult to try and tell people of the Gospel message, when people immediately refuse to listen and reject the possibility, because they have been misled to believe that God doesn't even exist in the first place.

#5: (The following is one of the less nice things ill have said on the forum, but i cant resist.)
If bad people go to hell to suffer and burn and Lucifer facilitates that, doesnt that make him a good guy, and a champion of justice and humanity who should be cherished and worshipped? By these standards, God and Christ are conspirators, hell (no pun intended) bent on destroying mankind, whilst deluding us into thinking that theyre the good guys.

 

[Carol]

I'm still up for the tartare and mead. Do they allow backpacks in Valhalla?

 

[Xue Sheng]

You speak Tartar? :uhyeah:

 

[Carol]

You speak Tartar? :uhyeah:

Especially with a fish fry :lol:

 

[K-man]

Dr Francis Collins (Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute) explains why he believes in a personal God and how his faith is compatible with science.

[video=youtube_share;Ml0FqyFYfrU]http://youtu.be/Ml0FqyFYfrU[/video]

Sorry, I must have missed that bit. Where, exactly, does he say that his faith is compatible with science? Or was that the part where he said because we can recognise right and wrong there must be a God?