Actually, Aristarchus of Samos discovered the Heliocentric system long before Copernicus. About 200 BC, I think.
[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.
- Thread starter reddogs
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
- Status
That was the Catholic church. Y'know, the one that compromises with paganism and worships a made up "queen of heaven".
More proof catholic church ISNT Jesus' Church.
Literally 0 evidence.
newscientist.com/question/humans-evolve-apes/
We know that our evolutionary tree first sprouted in Africa. We are sure that our closest living relatives are chimpanzees, and that our lineage split from theirs about 7 million years ago.
Your guys made it up. We simply refute their fodder.
science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm :
Humans and modern apes, including chimpanzees, evolved from a now-extinct common ancestor.
^ This seems more along your lines, however.
Again, you boldly assert that it is our 'supersition'.
HOW IS IT A SUPERSITITION IF WE DON'T BELIEVE IT HAPPENED?
WHERE in the Bible did God "torture" any animals? He is Omnipotent. He could easily kill 2 animals without inflicting any pain. Your strawmanning of Genesis does no good.
Death - man AND animal - came into the world thru human sin. If you allegorize Genesis then the truth of the origin of death is lost.
No wonder YEC dont believe the 'allegory Genesis' compromiser's myth!!
Uh, nah.
James is just saying that sin CAN be intentional. Explain how it supposedly "excludes" accidental sin.
Numbers 15:22 ESV
“But if you sin unintentionally, and do not observe all these commandments that the Lord has spoken to Moses,EXPLAIN THIS.
I'm waiting.
Apes aren't monkeys in the same way that cats aren't dogs. Thought you knew.
It's not just anatomical and fossil evidence showing that humans and chimps share a common ancestor more recently than they share one with any other ape. The generic evidence makes this very clear as well. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.
This says the same thing. Not understanding what it's all about, is a constant problem for you.
Because you invent all kinds of false beliefs you want scientists to have.
And no, I don't buy the story that God tortures innocent animals to get even with Adam.
It's not in the Bible at all. That's a creationist invention. Animals don't suffer and die because of Adam's sin.
That belief is man's revision of God's word. You do this to make it more acceptable to you. God never said that. God makes it very clear what the "death" is. He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats from the tree, and lives on physically for many years after. If God tells the truth, the death Adam brought into the world is not a physical death.
I don't know why you believe the literal Genesis compromiser's myth. Why not just accept His word entirely, without your new revisions?
God says:
James 4:17 So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.
God said it. I believe Him. You should, too.
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
You can do evil unintentionally, but that is not what sin is. Sin is a rebellion against God. Primitive Hebrews thought of God in the traditional Middle Eastern context, where a sin made one unclean and needed some kind of cleansing. In that time, they thought that unintentional acts forbidden by God were less "unclean" and so had less involved cleansing required. Jesus shows that legalistic adherence to law was not what was pleasing to God. Which is what Paul is telling us; the New Covenant is both simpler and more encompassing than the old.
The difference between the Apostles and the Pharisees.
Chose wisely.
Hey All,
That is not what I said or meant. Please do not project me into your point of view.
The Catholic Church is a Jesus church. You can learn of Jesus, and receive Him as your savior through their teachings. Yes there are some, what protestants would call, unnecessary actions. Some of which are to the point of being umbilical. But those extracurricular acts do not effect the main message of Scripture.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
All are.
Why would they need a ritual cleansing if one cant sin accidentally??
why are you mimicing my post?
I'm not the one compromising Christianity with darwinism beliefs. YOU are.
you showcase doublemindedness. Either yec is "damaging" or it "makes it easier"
THANKS FOR SHOWING THAT EVOLUTION MAKES CHRISTIANS DOUBLE MINDED.
The Bible contradicts evilution. Bats stay bats, cavefish stay cavefish. Variation within a kind is not evolution, even if you want it to be.
New family?? Nahhhh. New SPECIES, yeah. Perhaps even a rare new genus. But yer never gonna see, for instance, a new taxonomic family of, say, monkey.
I don't see how evilution belief is any better in this context. With your story, they have always died.
No. Adam's sin bought death into the world. Nothing said about God letting <x> happen.
In a way, the 1st 2 humans were those who caused animals & creation to start undergoing decay/degeneration!
Theories are made by who? 3 guesses.
You like to repeat this. So i'll repeat in turn.
Taxonomic Family taxonomic family taxonomic family taxonomic family taxonomic family taxonomic family taxonomic family taxonomic family taxonomic family taxonomic family taxonomic family .
When Barbarian 's definition of evolution is literally what those at AIG believe (but they call it variation within a kind and adapting design), that's not truly evolution. May as well define evolution as "a rhesus monkey". Ofc rhesus monkey exist.
Evolution has always been this. Darwin described it as "descent with modification." After Mendel, it was "change in allele frequency." AiG has tried to redefine the term for obvious reasons.
What AIG calls "adapting" design, is observed macroevolution. (Macroevolution is evolution of new species)
They are between a rock and hard place. What they once denied, is observably true. So they retreated to allow for the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families, but they now claim that 'it's not real evolution."
Poor fellahs.
That may/may not be true - but that is what many athiests (evolution believers & God rejecters) have been led into thinking - by the PUBLIC SKOOL SYSTEM. And perhaps their peers.
try debating with an athiest on that.
But I do think, if evo will be taught as if a fact, your view of it should be included instead. We do not need the mainstream view of evolution that athiests love, where man is a rendered monkey.
Your way of creation comes from mans word. I based "how God made" on the Bible.
Mabye, after the serpent tricked them, adam and eve thought God was just wooing them with allegory when He told them to Not eat the fruit.
You also said YEC was "damage does to Christianity". Does it deal damage or does it reinforce???
Proof that theistic evolution is logically un sustainable & double mind.
You are tied between the Bible and athiest's favorite origin story. Choose the Bible.
I can flip the argument and say that you believe bioevo to make athiesm more acceptable. Or believing the Bible to be harder.
You are dodging yet again.
The big bang cosmology is mans word.
If the universe is expanding, 2 most likely scenarios - either God had it expanding without using some explosion - or humans sin caused it to begin expanding.
CAPFT is scientific, and observed. Evolution is not.
I know about the equivocation fallacy.
You think bioevo contradicts Creationism - so i KNOW there is more to evolution than the narrow definition you gave - that AIG people already know, and differentiate it from evolution.
No evidence. In fact, the Darwin lovers at biologos say this:
Ham is partly correct: the Adventists certainly didn’t invent the idea of a young earth. Nearly all Christians prior to the late eighteenth century believed that God created the world just a few thousand years ago,
So who is right? 1 individual compromiser or an article from an entire organization devoted to compromising Genesis?
I'd like some stats & backup.
So you hold OEC worldview. Correct?
State Representative John Washington Butler, a Tennessee farmer and head of the World Christian Fundamentals Association, lobbied state legislatures to pass anti-evolution laws. He succeeded when the Butler Act was passed in Tennessee, on March 25, 1925.[5] Butler later stated, "I didn't know anything about evolution ... I'd read in the papers that boys and girls were coming home from school and telling their fathers and mothers that the Bible was all nonsense." Tennessee governor Austin Peay signed the bill to gain support among rural legislators, but believed the law would neither be enforced nor interfere with education in Tennessee schools.[6] William Jennings Bryan thanked Peay enthusiastically for the bill: "The Christian parents of the state owe you a debt of gratitude for saving their children from the poisonous influence of an unproven hypothesis."[7]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial
If you think Christianity and evilution make a good mix - if you really still think God 'used evolution' after reading this excrept from evolution-loving Wikipedia , well, your compromise runs deep i guess.
oh? did you try using it? i think not.
and besides, you cannot verify that its "adventist". LoL.
wrong. its an age calculator not birth cert.
Strawmanning ye-creationism does you no good.
Wrong.
This caricature offers various starting points for an art-historical analysis. It was published three years after Darwin's work The Descent of Man (1871). Here, Darwin finally takes a stand and argues that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caricatures_of_Charles_Darwin_and_his_evolutionary_theory_in_19th-century_England
Who is wrong? Wikipedia... or you?
So given enough time, alleles changing could form a human population from a whale population, or any non-human population?? Say, billiions of years?
with magic million year anything can happen! lolz.
I'm just noting that you backpedaled on Genesis when you realized your new beliefs didn't fit.
It's why creationists don't have a testable definition of "kind."
So birds and maniraptoran dinosaurs are a "kind?" Humans, chimps, gorillas, and oranutans are a "kind?" You sure about that?
Most creationists break these families up into several "kinds." You see, they can't provide a testable definition of "kind."
Yes, but Jesus told us that the world would hate us. Some people just hate some denominations of us. Those people never actually got to know Him.
We don't see anything that couldn't have evolved by a change in allele frequencies.
Since you claim that this is possible (humans and other apes are of one taxonomic family, which you claim is the definition of "kind.") Do you actually accept it? Or should I show you how we know this?
While we don't see anything that couldn't have formed by a change in allele frequencies, that doesn't mean that anything can evolve into anything else. If you thought about it for a bit, I'm sure you could see why.
We do have abundant evidence that human populations evolved from other members of our family. Would you like to show you that?
Since you claim that this is possible (humans and other apes are of one taxonomic family, which you claim is the definition of "kind.") Do you actually accept it? Or should I show you how we know this?
While we don't see anything that couldn't have formed by a change in allele frequencies, that doesn't mean that anything can evolve into anything else. If you thought about it for a bit, I'm sure you could see why.
Darwin defined evolution as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. After Mendel it was a change in allele frequencies. AIG tried to redefine the term for obvious reasons.
Wikipedia isn't wrong. You just confused "have a common ancestor" with "evolved from." It would be a huge help to you here, if you'd take the time and learn what these things mean before you tell us about it.
No, I'm right about that. You'll see that AIG has redefined Darwin's and Morgan's definitions to something very different. This is because as time went on, it became obvious that evolution, as scientists define it, goes on all around us. So AIG redefined it to essentially "evolution so great that we are unlikely to see it happen in a human lifetime."
I see what has you confused...
In fact, all mammals share a common ancestor. The evidence shows that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor. (although Darwin didn't have that evidence, and suggest that it could have been a number of original forms) Because you haven't really thought this out very well, you've confused this fact with the creationist superstition that evolution is about monkeys evolving into humans. Again, if you thought about it carefully for a bit, I'm sure you'd see your mistake.
Wikipedia isn't wrong. You just confused "have a common ancestor" with "evolved from." It would be a huge help to you here, if you'd take the time and learn what these things mean before you tell us about it.
Yep, all ID Christians of reasonable+ intellect, and old-time Evolutionists of reasonable+ intellect, should read Perry Marshall's Evolution 2.0. Biological evolution works in real time: https://evo2.org/dawkins-noble-debate/. Lamarck is back!
Have you read Nature's Destiny? I don't agree with everything Denton writes here, but I think he's onto something in supposing a teleology in which nature is "front loaded" to produce life.
"Monkeys to human" superstition of creationists; it's not something evolutionary theory predicts.
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
peacefulscience.org
This is obvious from the Scofield Reference Bible (1909), which was very widely used by conservative Protestants in North America and England for decades. Scofield officially endorsed the two views I just told you about, leaving the possibility of a young earth unmentioned. Indeed, hardly any leader of the first generation of Christian “fundamentalists” believed in a recent creation, a fact that AiG reluctantly admits.
During that same period, the Adventists were almost alone in holding and aggressively promoting the YEC view. That part of the story begins with Ellen White. Born in Maine in 1827, she was a major prophet who helped found the Seventh-day Adventist Church. White’s ideas—including her “visions” of what happened during the creation week in Genesis (which essentially match the ideas of Ham’s organization)—were not widely read outside of Adventist circles. However, in the early twentieth century a former schoolteacher, a Canadian Adventist named George McCready Price, wrote dozens of books and articles that made White’s ideas very familiar to millions of conservative Protestants with no Adventist connections. For the most part, those readers did not embrace a young earth or “flood geology,” but they loved Price’s defense of a global flood and his wholesale assault on evolution. After discovering Price and other Adventist authors for themselves, the founders of modern creationism, Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr., borrowed heavily from them—especially the young earth and flood geology, as Ronald Numbers has shown (not to mention several other historians, including me).
biologos.org
Prior to that, most creationists were OE creationists.
OE was the form of creationism presented by creationists at the Scopes Trial, for example.
Am I OEC? Well, the Earth is demonstrably billions of years old, and God created it. Does that qualify?
Nope. You've really been fooled by someone on that. No one with any understanding of evolution thinks humans evolved from monkeys. Nor does public school teach that. I get to review biology textbooks from time to time, and I've never seen such a thing.
As I showed you, that's a creationist superstition. It's not part of evolutionary theory.
I accept it God's way. You insert man's new doctrines into His word to make it more acceptable to you.
According to former YE creationist and ICR graduate Glenn Morton, YEC is a great atheist-maker.
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism
In memory of Glenn Morton (1950-2020), Peaceful Science is republishing his personal account and testimony of leaving Young-Earth Creationism.
peacefulscience.org
The guys at Biologos who point out that YE creationism was invented by the Adventists. The guys who fed you that quote cut off the rest of the article to fool you. Here's the part they hid from you:
This is obvious from the Scofield Reference Bible (1909), which was very widely used by conservative Protestants in North America and England for decades. Scofield officially endorsed the two views I just told you about, leaving the possibility of a young earth unmentioned. Indeed, hardly any leader of the first generation of Christian “fundamentalists” believed in a recent creation, a fact that AiG reluctantly admits.
During that same period, the Adventists were almost alone in holding and aggressively promoting the YEC view. That part of the story begins with Ellen White. Born in Maine in 1827, she was a major prophet who helped found the Seventh-day Adventist Church. White’s ideas—including her “visions” of what happened during the creation week in Genesis (which essentially match the ideas of Ham’s organization)—were not widely read outside of Adventist circles. However, in the early twentieth century a former schoolteacher, a Canadian Adventist named George McCready Price, wrote dozens of books and articles that made White’s ideas very familiar to millions of conservative Protestants with no Adventist connections. For the most part, those readers did not embrace a young earth or “flood geology,” but they loved Price’s defense of a global flood and his wholesale assault on evolution. After discovering Price and other Adventist authors for themselves, the founders of modern creationism, Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr., borrowed heavily from them—especially the young earth and flood geology, as Ronald Numbers has shown (not to mention several other historians, including me).
Ken Ham’s Alternative History of Creationism - BioLogos
Almost a century ago, the greatest theologian of the modern era rejected the false dichotomy between evolution and biblical faith.
biologos.org
Prior to that, most creationists were OE creationists.
Your own source says so. It's a good idea to read the original article before citing it.
OE was the form of creationism presented by creationists at the Scopes Trial, for example.
God's word and reality are never in conflict. Why not just accept it His way?
We can observe that today. Descent with modfication is the way populations adapt and survive. God uses nature for almost everything in this world. Those fairy tales you quoted were from dishonest people who deliberately misrepresented what the theory is about.
Am I OEC? Well, the Earth is demonstrably billions of years old, and God created it. Does that qualify?
Hey All,
Evolutionists are easy to debate.
Their whole premise is incorrect because it not logical.
Evolution proclaims "survival of the fittest" meaning that the weaker organism goes extinct while the stronger survives.
Evolution concentrates on the organism.
But they miss, or fail to explain, the "survival" part of the phrase.
The world can accommodate both weak and strong for a time.
Then some factor in the Earth's existence causes the weaker organism to go extinct.
That is not evolution.
That is the second law of thermodynamics at work.
The earth is becoming less and less sustainable as time and extinct species show.
That is the observable and repeated circumstances that can be seen over time.
The world right now is worried about bees going extinct.
Without bees, many food plants would not get pollinated.
That will cause further extinction as animals, and even humans, will lose valuable food resources.
Plants that are male and female, which have no way to self-pollinate, will not propagate.
And so on and so on, until the last species.
We are not evolving.
We are surviving.
We will not survive forever.
Right now it is a slow process.
As more and more species go extinct, the world becomes less and less sustainable.
That process will likely become faster.
The earth is not evolving.
The earth is dying.
To argue evolution is to argue extinction.
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
That is not that far off from what Peter wrote.
John agrees.
Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
This is why I can agree with Darwin.
He was on the right path.
But he focused on the living, and equated that to being better because of survivability.
Maybe he was right in his focus.
However, he did not concentrate on why was there a need for survival.
That's the question to ask evolutionists.
Why is there a need to survive?
Because the extinction process continues.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
P.S. I am going to post this for discussion in the Science forum where it can freely be discussed.
Evolutionists are easy to debate.
Their whole premise is incorrect because it not logical.
Evolution proclaims "survival of the fittest" meaning that the weaker organism goes extinct while the stronger survives.
Evolution concentrates on the organism.
But they miss, or fail to explain, the "survival" part of the phrase.
The world can accommodate both weak and strong for a time.
Then some factor in the Earth's existence causes the weaker organism to go extinct.
That is not evolution.
That is the second law of thermodynamics at work.
The earth is becoming less and less sustainable as time and extinct species show.
That is the observable and repeated circumstances that can be seen over time.
The world right now is worried about bees going extinct.
Without bees, many food plants would not get pollinated.
That will cause further extinction as animals, and even humans, will lose valuable food resources.
Plants that are male and female, which have no way to self-pollinate, will not propagate.
And so on and so on, until the last species.
We are not evolving.
We are surviving.
We will not survive forever.
Right now it is a slow process.
As more and more species go extinct, the world becomes less and less sustainable.
That process will likely become faster.
The earth is not evolving.
The earth is dying.
To argue evolution is to argue extinction.
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
That is not that far off from what Peter wrote.
John agrees.
Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
This is why I can agree with Darwin.
He was on the right path.
But he focused on the living, and equated that to being better because of survivability.
Maybe he was right in his focus.
However, he did not concentrate on why was there a need for survival.
That's the question to ask evolutionists.
Why is there a need to survive?
Because the extinction process continues.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
P.S. I am going to post this for discussion in the Science forum where it can freely be discussed.
Last edited:
Of the reading of books there is no end and much weariness to the flesh (Ec.12:12)! But some are well worth it. Michael Denton is basically ID (Intelligent Design). Perry Marshall is basically IE (Intelligent Evolution). Richard Dawkins is basically RE (Random Evolution). Denton is good for the anthropic principle (so Anthony Flew). But ID posits numerous interventions by deity (God-in-the-gaps) and here I think that IE gives a better explanation via self-evolving coding kick-started by deity, though allowing for spiritual, not biological, interventional steps, such as transforming ape to Genesis man (imago dei), and what C S Lewis called the Next Step as the cross of Christ.
- Status