CREATION vs EVOLUTION
Greg
justify the Bible in light of supposed Evolutionary theories. Since they
won't study the Bible as they do Evolution, they will never be able to
see the difference and realize Evolution for the Unscientific Lie that
it is. Not only is Evolution an unscientific Lie, it is anti-God, a
theory, not fact, and can be proven for the false ideology it actually
is.
1. EVOLUTION IS AN UNSCIENTIFIC LIE
The basis of Science is to look around and find data, i.e., facts...with
no presuppositions...relying only upon what is found, then making
judgments. Those findings are then tested against known criteria, and
judgements are THEN made on the basis of the PROVEN facts. This is true
science. For example,
A Forensic Pathologist can come pretty close to determining the actual
cause of death for a badly decomposed body. However, in some areas, he
must rely on guesswork, and states what is known fact and what is
guesswork in his reports. He must do this because the Law demands it,
his work can be closely checked, and his future is at stake. This is the
legitimate use of the scientific method.
Evolutionists and most scientists do not have these strictures placed
upon them, and so, can make wild guesses, then go about trying to find
data(?) to "prove" their prior suppositions. For example,
We hear a lot of speculation these days about life on other planets.
Well, first you have to find those planets, then you have to show they
have the ability to sustain life, then you have to show they actually do
have life, if you want them to meet your PRESUPPOSITIONS and your HOPES.
Guess what? Knowing "Scientists" and "Evolutionists" as the godless and
Revisionist rascals that they are, I've known for years that they'll
find the planets, the water, and the life out there in space. It may not
suit our definition of life, be too far away, and too full of big word
gobaldegook for the average Joe to understand, but most "Christians"
will fall for it, as they always have for past "Scientific" discoveries,
though they'll have a tough time rectifying it with the Bible. Then
we'll go back through the old "Let's justify Evolution and the Bible"
again that we've been hearing since the 1890's. I've seen it crop up
evey decade for the past 50 years, myself. This is nothing new. Every
Generation thinks it is the only ones who ever heard of it. Americans
hate history and they hate to read. So this is what they get.
You do not build cars or tables on theory. Yes, theories are good to
start with, but the final model is turned out by facts. Even then it
may have to be recalled because somebody forgot or overlooked a fact.
They have to be built this way...the penalty is too heavy to
contemplate: You go out of business! Scientists never go out of
business...there's no penalty, except the Government asking for another
report.
2. EVOLUTION IS ANTI-GOD
In the mid to latter 19th century it became fashionable for Bible
"Scholars" in the major Universities and Seminaries around the world to
investigate, not the Bible, but the writers, Archaeologists,
manuscripts, scribes, and theology schools. Their aim: discredit these
people and you can discredit the whole rotten system of Biblical
Christianity. What we need, they cried, is a Scientific approach to the
Bible. We will show it is a nice literary work, full of myths, wild
claims, and human errors, but certainly not THE WORD OF GOD! Who would
be so conceited as to put themselves on such a level to proclaim that
they had GOD'S WORD? No, no, this is simply just good literature, worthy
of our literary study, but nothing to live by, chapter and verse! While
there are sincere people in all walks of life, these guys, by and large
have nice clothes, good limousines, great handshakes, kindly smiles, but
remember to forget something once in a while. Science, too, has its
trappings and its moneymakers. You must either be a top gun or a
fellow-traveler to run with the die-hard evolutionist group!
If you don't believe this has actually happened in our society, come
with me to the National Methodist Church USA, Philadelphia Convention,
and see the top 3 "Patriarchs" of the church ask me if I believed the
Bible was the Word of God. When I said "Yes", they said, "But not the
literal word of God, surely." I said "Yes". Then the top Bishop asked
me, "Do you mean, where it says in Revelation, that a sword comes out of
Jesus' mouth, you believe it to be a literal sword?" I said, "Yes, I
believe it will be a literal sword. I don't know how it will look, but
when we see it, we will say, "Oh, of course!" He then said, "Well,
you'll never work in this Church convention!" Imagine that! A man who
was ordained by, and heads a church that was founded by John Wesley to
preach the LITERAL Gospel of Christ, who doesn't believe it is literal.
Wonder what the great Wesley would think. This guy preached platitudes,
but was never able to feed his flock. This is the direct result of our
Universities and Seminaries teaching the Bible as Literature, not the
WORD of God. And millions fall for it. Little wonder Jesus
said,"...because ye are neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my
mouth."
Evolution postulates a creation and an on-going process that knows no
god, but only actions of forces...a PROCESS that GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST
THE BIBLE'S WORDS. It was begun in the 19th century specifically to "rid
the world of this idiotic belief in some supreme being"...read Darwin's
writings and those of his "Scientific" friends, if you do not believe
this. No, you either have to believe in Evolution or believe in the
Bible. There is no just and honorable way to avoid this issue by trying
to justify them both. For when you justify, you MUST make the Bible say
what it does not say. Anyone who does this is being intellectually
dishonest.
2. EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT FACT
Despite the outrageous claims of its adherents, Evolution has been
demonstrated to be a fraud in every instance where it has been
scientifically tested...by its adherents and its detractors, and it can
not be found at work in today's world. That is why it is still called
The THEORY of Evolution. For example:
The Ice Age is taught in our schools and referred to on Television as
though it were fact. The FACT is that there are indications that an Ice
Age COULD have happened, but there are no facts to support it...only
theories. A so-called Scientist, in the 1890's came upon a huge boulder
in New York City's Central Park, and wondered how this singular boulder
could have occurred in such a place without massive surrounding boulders
to indicate its place of origin. As he searched throughout New England,
he found large fields of boulders and rocky crags...the same farther
west in Wisconsin, and then Canada. He made maps of the areas of the
rocks and crags, and even glaciers. His supposition was that these had
all been moved down across North America by huge glaciers that have
since retreated, during an Ice Age. Of course the same facts are true
from the South Pole north through South America, but no one has
postulated a reverse Ice Age flowing North. A nice theory, but to date,
nothing has unquestionably shown that this did happen. It is theory, and
should be taught as theory. But it is not.
Neither are the huge monsters and Raptors...very little of their actual
remains have been discovered, but that's allright, Plaster of Paris
works just as well as bones...not enough to put together the vast
displays in our museums...but they are wondered at, nevertheless, by the
populace. Why? Because they will not STUDY with an OPEN MIND.
While believing the Bible to be full of mistakes and magic, the populace
falls for the black magic of the Evolutionary Pseudo-scientists, who
teach theories as if they were truths. We hate the way the Catholic
Church, when it ruled the Western World, taught church dogma even with
whips and the rack and burning at the stake. This is where the term
"Dogmatic" comes from. But today Scientists are equally as dogmatic
about their theories, and they are taught to your children, as they were
to mine, as proven fact, when any open, truly objective mind must recoil
at being forced to believe what may or may not be true! I prefer the
Bible's simple statement that the Earth was divided in Peleg's day...a
world-wide movement of land masses whose eventual crushing force could
account for the boulder as well as the Rockies and the Alps and the
Himalayas, and the Continents, and the Islands, and the Fossils, and the
loss of Species, and the people arriving on the continents rather than
crossing the Bering Strait...they came with it. Nice THEORY, don't you
think? So what if I have no proof, let's ram it down everybody's throat,
dogmatically. Well why not? The Opposition does...and our Government
pays our tax money for the effort!
3. I BELIEVE OTHERWISE
The Bible itself prophesied such a turn around, when the Prophet Daniel
spoke of the last days in a world believing in a god of forces...the
Apostle Paul spoke about teachers with itching ears, striving to learn
the truth but never able to come to the truth. THE BIBLE CLAIMS FOR
ITSELF TO BE THE WORD OF GOD. It tells us that we can find God if we
will search for him as we search for silver and gold. Few there are that
will search that hard to find him, but we seem to live in a world that
will try that hard to doubt him.
Evolution will only be proven as fact to those who want to escape from
God, and will forever be intellectually dishonest, while proclaiming
their own independent, unbiased, search for evidence. But faith is the
substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. I
will lean on my faith, my substance and my evidence...therefore I need
not be afraid for the criticism of the godless, the darkness that comes
with the night, the bombs that fall from the terrorist, the death that
will one day over take me. I will awake with my Saviour and Lord, Jesus
Christ, and live among those who have washed their robes and come out of
this world, forever and ever.
When our civilization comes to the great Divorcement from God, which
this world will put in writing, saying "You may not believe in God;
there is no God; renounce him or be banished from the earth"...On which
side will you stand? With the Evolutionists? With the Evolutionist-Bible
Justifiers? With the Bible believing born again Christians? You WILL
have to decide, you know.
biller...@sprint.ca
My opinion,
You will notice in Genesis 1 that "and" is used 59 times.
This sets up the chronology of the "creation" events.
It is through misunderstanding of the chronology that allows the
errant theory of evolution to linger.
Evolutionists "in-toto" accept the Law of Gravity because they do not
realize that evidence of a "Law" is evidence of a "Law-Giver". The
universe contains billions of stars in billions of galaxies, all of
which are tracking a predictable path. Evidence that innumerable
stars are obeying ONE command: across a universe where distances are
measured in light years. At the speed of 186,000 miles per second,
it's a pretty big place. Perhaps that's why HE is called ALMIGHTY
GOD.
Examine a leaf of a tree in summer, you will see also a pattern in the
leaf. Size, shape, colour, etc, what is this but evidence of "Law".
When that leaf or flower falls to the ground in autumn,
It decomposes, going from "order" to "disorder"
Evolutions say the opposite, they say "out of disorder to order".
They're only turned 180 degrees from the facts. And the facts are the
truth.
Enjoy
Bill Erickson
John Ings
>Most believers in God have trouble with Evolution
No they don't. Only fundamentalists do.
> because they can't justify the Bible in light of supposed Evolutionary theories.
Or the plain facts of reality. But it's only the fundamentalist
literalist-inerrantist that has such problems.
> Since they won't study the Bible as they do Evolution,
They study it. They just don't take it literally.
>they will never be able to
>see the difference and realize Evolution for the Unscientific Lie that
>it is. Not only is Evolution an unscientific Lie, it is anti-God,
Both these assertions are completely untrue.
> a theory, not fact, and can be proven for the false ideology it actually
>is.
Not by you.
>1. EVOLUTION IS AN UNSCIENTIFIC LIE
>The basis of Science is to look around and find data, i.e., facts...with
>no presuppositions...
Foo! You can have all the presuppositions you want, as long as you
don't cling to them in the face of contrary evidence.
>relying only upon what is found, then making
>judgments. Those findings are then tested against known criteria, and
>judgements are THEN made on the basis of the PROVEN facts. This is true
>science.
>Evolutionists and most scientists do not have these strictures placed
>upon them,
Of course they do. The scientific method applies to all science.
> and so, can make wild guesses, then go about trying to find
>data(?) to "prove" their prior suppositions.
The scientific method does not forbid that. With evolution however,
the facts came first.
> Knowing "Scientists" and "Evolutionists" as the godless and
>Revisionist rascals that they are,
So how is it many of them are devout Christians? Oh I know!
They're not fundamentalists so they're not real Christians!
>You do not build cars or tables on theory.
Ford did. So did Gottlieb Daimler.
>Yes, theories are good to
>start with, but the final model is turned out by facts. Even then it
>may have to be recalled because somebody forgot or overlooked a fact.
>They have to be built this way...the penalty is too heavy to
>contemplate: You go out of business! Scientists never go out of
>business...there's no penalty, except the Government asking for another
>report.
Nitwit!
It's scientists who are turning out cars. And aeroplanes and
computers and the internet that allows you to publish this drivel!
>2. EVOLUTION IS ANTI-GOD
>In the mid to latter 19th century it became fashionable for Bible
>"Scholars" in the major Universities and Seminaries around the world to
>investigate, not the Bible, but the writers, Archaeologists,
>manuscripts, scribes, and theology schools. Their aim:
Truth.
> discredit these people and you can discredit the whole rotten system of Biblical
>Christianity.
No that was just a by-product.
> What we need, they cried, is a Scientific approach to the
>Bible. We will show it is a nice literary work, full of myths, wild
>claims, and human errors, but certainly not THE WORD OF GOD!
And that's just what it turned out to be.
>Who would
>be so conceited as to put themselves on such a level to proclaim that
>they had GOD'S WORD?
Indeed. And how would you know it was God even if that's where it did
come from?
>No, no, this is simply just good literature,
Well some of it is . . .
> worthy
>of our literary study, but nothing to live by, chapter and verse! While
>there are sincere people in all walks of life, these guys, by and large
>have nice clothes, good limousines, great handshakes, kindly smiles, but
>remember to forget something once in a while. Science, too, has its
>trappings and its moneymakers. You must either be a top gun or a
>fellow-traveler to run with the die-hard evolutionist group!
Evolution has nothing to do with the Bible or religious conviction.
There is no reason evolution could not be God's tool.
>If you don't believe this has actually happened in our society, come
>with me to the National Methodist Church USA, Philadelphia Convention,
>and see the top 3 "Patriarchs" of the church ask me if I believed the
>Bible was the Word of God. When I said "Yes", they said, "But not the
>literal word of God, surely." I said "Yes". Then the top Bishop asked
>me, "Do you mean, where it says in Revelation, that a sword comes out of
>Jesus' mouth, you believe it to be a literal sword?" I said, "Yes, I
>believe it will be a literal sword. I don't know how it will look, but
>when we see it, we will say, "Oh, of course!" He then said, "Well,
>you'll never work in this Church convention!" Imagine that! A man who
>was ordained by, and heads a church that was founded by John Wesley to
>preach the LITERAL Gospel of Christ, who doesn't believe it is literal.
Because he isn't stupid, like literalist inerrantists. Face it you're
part of the conservative nut fringe. No wonder the man was disgusted
with you.
>Wonder what the great Wesley would think. This guy preached platitudes,
>but was never able to feed his flock. This is the direct result of our
>Universities and Seminaries teaching the Bible as Literature, not the
>WORD of God. And millions fall for it.
You inerrantists have had your run. A whole milennium when everybody
agreed the Bible was God's literal word, and inerrant. Historians
refer to that time as the Dark Ages, when everyone lived in ignorance
and squalour.
> Evolution postulates a creation and an on-going process that knows no
>god,
No it does not. God is not considered with regard to evolution, but
that isn't the same as excluded.
> but only actions of forces...a PROCESS that GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST
>THE BIBLE'S WORDS.
No, just your narrow minded interpretation of the Bible's words.
>It was begun in the 19th century specifically to "rid
>the world of this idiotic belief in some supreme being"...read Darwin's
>writings and those of his "Scientific" friends, if you do not believe
>this.
I have, and you're dead wrong. Darwin started out as a devout
Christian. He even considered entering the ministry. It was only after
collecting data and studying it for decades that he proposed the
theory of evolution to explain what he had observed. It wasn't theory
first, then a frantic search for supporting fact, but just the
opposite. The reluctant advancement of a theory he knew would be
controversial to explain facts long since gathered and documented.
>No, you either have to believe in Evolution or believe in the
>Bible.
Curious that many can believe both with no difficulty.
Not everyone is a literalist.
>There is no just and honorable way to avoid this issue by trying
>to justify them both. For when you justify, you MUST make the Bible say
>what it does not say. Anyone who does this is being intellectually
>dishonest.
It is the inerrantist that is intellectually dishonest. He assumes the
Bible to be inerrant on no sound basis, only faith.
>2. EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT FACT
>Despite the outrageous claims of its adherents, Evolution has been
>demonstrated to be a fraud in every instance where it has been
>scientifically tested...
A Creationist shibboleth that is completely untrue.
>by its adherents and its detractors, and it can
>not be found at work in today's world.
You wish!
>That is why it is still called The THEORY of Evolution. For example:
>
>The Ice Age is taught in our schools and referred to on Television as
>though it were fact. The FACT is that there are indications that an Ice
>Age COULD have happened, but there are no facts to support it...only
>theories.
You may have difficulty explaining that to a geologist. Especially one
who lives in my neck of the woods. What with glacial moraines all over
the place and not a glacier in sight for thousands of miles.
>A so-called Scientist, in the 1890's came upon a huge boulder
>in New York City's Central Park, and wondered how this singular boulder
>could have occurred in such a place without massive surrounding boulders
>to indicate its place of origin. As he searched throughout New England,
>he found large fields of boulders and rocky crags...the same farther
>west in Wisconsin, and then Canada. He made maps of the areas of the
>rocks and crags, and even glaciers. His supposition was that these had
>all been moved down across North America by huge glaciers that have
>since retreated, during an Ice Age. Of course the same facts are true
>from the South Pole north through South America, but no one has
>postulated a reverse Ice Age flowing North.
Are you sure about that Elmer?
> A nice theory, but to date,
>nothing has unquestionably shown that this did happen.
Of course they have! Especially since modern science can test that
boulder and tell you by its composition within a few hundred miles
where it came from.
>Neither are the huge monsters and Raptors...very little of their actual
>remains have been discovered,
Are you saying that there are NO such remains?
> but that's allright, Plaster of Paris
>works just as well as bones...
You're saying such bones are spurious then. But I come from a part of
Canada very close to where those bones are dug up, and I have seen the
digs with my own eyes. You're full of lies my Creationist friend, but
with Creationists that's the usual situation.
>not enough to put together the vast
>displays in our museums...but they are wondered at, nevertheless, by the
>populace. Why? Because they will not STUDY with an OPEN MIND.
Said he, from the depths of his tightly closed mind . . .
>While believing the Bible to be full of mistakes and magic, the populace
>falls for the black magic of the Evolutionary Pseudo-scientists, who
>teach theories as if they were truths. We hate the way the Catholic
>Church, when it ruled the Western World, taught church dogma even with
>whips and the rack and burning at the stake. This is where the term
>"Dogmatic" comes from. But today Scientists are equally as dogmatic
>about their theories,
They use the rack and whips do they? No, that's a Christian method.
>and they are taught to your children, as they were
>to mine, as proven fact, when any open, truly objective mind must recoil
>at being forced to believe what may or may not be true! I prefer the
>Bible's simple statement that the Earth was divided in Peleg's day...a
>world-wide movement of land masses whose eventual crushing force could
>account for the boulder
No it couldn't. No such force would produce a smoothly rounded
boulder.
>as well as the Rockies and the Alps and the
>Himalayas, and the Continents, and the Islands, and the Fossils,
Again no, it could not, for a dozen reasons. No single, momentary
event could produce strata that has clearly taken hundreds of millions
of years to form. Nor would it sort fossil life forms out into neat
layers from simple kinds in the lower strata to more comlex ones in
the higher.
> and the
>loss of Species, and the people arriving on the continents rather than
>crossing the Bering Strait...they came with it. Nice THEORY, don't you
>think?
No I think it's a crummy theory that doesn't match the data even
approximately.
> So what if I have no proof, let's ram it down everybody's throat,
>dogmatically.
First you must demonstrate its accuracy. And the government does not
ram. Modern textbook writers are so afraid of the fundamentalist lobby
these days they hardly mention evolution.
> Well why not? The Opposition does...and our Government
>pays our tax money for the effort!
That's because they proved their case.
>3. I BELIEVE OTHERWISE
>The Bible itself prophesied such a turn around, when the Prophet Daniel
>spoke
A fraud and a lie from start to finish. A book of bad history
presented as prophecy.
>Evolution will only be proven as fact to those who want to escape from
>God, and will forever be intellectually dishonest, while proclaiming
>their own independent, unbiased, search for evidence.
You are guilty yourself of the very crime you accuse science of
comitting. You not only want to cling to God, you want to cling to a
God who is printed on paper. You will have no trust in what God wrote
in the rocks of the earth with his own hand. No, you want what ancient
priests claimed God inspired them to write and if it conflicts with
reality you decide in favour of the myth, and try and twist reality to
fit!
> But faith is the
>substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. I
>will lean on my faith, my substance and my evidence...
And continue to delude yourself.
## Shall God govern by the laws of nature,
## or priests by fictitious miracles?
Hunter Int.
To no surprise of mine, you blithered...
>No they don't. Only fundamentalists do.
Ah, as if true "fundamentalists" could be anything other than 100% accurate
anyway.
John, do *you* even know what a "fundamentalist" is? If so, would you agree
that a true "fundamentalist" would be basing their matters of Faith and
practice on the "fundamentals" of the Faith?
Do you even know what the "fundamentals" are, John...?
>Or the plain facts of reality. But it's only the fundamentalist
>literalist-inerrantist that has such problems.
Oh, I get it. Ol' John has now lumped all "fundamentalists" into a category
to include "inerrantists", too. It keeps getting better!!
And "literalist"? Is there something wrong with that? "Is there a problem
here, officer..?"
John, as each day goes by, I can see why you have such a weird idea of what
Faith in God is all about. You've been duped, buddy, you've got both sides
wrong, yours and mine. No wonder you're such a mess.
I can't answer the rest of this post, as it's all John's *opinions*, and
they're wrong for the most part. They may apply to a some folks here and
there, but they don't apply to me. Yet I am, indeed, a "fundamentalist".
Poor John just doesn't yet know what that means, so he's decided for me, in
my absence, just like most of the other atheists out there.
He hasn't even bothered to ask, he's simply decided. Much like his boys in
the evolution crowd, you know. They haven't finished the matter, but
they've decided that they're going to be right anyway!
Man, it just keeps getting better and better...
Dave...
John Ings
<cle...@starnetinc.com> wrote:
>John,
>
>To no surprise of mine, you blithered...
>
>>No they don't. Only fundamentalists do.
In answer to the assertion "Most believers in God have trouble with
Evolution"
>Ah, as if true "fundamentalists" could be anything other than 100% accurate
>anyway.
As if.
And as if most believers in God are fundamentalists, which certainly
isn't true.
>John, do *you* even know what a "fundamentalist" is?
The following definition comes from the Blackwell Encyclopedia of
Modern Christian Thought- (capital emphasis mine)
"Fundamentalism- A movement originating in the USA, which takes its
name from the publication of a series of pamphlets during the early
part of the twentieth century (1910-15) called The Fundamentals: A
Testimony to the Truth (Torrey, [1917] 1980). The movement took on a
more organized form with the convening of the World Conference on
Christian Fundamentals in Philadelphia in May 1919.
In reaction to what was perceived as a ,'modernist' trend in theology
by the more liberally inclined theologians [ . . .] , the authors of
The Fundamentals sought to restate the basic tenets of orthodox
theology in the form of several 'fundamentals of the faith'. Among
these were: an inspired and INERRANT Bible; the deity of Christ and
his atoning death for sin on the cross; his bodily resurrection and
ascension; and his return to judge the world, consign the Devil and
unrepentant sinners to hell and resurrect those who belonged to Christ
to live eternally in heaven with God (Ellingsen, 1988, pp. 49-72).
These fundamental doctrines were used as a touchstone to identify
denominational leaders and theologians who were suspected of
'modernist' tendencies. Fundamentalism as a movement has both
spiritual and theological antecedents in the evangelical revivals in
Britain as well as in the USA "
> If so, would you agree that a true "fundamentalist" would be basing their
>matters of Faith and practice on the "fundamentals" of the Faith?
I certainly would.
>Do you even know what the "fundamentals" are, John...?
See above.
>>Or the plain facts of reality.
That too. The plain facts of reality are that the Bible definitely is
NOT inerrrant, and fundamentalism amounts to fanaticism in my
opinion..
>> But it's only the fundamentalist
>>literalist-inerrantist that has such problems.
>
>Oh, I get it. Ol' John has now lumped all "fundamentalists" into a category
>to include "inerrantists", too. It keeps getting better!!
Again, see above.
Inerrantism is one of the foundation stones of fundamentalism.
>And "literalist"? Is there something wrong with that?
Yes. It's stupid.
>"Is there a problem here, officer..?"
Indeed there is. Fundamentalists are causing a good deal of trouble
these days. Fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible inerrant.
Fundamentalist Muslims who believe the Koran to be inerrant, etc..
>John, as each day goes by, I can see why you have such a weird idea of what
>Faith in God is all about.
I get it from these newsgroups, and the faith I find in here is indeed
weird.
>I can't answer the rest of this post, as it's all John's *opinions*, and
>they're wrong for the most part.
Said he, declaring them wrong while exposing his inability to refute
them.
>They may apply to a some folks here and there,
And everywhere
> but they don't apply to me. Yet I am, indeed, a "fundamentalist".
I agree. One of the characteristics of the true fundamentalist seems
to be that he thinks his fellows are "not true Christians" and that HE
is. I guess the same characteristic applies to the question of who is
and who isn't a 'true' fundamentalist.
>Poor John just doesn't yet know what that means, so he's decided for me, in
>my absence, just like most of the other atheists out there.
>
>He hasn't even bothered to ask, he's simply decided.
I didn't need to ask. You offered the evidence before I needed to.
You said, and I quote- "To no surprise of mine, you blithered..."
In other words you considered my denial of the statement
"Most believers in God have trouble with Evolution"
to be blithering. To be in error.
Now are you really asserting that most people who belive in God have
trouble with evolution? Do you really think Creationists constitute
some kind of majority? Or is that you don't consider Christians who
acknowledge evolution to be believers in God? Not up to your standards
of belief perhaps?
## FUNDAMENTALISM: Text without context.
biller...@sprint.ca
My opinion,
You will notice in Genesis 1 that "and" is used 59 times.
This sets up the chronology of the "creation" events.
It is through misunderstanding of the chronology that allows the
errant theory of evolution to linger.
Evolutionists "in-toto" accept the Law of Gravity because they do not
realize that evidence of a "Law" is evidence of a "Law-Giver". The
universe contains billions of stars in billions of galaxies, all of
which are tracking a predictable path. Evidence that innumerable
stars are obeying ONE command: across a universe where distances are
measured in light years. At the speed of 186,000 miles per second,
it's a pretty big place. Perhaps that's why HE is called ALMIGHTY
GOD.
Examine a leaf of a tree in summer, you will see also a pattern in the
leaf. Size, shape, colour, etc, what is this but evidence of "Law".
When that leaf or flower falls to the ground in autumn,
It decomposes, going from "order" to "disorder"
Evolutions say the opposite, they say "out of disorder to order".
They're only turned 180 degrees from the facts. And the facts that
John Ings
>My opinion,
>You will notice in Genesis 1 that "and" is used 59 times.
>This sets up the chronology of the "creation" events.
But why is the order of events wrong?
>It is through misunderstanding of the chronology that allows the
>errant theory of evolution to linger.
>
>Evolutionists "in-toto" accept the Law of Gravity because they do not
>realize that evidence of a "Law" is evidence of a "Law-Giver".
But is it YOUR law giver? Your wooly Old Testament God?
> The
>universe contains billions of stars in billions of galaxies, all of
>which are tracking a predictable path. Evidence that innumerable
>stars are obeying ONE command: across a universe where distances are
>measured in light years. At the speed of 186,000 miles per second,
>it's a pretty big place. Perhaps that's why HE is called ALMIGHTY
>GOD.
But what do you know of this god? Nothing.
>Examine a leaf of a tree in summer, you will see also a pattern in the
>leaf. Size, shape, colour, etc, what is this but evidence of "Law".
>When that leaf or flower falls to the ground in autumn,
>It decomposes, going from "order" to "disorder"
And is then absorbed by another plant, going back to "order" again.
You have heard of gardener's mulch haven't you?
>Evolutions say the opposite, they say "out of disorder to order".
Every day, everywhere. Just look.
>They're only turned 180 degrees from the facts.
No, YOU are!
## Faith enslaves thought so as not to be troubled by doubt