Sure, it unifies you with the world, and the Bible calls it compromise - you can’t mix light and darkness (2Cor6:14). Genuine Christians are specifically counseled not to mix such worldly philosophies with God’s Word ie, Colossians2:8 (Amplified) “See to it that no one carries you off as spoil or makes you yourselves captive by his so-called philosophy and intellectualism, and vain deceit following human tradition - men’s ideas of the material (rather than the spiritual world) - just crude notions following the rudimentary and elemental teachings of the universe, and disregarding the teachings of Christ the Messiah.” Further, Jesus endorsed the Genesis account of creation written by Moses saying, “For if you believed in and relied on Moses, you would believe in and rely on Me, for he wrote about Me.” Your rejection of the Genesis account of creation and\or mixing it with a contradictory teaching such as evolution is a rejection of Christ’s teachings and the admonition of Rom12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world…” But on the plus side, I’m sure all these Darwinists are happy to have you on the broad road with them. Enjoy that feeling of unity while you can, there’s not much time left.
I’ll pick ‘ignorant’ for 10 please. Darwin did a good ‘scientific’ job on trying to falsify his own theory. It is that chapter that set the fundamantalist nuts rolling with things like the eye and irreducible complexity. That’s why I was suprised tomndebb were so unfamiliar with it given their always vigorous defence of evolution.
It’s refreshing to see someone come to my defense and lend their support like this. But I think it’s too much to ask of Tom to start saying, “Stop those permanent delusional state comments right now!” It’s a little wordy and he seems to be a lot more comfortable with 4-letter words anyway.
My belief in the Bible shouldn’t be all that terrifying to you, all I ever do is rattle off some scriptures that apply to the issues at hand and let people decide whether they want to adjust their beliefs to conform to them or not. The people you should be absolutely terrified of are those who have dramatically put their Bible beliefs into action right before your eyes. Those Amish girls and their families, who demonstrated their complete trust in the scriptures by simply obeying them ie, the older ones bravely willing to lay down their lives for the others, immediately forgiving the perpetrator, trusting God that He is in control without having to understand the whys, believing that those lives have only been lost temporarily, etc. Those are the testimonies and lifestyles that condemn you, and they never even point an accusing finger towards you. All I ever accomplish is to prevent your escape by saying that no one ever told you the Truth, but their genuine walk according to the scriptures is the real witness against your willfully darkened mind. You should fear that instead.
Pssst…Tagos wasn’t defending you with that statement.
Pssst…You just got whooshed. By Bible Man, even. He may choose to be wilfully ignorant as to various facts (choosing to replace acceptance in them with his chosen biblical beliefs) but do not underestimate his l33t rhetorical skillz.
So, what season will it be, and wanna bet?
And when are you going to get around to defending your statements on evolution and answering the questions several of us have asked. We’ve got to assume that you are unable to do so.
It seems to me that you worship the Bible more than god. If God came to you and said that evolution was true, you’d turn your back on him. You turn your back on the evidence you surely believe he put in the rocks already.
The season began when the last great gentile world kingdom walked into Babylon and planted its ten toes in its soil (Dan2:41-45). You’re trying to bet on something that has already begun. Because you’ve rejected the Bible, you’re also blind to the ongoing fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and the judgement that now stands at your very doorstep.
The Bible, being the Word of God, is a living book. Christ is the Word made flesh (Jn1:14, Rev19:12), and the Word is God (Jn1:1). Although a paradox to unbelievers, the Bible is alive and full of power for those who do believe (Heb4:12)
This theory has been, and continues to be, scientifically unverified and unproven. Why would I have a need to disprove a theory that’s never been able to prove itself? It’s already scientifically bankrupt as it now stands. As I’ve previously stated, these facts are incontrovertible: no one in human history has ever documented a single example of macroevolution, it’s not observed in the present and there are no transitional structures in the fossil record to show that it ever occured in the past, and further, the universal law of increasing entropy stands sharply against it. The only response to these scientific facts has been some more unscientific theories offered in a desperate attempt to prop up the original theory. If something on the massive scale that evolution postulates was actually true, you would literally be tripping over the evidence instead of hunting under every rock and jumping to outlandish conclusions every time a strange tooth is found. You’re just building a house of cards composed of one unscientific theory upon another, but If you want to continue to have faith that it will someday be proven that’s your perogative. But just as there are people on earth that are intent on worshiping the sun or moon, I don’t feel any obligation to go prove that every such false belief is baseless. My only obligation is to offer the Truth and let people make their own choice. It’s your theory, go make of it what you will - it’s really not my concern other than to point out the obvious flaws.
There are just so many things wrong with this statement that it’s difficult to know where to begin addressing them. I can’t help suspecting that may be intentional. Works for Gish.
No problem, and I understand completely. There’s a whole gaggle of folks out there sharing your frustration in trying to prop this theory up. And it is hard to tell where to start, but it doesn’t stop them from trying. They usually all get together, each grab an appendage, and try their very best to help it walk. The up-side is, that those who finally get tired of nursing and patching up this poor substitute for God and then cross over to faith in Him, end up being outstanding believers. They are so practiced at excercising their faith that when they place it in the right object ie, a living God, they are very successful.
Well, we could start with this false statement:
The physical laws regarding entropy would only be relavent in a closed system. Earth is not a closed system, receiving a constant supply of new energy from the sun every second of every day. Therefore, an appeal to “entropy” is baseless and without merit.
Further, you are repeating this false claim while ignoring the fact that Voyager provided the information that refuted it about 47 hours ago–a refutation from which you have hidden, even though you now repeat the same false claim. (Voyager also provided a refuation of your odd claim that there is no evidence for macroevolution, but I am sure that you will ignore it, as well, since you have ignored it in every similar thread to which you have posted.)
More unscientific nonsense, and yet another example of making misleading, false statements while at the same time accusing others of what you yourself commonly practice. The sun is burning 700,000 tons of hydrogen per second, perhaps to you that isn’t entropy but to honest scientists it is.
You have dishonestly placed a different meaning to the words “refutation” and “information”. I know proof when I see it and all that Voyager pointed to (he didn’t or couldn’t even use his own words) was more scientifically suspect theories that are as unproven as the one you are trying desperately to support.
To be more credible about your supposed stand for honesty you really should start in your own backyard. My first suggestion is to start by changing your name to “Uncle Tom” which more accurately conveys the fact that you simply parrot the anti-Bible and anti-Christian beliefs sponsored by this site. And changing that “moderator” tag would give newcomers a more accurate picture of the truth - lots of them are most likely misled into thinking it means “unbiased” or “fair”. You have a really bad case of projection when it comes to the practice of honesty - since the log in your own eye has gotten as big as a giant redwood, why don’t you start there?
Assuming facts not in evidence. (Book of the SubGenius, May 15, 1987)
In what way does this provide “refutation” for evolution on Earth? That 700,000 tons (although you might want to look up the meaning of the word “burning” in the context of nuclear activity) is distributing radiant energy to the solar system, of which the Earth gets a fair share. That means that the life forms on Earth are not in a closed system, but an open system with continuous energy input. That, in turn, means that while the overall universe is subject to entropy, the limited case of the Earth, for the duration of the sun’s existence, is not subject to entropy regarding life and evolution.
Which was actually my point. Pointing at a mass of twisted scientific jargon filled with speculations and theories while claiming that it somehow “proves” something is against every rule of evidence I’m aware of. It’s a trick that unscrupulous lawyers attempt; it doesn’t work in a court of law, why allow it here? It’s a strategem to get the opposing party to not only get sidetracked but to perhaps help make some sense out of the whole mess for their side.
As far as my comments about Tom’s penchant for projection, scroll back to the comment made by Tagos about it - when the blind from your own camp start “seeing” the problem, it’s gotten pretty big.
You have no idea of what you’re talking about, do you? The solar system is a good approximation to a closed system, and it will run down one day. The Earth isn’t. Drawing a cbox around the earth, ignoring the energy input from the sun, then claiming evolution is impossible is dishonest.
In any case, evolution needs so special energy input - no more than the growth of plants and animals from seeds. Does the growth of a flower violate the laws of thermodynamics according to you? All evolution says is that sometimes genetic material gets changed from mutation, it always gets mixed up through sex, and beings with traits that promote survival and reproduction tend to survive and reproduce more. None of these need any great input of energy - certainly not compared to the way a squash plant in my garden grows.
Your use of proof here means you have no clue about how science works. Science doesn’t prove anything - it offers hypotheses, which can be falsified. If they are not, and if they get supporting evidence, they graduate to becoming theories. They can be falsified at any time, given evidence. They they are not proofs. Now, if you had any evidence, you might be getting somewhere.
The reason talkorigins.org exists is because people got tired of creating answers to the same old tired “disproofs” of evolution time and time again. The people who wrote those articles are better qualified than I, and I am happy to reference them, since they make sense. Now, if you have any specific objections to this evidence, please present it. Science is biased towards what the evidence shows, true. However it is fair, in that they link to creationist sites (a favor not returned by the creationist sites, by the way.)
We’ve put down the evidence, all that you’ve responded with is a rant about how it is unfair that the facts are on our side. If you don’t have anything better than that, you’re wasting bandwidth.
BTW, if it were not for people like Tom I might think that all Christians are … well, like you.
That you can’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s twisted scientific jargon - it just means that you need to educate yourself. Any scientific field uses specialized terms - there are plenty of popular books on evolution which don’t. You haven’t ever said if you’ve read any of them.
Have you ever been at a trial - or seen Perry Mason at least? 
Lawyers offer hypotheses all the time. A jury evaluates the hypotheses and the evidence and attempt to determine if a defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing gets proved at a trial, and no judge will instruct a jury that guilt must be proven. Evolution is correct beyond all reasonable doubt - the jury of those who know what they’re talking about has voted time and again for it.
Perhaps you don’t understand what evolution says. Do you want to explain, in your own words, what you think it says? I can if you feel unable to - Zoe is right that it is simple and elegant. Some of the mechanisms might be a bit complicated, but the broad outlines aren’t.
Thanks for separating me from him, it’s the best compliment I’ve had all day. The theory is yours Voyager, it’s a free country and you have been given free will to seek the truth as you see fit. One thing I’m sure about is that God will guide those who are honestly seeking the truth into greater Light. My solemn personal testimony to you is that evolution is not true, and only Jesus Christ is the Way and the Truth and the Life. We are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets - all other foundations will fail as there is no other foundation that can succeed except Christ Himself.
Did you simply misunderstand what I said, or are you dishonestly misinterpreting it? My point was not that it is hard to tell where to start addressing evolution, but that there were so many things wrong with what you said, that it was hard to know how to reply to it. Your rant simply didn’t make much sense.
You see, that’s just it. I have no doubt you honestly believe that evolution is not true, but when comparing your personal testimony, the testimony of someone who appears to know little or nothing about evolution, and the rows of fossils in the La Brea Tar Pits museum, or the fossil dinosaurs in various natural history museums, or the evidence of DNA, or the evidence of geology - your personal belief loses big time. And you seem to be afraid of facing evolution rationally. Why is that? Does the slightest possibility that you would have to face a change of belief frighten you? Does the prospect of a billion year old earth petrify you? Can’t you face the possibility that the heathen - whether they be Christian heathen or atheist heathen, might be right?
When I took a debate class I learned that one must learn both sides of an argument, with the risk that your mind might be changed. Mine was on some of the topics I studied. On the other hand, if you believe in what is most true, you can be even more convinced. If you are right about evolution, understanding it should strengthen your faith. If your faith were truly strong, you’d jump right into evolution books, and construct a bunch of killer arguments that would convince us all. I’m sure you are wise enough to know that what you’ve written so far are assertions, not arguments.
I used to believe in God, but never in Jesus. Why God would make us sinful, and then require a middleman to redeem us is beyond my comprehension. I never got brainwashed into that belief. You might as well be testifying for Odin (but I’m in the middle of reading American Gods so Odin might do better.)
I suppose I’m just willfully blind when it comes to evolution, but you should be able to relate to that regarding Bible concepts. They are simply two completely opposite belief systems and although it’s commendable that some try to find some common ground, there is no compatibility between the theory of evolution and the Creator God of the Bible, except perhaps the element of faith. The Biblical view is that God made all life forms in the final form He intended - there are no progressive changes in a species except in the sense of maturity and adaptability to their environment.
And yes, I admit to pulling an evolutionist’s chain now and then but don’t worry, you’ll adapt to it.