Right in the middle of issuing the ten commandments, are you calling Jesus a liar? or perhaps Jesus was ignorant of modern dating methods? The Lord made all in 6 days, man, dinosaurs, water, earth, etc etc. The water was clear until man threw mud in it with his theories about the age of the earth and heavens. You lose.[/quote]
Amen! :amen
I think the reason some people who are Christian get so confused is because of statements such as this...
“No actually, what I mean is that people have an incapacity to accept both science and the Bible. From my point of view they both accomplish different things:
Science (big-bang, evolution) facilitates scientific advancement which is necessary in our world - dare to argue it isn't?â€
You incorrectly believe that science and evolutionary theory are synonymous...they are not!
You think that evolutionary theory (faith) is scientific advancement, it is not!
It is merely an hypothesis. Science in itself does not come to any conclusions. Men do.
I am absolutely astounded at the complete lack of knowledge so many people have who support evolution in that they inevitably use remarks such as “real†science does not ascribe to intelligent design, or creationists are not “real†scientists. It’s as though they can’t conceive of the very thought that there are “real†scientists who do not ascribe to the theory of evolution! It’s amazing! These people actually do not believe there are any accredited scientists who do not believe in evolution. They can’t imagine it!
Please allow me to educate you my friends. There are many thousands of highly educated scientists both religious and non religious who have turned away from the theory of evolution due to a complete lack of any legitimate corroborating evidence.
What most laypeople do not realise is that evolutionary conclusions are propagated by scientists who cannot bring themselves to believe in any creator. The conclusions are not based on any empirical evidence. Just take a look in any biology or paleontology text book and try and find photos of any series of graduated transitional fossils...you won’t find any. Oh, you’ll see plenty illustrations all right, but no photographs. Why is that? Can’t these scientists afford cameras? Or maybe they simply are extremely forgetful...hey; maybe they feel obliged to create work for all the illustrators out there, ya that’s surely it.
Remember those illustrations we all looked at in biology class? The ones where a tiny monkey became a chimp and the chimp became a gorilla and the gorilla became a cave man then the cave man became a human being?
Ya, you’d think they would have taken the time to go out and find the fossils which were in between those so called transitional and photographed them wouldn’t you?
They didn’t do that because no such missing links exist. That’s the truth my friends.
Hey prove me wrong. That should be easy enough right? Just provide a link to the photos and I’ll shut my cake hole.
Look, creation scientists are as highly trained as any other scientist. They attend the same universities and they graduate side by side.
They study the exact same fossils, they dig in the same ground, they study the same rocks etc, etc. The only difference is evolutionary scientists start out with presuppositions and assumptions based on their belief that there is no God – no creator.
Creation scientists start out with the presupposition and assumptions based on their belief that there is a God – a creator. That is the only difference. After that conclusions are reached based on both schools of belief.
Conclusions are not necessarily correct my friends. No matter how many time we hear them.
So how are we to know the true facts?
How are we to know whether earth is 4 plus billions of years old, or six thousand years old?
How are we to know whether we were created, or the result of pure dumb luck?
Well we can take the scientists at their word? OK, so which scientists are we to believe in because there are clearly two schools.
OK, so for starters are you a Christian? If yes, then it would be consistent for you to take the creationist scientists conclusions. If you are a non believer then accept the evolutionary conclusions.
OK so let’s see what some of the most highly respected evolutionary scientists are saying...
The following is taken from and is by
Dr.Don Boys Ph.D
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html
World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that
statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
Need I remind our readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith:
Haeckel's recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.
Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.
Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...." And
Lord Zuckerman admitted
there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man!
Even
Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "
The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all college professors know that
Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that
Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)
Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...
geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "..
.no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."
All the
alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago,
are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart.
Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil.
The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been "discarded" and is considered a "phantom" and "illusion" because it is not proof of evolution. In
fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can't be counted on being a horse then we've got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.
Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that
"there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.
Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that
Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that
Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired "ape man." Need I go on?
The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as many evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.
Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "
launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse
is not a religious fanatic, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."
Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that
nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events." He went on to say,
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'" And so it is.
Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized
Darwinism as "speculation," based on faith," similar to theories of "little green men," "dead," "effectively dead," "very flimsy," "incoherent," and a "myth." Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don't need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire.
World known Swiss scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who recently died),
with three earned doctorates in science and considered to be an expert by the United Nations, confessed
after seeing the fossilized dinosaur tracks and men prints within inches of each other at Glen Rose, Texas, "...all this makes evolution impossible." And so it does.â€
Whew! How strong are your evolutionary beliefs now?
Are any of you even aware of the actual title of Darwin’s book?
Here it is in all its horrible glory...
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Darwin was a racist my friends and he believed our black brothers and sisters were inferior and a close transitional to the apes.
Holy Bible facilitates a relationship with God through faith - that's obvious.
Not only faith. God has provided us with more than enough physical evidence for us to feel even more confident that His scriptures are not myth, but rather an amazing literal description of an example of His almighty power and authority.
The Holy Bible doesn't set out to teach science and science doesn't set out to provide a relationship with God.
You speak about science as if it were above God. Science is simply a way for men to understand how things work. It’s not a way to prove or disprove the existence of God, I agree, but we can use our God given intelligence and the elements in our surroundings to confirm what the scriptures are telling us is literal fact, and not just some nice story.
God gave us brains to use. And when God’s word is under attack He surely doesn’t need our help, but it is expected by God that we will do our very best to try and keep our brothers and sisters from being victims of satan and his lies. Evolution is one of satan’s greatest lies and I cringe to think of how many people reject God because they accept the “
real†scientists conclusions which they incorrectly assume to be facts when as we can see, even their own people are telling us it is anything but fact.
Am I really the only person who finds it possible to believe both science and The Bible without trying to use one to prove the other wrong?â€
It’s not a matter of trying to prove science wrong. It’s a matter of exposing the rotting corpse of evolution before any more fall victim to it. Remember, God expects us to be disciples, and He expects us to go forth and win souls. If we allow our brothers and sisters to fall prey to the enemy, then we have failed God and we will be accountable for it.
All we can do is try our best. We obviously can’t force God on anyone to accept Jesus – Jesus never did, so we sure as heck can’t.
All I’m doing is trying to help even one person to see that rejecting evolutionary conclusions is not equivalent to rejecting science. That science does not draw conclusions; people do and people are not infallible.
More and more scientists are starting to openly admit Darwin’s idea was wrong.
There is still a very intolerant attitude in the scientific community towards any open discussion against evolution and there is a lot of pressure placed on scientists to toe the line. People hae lost their jobs by going against the status quo. Just watch Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled†if you don’t believe me.
John bronzesnake
