It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A True Christian Can Not Believe in Evolution !

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Here is what I cannot understand...

why is it when Creationists take arguments from Evolutionists to their absurd conclusions do you Evolutionists think the Creationists are absurd instead of pondering, "Hey, maybe the claims of Evolution are absurd"?


Because there are no arguments from evolution that have absurd conclusions.


I disagree, there are many. (You see, I can be just as arbitrary as you.)


Now, I'm recognizing a pattern here. I'm expected to respond to a 10 minute video, which I do with about 1500 words worth of deconstruction...and you attach yourself to the easy parts and take only a smattering of my post to respond to.


I apologize, it's partly lack of interest. I have a few things I need to do on my day off, and also I don't really enjoy the "Evidence VS Evidence" arguments, they are always a never-ending circle.


You claim that I'm playing a semantics game, though I state that I think the dude probably isn't mentioning the periodic table of elements version of elements, though possibly he meant the number of individual atoms involved or something.


My apologies, I'll admit I quoted the beginning and addressed it without reading the conclusion of that particular group of sentences.


The whole point I was trying to make that the totality of all arguments against what is perceived to be evolution in that video had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, and what little did have to do with science had either a gross simplification or complete misunderstanding of the science at hand. The only citations made in the whole video were of the Bible, even though there was some information that clearly required citation.


Again, my first statement above. Where are your citations? Kent Hovind provides citations from science textbooks, Evolutionist quotes, et cetra in virtually all of his power-point slides, yet that means nothing.


And there's no evidence to show that the peanut butter thing is a joke. I've looked into it since you mentioned it, but nowhere have I seen that it's a joke.


It's mocking abiogenesis. Of course he doesn't think life can arise by chance out of peanut butter. That should go without even mentioning, yet skeptics think the man is genuinely serious. That's the hilarious part.


No matter how life came about, evolution is fact.


I agree, Evolution is a fact. I can play the fallacy of equivocation too.



I'm not going to bother responding to the rest, but evolution is definitely not absurd. It is doubtlessly the only scientific theory for the origin of biodiversity that has any sort of evidence supporting it. Now, the level of evidence in support of it is so staggering that it's not even possible for me to list it all in a thread.


Don't bother, I still reject it. No wait, I also know it's a fact too.


One last thing, I'd like to point out that you've been consistently dropping points, as I'm still awaiting word from you on more than a few questions, namely what the hell a 'kind' is.


I linked that already.




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I disagree, there are many. (You see, I can be just as arbitrary as you.)


Name a single conclusion that can be logically derived from evolution that is in any way absurd. Not abiogenesis, as it is independent of evolution. Not cosmology either. A logical conclusion of evolution that is absurd. And no, personal incredulity is not a basis for absurdity.



I apologize, it's partly lack of interest. I have a few things I need to do on my day off, and also I don't really enjoy the "Evidence VS Evidence" arguments, they are always a never-ending circle.


No, they're quiet straight lines. There is not a single piece of evidence in confirmation of creationism. I have opened a thread (can be found in my sig) to allow people to prove me wrong on this.



My apologies, I'll admit I quoted the beginning and addressed it without reading the conclusion of that particular group of sentences.


Thank you. I acknowledge and accept your apology. I'm just commenting on how vague he's being. Oh, and the number one crazy thing a creationist has ever said? Dinosaurs died because they were breathing too fast after the flood and their nostrils caught fire.




Kent Hovind provides citations from science textbooks,


Middle school textbooks, he never address the scientific literature, and sometime he takes them out of context. I can actually give you a specific example. He cites a textbook as saying that the Big Bang Theory claims that the singularity was spinning real fast so he can bring up a point on conservation of angular momentum, while the quote he has on his own slide, with the text enlarged, specifically refers to the formation of stars in nebulae.

Now, I know we disagree on this issue, but I'm sure we can both agree that a middle school textbook is in no way representative of actual scientific literature. They're oversimplified for the sake of making it easier.



Evolutionist quotes, et cetra in virtually all of his power-point slides, yet that means nothing.


You know what, I think I might just start a thread to nip pro-Hovind arguments in the bud. His citations, when present, are ridiculous. Of course, I don't have the time to take a specific example, nor do I want to subject myself to that sort of mental torture twice in one day to do so.




And there's no evidence to show that the peanut butter thing is a joke. I've looked into it since you mentioned it, but nowhere have I seen that it's a joke.


It's mocking abiogenesis.


By using a straw man argument?



Of course he doesn't think life can arise by chance out of peanut butter. That should go without even mentioning, yet skeptics think the man is genuinely serious. That's the hilarious part.


But where is the evidence that he's joking? I mean, I haven't seen any of it. The serious part is that he seems to be implying that abiogenesis states that life should arise in peanut butter.




No matter how life came about, evolution is fact.


I agree, Evolution is a fact. I can play the fallacy of equivocation too.


...you've yet to show how speciation is not a form of macroevolution (a ridiculously outdated term only parroted by creationists and those with the unfortunate job of addressing creationists). Your only response was 'variation within kinds'...whilst not defining what a 'kind' is, which allows one to move the goalposts back as far as they want. Hell, your own examples included several different levels of organization.




I'm not going to bother responding to the rest, but evolution is definitely not absurd. It is doubtlessly the only scientific theory for the origin of biodiversity that has any sort of evidence supporting it. Now, the level of evidence in support of it is so staggering that it's not even possible for me to list it all in a thread.


Don't bother, I still reject it. No wait, I also know it's a fact too.


Wow, you're being silly now, very mature.




One last thing, I'd like to point out that you've been consistently dropping points, as I'm still awaiting word from you on more than a few questions, namely what the hell a 'kind' is.


I linked that already.


And nowhere in that link did it actually define the term, it merely gave vague reference. I want an actual, implementable definition of the term 'kind', not some vague nonsense like what you previously linked me.
edit on 3/1/11 by madnessinmysoul because: quote format edit

edit on 3/1/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I'd like to point out that nobody here has addressed that Jesus was previously wrong on scientific matters. Particularly on what the smallest seed is, on whether or not there are trees that are in the mustard family, that stars can fall from heaven, that the moon gives off light, and that sin and demons cause illness.

If he is so incorrect on science with other regards, why should his word be taken above others here?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


What about all the forgeries in evolution that tried to con us with missing links?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


As I already explained to you in another thread, the forgeries were pointed out as fake because they were inconsistent with other evidence and with predictions of evolutionary biology. These weren't claims of evolution, it was a claim of individuals. Sure, some evolutionary biologists were fooled by some of these forgeries, but many were skeptical. Hell, Nebraska man is only spouted off by creationists because some artists decided to do something stupid and do an artist's rendition from a tooth.

In the end, all of those forgeries were knocked down by things we had learned from evolution. They hadn't been used to prop up evolution and the theory was fine without them.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
"A True Christian Can Not Believe in Evolution !"

That is an ablolute trueism. Why? For one thing the word or term evolution means a changing in a certain direction. Creation is the father of what evolution must begin from.

Now for an unbeliever to have the proof in the heart and mind a True Christian has that has been baptized of the Holy Spirit can never be had by them and will never come to them by debate. All who know that there is a Great Inteligent Creator and He dwells in them have the proof. All who have not fallen on the Rock and broken will never see it. They who have no longer deny that His Word is Truth, the solid Rock to stand on.

When we are broken it's a little like a wild mustang horse being broken and then becomes useful to you, we become useful to Him when we are "Broken". He put us in His "barn" and keeps us close to his heart.

Man don't like being broken because of pride. The freedom that comes from being broken and knowing Him delivers him from a life of fear and discontentment. Again this only comes and is understood and experienced until he is broken. It's like two songs I know says, "I surrender all" and "Trust and obey". You then rest in His arms. You are under His Wings. You are sheltered and peace comes upon you.

The call is yet going out to all, soften up that heart. Be broken of the defiant spirit that dwells within.

Heb 3:15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

Pound on the subject of evolution all you want to get to the bottom is fine with me. I'm satisfied and have no interest to debate the subject.

My interest is to witness my Lord is God and died on a rugged old Cross and will come and dwell in all who will be His children.

Truthiron.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by truthiron
 



Originally posted by truthiron
"A True Christian Can Not Believe in Evolution !"

That is an ablolute trueism.


I disagree, but I'll hear you out.



Why? For one thing the word or term evolution means a changing in a certain direction.


No, evolution (at least in the sense discussed here) means the change in allele frequency over successive generations due to mutations in a gene pool which are acted upon by both natural and sexual selection. That is something that goes only in the direction of what is naturally and sexually selected, not any particular direction or goal. Evolution doesn't have an end goal, nor is it always something that makes an organism 'better'. It's just what happens due to survival.



Creation is the father of what evolution must begin from.


I'd also disagree about this. Evolution can begin from abiogenesis, a field of science that has far more evidence for it than any claim of creation be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or other. Though this field is still in its infancy, it shows that the evidence points to life arising naturally on this planet.



Now for an unbeliever to have the proof in the heart and mind a True Christian has that has been baptized of the Holy Spirit can never be had by them and will never come to them by debate.


I'm sorry, but I started off this reply in the most reasonable manner possible, and yet I'm replying to something entirely unreasonable.

I think it's already been established that a 'True Christian' is a subjectively defined thing (not in this thread). And you're also saying that the evidence for your claims is neither objective nor testable, whilst the claim you're making contradicts objective and testable evidence for scientific concepts.



All who know that there is a Great Inteligent Creator and He dwells in them have the proof.


Again, you're appealing to some metaphysical concept in light of actual, physical evidence. I'm sure the geocentrists say the same thing.



All who have not fallen on the Rock and broken will never see it. They who have no longer deny that His Word is Truth, the solid Rock to stand on.


Where is the evidence for any of your claim?



When we are broken it's a little like a wild mustang horse being broken and then becomes useful to you, we become useful to Him when we are "Broken". He put us in His "barn" and keeps us close to his heart.


Ah, I get it now, you're just proselytizing. You're not here in the interest of discussion, but in an attempt to convert and to preach to the converted.



Man don't like being broken because of pride.


Yes, it's prideful that I want some objective proof and evidence, it's prideful that I'd rather discover the truth through ways that are verified to have led to it.



The freedom that comes from being broken and knowing Him delivers him from a life of fear and discontentment. Again this only comes and is understood and experienced until he is broken. It's like two songs I know says, "I surrender all" and "Trust and obey". You then rest in His arms. You are under His Wings. You are sheltered and peace comes upon you.


Yay, more off-topic preaching. You're not even bothering to accept that claims against you exist.



The call is yet going out to all, soften up that heart. Be broken of the defiant spirit that dwells within.


But I thought God was the one who hardened people's hearts for them. I mean, at least that's what the Bible told me when I read it.



Heb 3:15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.


(KJV)

Exd 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Exd 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

Exd 14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I [am] the LORD. And they did so.

Exd 14:17 And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.

Jos 11:20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, [and] that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.


But wait...wait wait wait, this next passage on hardening of hearts entirely contradicts what I just referenced from Exodus...


1Sa 6:6 Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?


Yahweh clearly claimed to have hardened their hearts for them...hey, I discovered yet another Biblical inconsistency!

Now, unfortunately for your silliness, I'm actually open to the possibility of any deity, so long as that deity has proof or evidence of its existence. To accept your claim to simply soften my heart and accept without this burden of proof would be dishonest, as it is what all the other theistic religions claim I should do.



Pound on the subject of evolution all you want to get to the bottom is fine with me. I'm satisfied and have no interest to debate the subject.


Yep, satisfaction in ignorance is a common trend amongst Creationists.



My interest is to witness my Lord is God and died on a rugged old Cross and will come and dwell in all who will be His children.


And your interest also seems to be making off-topic posts.
edit on 4/1/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 
madnessinmysoul,

Certainly the view I hold is diagreeable with you. In your present stance it cannot be any other way.

I didn't post what I did hoping to change you or anyone but for a better stance for others like me for their edification. Christians don't stand together enough on what they believe and why.

The world is comming against one being a True follower of Jesus, Yahshua and we are getting fewer all the time.

Your testimonies are helping to sharpen our sword of the Word.

MIMS, I want you to know I love My Redeemer with All My Heart and Soul.

My intentions are not to be a troubler to you or anyone.

Truthiron.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I will wade in here, despite there a lengthy debate going on.

Given what studies I have had in my short time on this earth, I can say with confidence it is alright for a Christian to believe in evolution and creationism. In fact scientifically both could go hand in hand if one looks at science as a tool to understanding how God works. But, let's not roll back into that can of worms. My reasoning behind my statement comes from that Genesis is written, not as a history of Creation. It is poetry as is seen throught ancient texts and the oral tradition.

Does that mean Genesis is without divine Truth?

No.

Does it mean that God did not create the World?

No.

What it does mean, is that we are getting a lovely poem and story to try and describe what God did over millions of years ago.

Just as Genesis is offering a different look at how God did things in a more romantic writing style could not Science be offering us another view through a different "language" as well?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join