Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
[__ Science __ ] Evolution Is a Scientific Law?
- Thread starter AIG.com
- Start date
Evolution belief leads to E.T. thinking.
Some evolution believers at NASA are wasting taxpayer money in futile pursuit of aliens. If only they believed Genesis....
I seriously hope you are right.
If that's true, this doesn't change the fact that their evolution-based origins tales still are.
Barbarian
MemberAtheism can't be taught in public schools
The same First Amendment that protects kids from being indoctrinated by theists, protects them from being indoctrinated by atheists (or agnostics, I suppose).
Actually, Darwin was a theist, who attributed the origin of life to God.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species
And if it turns out that there are other beings on other worlds, would it destroy your faith in God? I can't imagine why.
Barbarian
Member
He was a theist, at least when He wrote On the Origin of Species. He ends it by saying that God created the first living things.
And in The Voyage of the Beagle, he mentions that the officers of the ship kidded him about his very orthodox Anglican ideas. Do you think Anglicans are Christians?
Inerrancy is a modern error. I don't think Christians of his time had heard of it. As late as the 1940s, most creationists were OE.
Well, transcribers can. And do.
Few Christians are confused by His word. Some might not be ready to accept it as it is, but that's not God's fault.
I'll let this speak for itself.
You should probably know that there is very good evidence that a great regional flood drowned a huge area in the Middle East about the right time to be Noah's flood. But even if it was an allegory, Peter repeating it, would not convert it into an actual event.
The 1st amendment refers to government, right?
This doesn't address what you quoted.
There are almost certainly no sentient biological extraterrstrial beings.
And no.
But did he believe in Jesus' Resurrection and Divinity? The Trinity doctrine?
SDA's are thiests, too.
Why?
One jot or one tittle remind you?
Yes, and the Bible says that mens hearts will grow cold.
Before 1800's, OE beliefs were not so widespread.
Back then, more people allowed for God. The Biblical God. The further time moves on, it seems, men chase after sin more and more.
It's no surprise that they would also be easier to be led into false ideas like OE more and more, too.
I know the YEC's aren't confused by Genesis.
Mabye your side solves the problem by just not giving it much thought.
Ever considered that if Genesis is allegory, NOTHING contradicts it? How can things not stated as facts contradict anything?
The flood was global. Obviously that area was included.
Just because your favorite plot of land to post about, got flooded along with the rest of Earth, doesn't make the flood non-global.
Barbarian
Member
It refers to freedoms. I suppose you could go at it backwards and say that it puts limits on government.
Actually, Darwin was a theist, who attributed the origin of life to God.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species
Sure seems like it.
"Almost certainly?"
And they invented YE creationism. But I don't see the point. Darwin did admit (in The Voyage of the Beagle) that the officers of the ship kidded him about his orthodox Anglican beliefs.
Inerrancy is a modern error.
More specifically, the doctrine that anything mentioned in scripture must be true, regardless of it's application to the point of the text, is in error. The
For example, Jesus says that a mustard seed is the smallest seed. It's not even close to being the smallest seed.
AIG tries to dodge this issue by saying "maybe it was different back then." They are focusing on everything but what Jesus was telling us.
A more realistic view of inerrancy is:
The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.
The size of seeds and how much land was flooded in the time of Noah is not for the sake of salvation.
God invented the YEC position by inspiring the Bible. Not "they", unless you're promoting polythiesm.
Also, see other thread.
Not the smallest seed ever. But the smallest seed an average farmer had.
/edit**This quote, not your whollle post.
Barbarian
MemberEvolution is not merely a scientific law. Even a reasonably bright middle school student will tell you that Darwin's theory is not a law.
A law predicts what will happen under given circumstances, without explaining why.
A theory predicts and explains what will happen under given circumstances.
Hence Newton's laws of motion, but Newton's theory of gravitation. Newton doesn't explain why motion is as it is, but he does explain why gravitation works as it does.
Since Darwin's theory predicts and explains evolution, it is a scientific theory, not merely a law.
Another important element of a theory is that it must make predictions that have been tested and verified. So Darwin's four predictions have been repeatedly verified, as have Newton's predictions of the way gravitation works.
But theories are never absolutely the truth. Turns out, Newton's theory wasn't the whole story. Even though it remains true that we can use Newton's theory to navigate the solar system, there are some truths about gravity that are not in his theory. Likewise, while Darwin's theory of evolution remains true and it can be used to make useful predictions about how populations change, there are some things that are true about evolution that are not in his theory.
Both evolutionary theory and gravitational theory have been revised and improved since they were first proposed.
Laymen often fail to understand what "law" and "theory" actually mean. Often with amusing results as occured this time.
Do you think evolution involves the origin of life?
Could you introduce facts to support your
" futile" statement?
And some facts to encourage belief in a literal
reading of genesis re origin of life?
Slight disagreement. A theory may very well
be true in every detail.
I think you may mean proven to be true.
As to the confusion about law/ theory, it would
be a terrific help all around if say 5 or,10 minutes
were spent on google.
Barbarian
Member
In principle. But historically, they pretty much all had to be modified as evidence accumulated.
Yep.