It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It is unfair to ask this when evolutionists have nothing to offer in a comparative understanding.
Not all creationists believe the same. Some creationists believe in a creator far different than others therefore the word creationist can not embrace all of the many belief systems in the world. I would venture to say that you have the same facets in your theology.
Darwin was not on trial in the Scopes case.
Scopes used the Darwin theology of evolution as the case expanded but the trial was basically with Scopes teaching the high school children about Darwinism. In other words Scopes was on trial and was found guilty of teaching children about the theory of evolution. That was what it was called at that time. It was not a facet of science nor is it today. If it were a facet of science then it would have to be replicated and proven as a fact.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
I am a Christian Creationists simply because that is what I chose after many indecisive years of listening to intellectuals spiel their own theories such as how a frog came from a tadpole
or mixing mutations with evolution and many other such theories.
I was not taught creationism by my parents but chose this avenue of study simply because I believed that there is an afterlife of men and women.
Being a Christian creationist is not to say that I am independent of Jewish creationists. As a matter of fact my entire theological teachings exist through Judaic literature. We believe that our Creator has created many creations in the past and has erased these creations for reasons of which belong to the Creator. I also believe that this universe may very well be millions of years old and has left many artifacts of previous creations…
(Sorry, had to snip this out because of the character count imposed on posts.)
...This is directly influenced by the sun and the projection of the magnetic influence of the earth. This facet of science is primarily theology at the present but there are some factors that can be verified.
I fear that if I am wrong that I may end up as a cow chip in someone’s barnyard. Maybe that’s why I am a creationist.
Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by RebelRouser
i believe in dogs from wolves, cats from lions
You are not even worth debating. Dogs don't come from wolves and cats do not come from lions. They share a common ancestor. Just as humans and chimpanzees do.
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Originally posted by iterationzero
... you're not really raising any scientific questions against evolution, much less "theory killing" ones.
You're basically saying that there has to be a "reason" or a "need" for a species to randomly change by complete accident into a new species, no? I'm thinking by reason or need you mean an environmental stress, no? Can you explain what was the environmental stress that caused our missing link the need to give rise to us- the weakest link in the whole chain?
The word evolution has a different meaning to most creationists simply because it has its own place in almost all of the sciences including biology but evolution of man from lower primates does refute my belief of my Creator as is taught in the Hebrew literature.
Our belief that the Creator did create man in His own image and after His own likeness does teach us that man could not have evolved from a lower species. As a Christian Creationist (Fundie) I naturally believe that Jesus is the begotten Son of God and if He is the begotten Son of God then this shows us man did not evolve from a lower species. If we are correct then evolution of this kind is not science nor is it biologically provable to us.
That was why it was called theory of evolution in the 1925 Scopes trial. It was taught in the same text books as biology and the meaning was quite clear as to mean the ascension of man from a lower animal species. This was proven to be just another theological (fact) from the evolutionists.
As a Christian Creationist I have no quarrel with the true sciences who teach theology in conjunction with their proven work
but I can not accept the theories of evolution from lower primates to man any more than I can accept that something came from nothing.
So in this case of the Butler Act, evolution of this sort does refute creationism. It simply is theology and that was my intent to show from the onset.
Insofar as fear is concerned I would venture to say that even you in all of your atheist bravery do harbor fear. If you fear nothing then you are the first to have this strength but not believable by any stretch of the imagination. Derogatory name calling is not necessary and it does not add any thing to your self grandeur. A fundamental Christian is not as cowardly as you may be led to believe and history can verify that as a provable fact and not just a theory.
Originally posted by CaptChaos
Evolution is complete bunk. It makes no sense. Even Darwin himself recanted his THEORIES in the end. And remember, it is just a THEORY, and a very weak one at that.
You seem to be mistaken in your understanding the facts of the Scopes trial. The Scopes trial was a charge of the state of Tennessee upon John Scopes for teaching a theory that mankind evolved from a lower form of life. ... This was not a factual provable teaching according to the charge against him and John was found guilty of teaching the evolution of mankind from a lesser life in this trial. I have repeatedly stated that this particular teaching of evolution is not provable by any stretch of the imagination and it is not provable to this day. Therefore it is theology and it is called theology of evolution in reference to the Scopes verdict which was the subject matter from the onset. I have never implied nor stated that evolution in some facets of science was false and stated that in the onset of this discussion.
That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.
I did not realize that my fears were of value to your factual science. When I used the word fear in context of my writing it was not a literal meaning of being afraid with knocking knees and sweating palms and I believe that you clearly understood the meaning. To clarify this language of which I used is meant that I am a coward in the sense that I may end up as a cow chip in a barnyard instead of a celestial entity in the Kingdom of God.if I am wrong. ... Can you prove to me that there is no God or Creator? If so, then many of us would appreciate your input on this fact of science. If you do not have scientific proof that man evolved from a lesser life then admit that this is nothing but theology. Be honest in all of your wisdom.
I stated from a theological understanding that if Jesus is the true Son of God then man could not have evolved from a lower form of life simply because Jesus being a man such as we are today, shows us that he did not evolve from a lower life. Now that is with our understanding that He (Jesus) was brought forth in the image and likeness of God and if He was in the image and likeness of God, which we believe that He was, then He had not morphed into any other life form.
I was forthright in explaining my theology on evolution of mankind but you have not committed yourself with facts. Your only defense is to attack the usage of language. Once again, I would be pleased to know the evolutionary scientific facts that mankind, as we know it today, evolved from a lesser life form. In that light I shall retire this post waiting your reply.
Originally posted by Seede
reply to post by Barcs
I thank you for your time and wish you the very best in your quest for your scientific proof of existence. Your game of cat and mouse has proven to us that you have nothing to offer except your limited knowledge of some biology which is basic grade school antics. It is not suitable for us to gloat at the ignorance of another human but only to wish you the best in life and pray that you will eventually understand the true God. I now retire from this thread with the offer of friendship and hope that you will one day understand that God is not a mutation of ones imagination but a God who loves you just as He loves everyone. Shalom --
Originally posted by colin42
I would like to pose a scenario.
Let's put all the evidence of evolution to one side for a spell. That Darwin and all that followed were mistaken as some maintain.
I would like the pro Evolution group (that includes me) to take a back seat and give the anti evolution group a chance to explain how life on this planet is the way it is now.
I am not asking how life started just an explanation of the diversity of life from the deep dark depths of the oceans to the blue skies above and pole to pole.
I would like an explanation of the fossil records but it is not essential.
As I say I would like the pro evolution group to resist comments for a while. My guess is there will be few takers but I may be suprised.edit on Thu Sep 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: *misleading title, formerly was: Evolution proved 100% Wrong