darwin
Posted on 01/05/2005 11:28:38 AM PST by Gamecock
How about the great fish that swallowed Jonah? That's gotta be bigger than a T Rex.
what's sad is that neither camp seems to realize that Christ and evolution are not automatically incompatible. If people realized there is a middle ground position we'd see alot of this silliness go away.
wait, never mind, I just saw the source of this "article." Silly me, I thought it was for real and responded with a serious post.
Simply add a man riding on the T-Rex's back :D
BWAHAHAHAHA! |D
You are correct in stating that there is no inherent
conflict between Christianity and evolution unless one
absurdly takes Genesis and certain other texts literally.
But the interesting thing is that no one has mentioned the
historical origin of ichthus. ichthus in Greek meant
"fish", as in our ichthyology (study of fish). BUT the word
was also an acronym for Jesus Son of God Saviour. I have
no koine Greek keys on my keyboard but I will try to
transliterate it: IOTA = for Jesus CHI = for Christ
THETA= for God UPSILON= for Son SIGMA= for saviour. Thus
each Greek letter designated a word important to early
Christians and therefore when a fish was depicted it
had a VERY REAL meaning for Christians. In times of
persecution it was a "safe" way to make profession of
faith. Its commercialization on auto bumpers and the
spurious conflict with evolution is all apropos to
absolutely NOTHING.
darwin
That's evolution.
I'd like to meet this "Christian".
"Their T-Rex ate our "truth" fish! We're DOOOOMED!"
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.
I don't know why she swallowed a fly.
I guess she'll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,
which jiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to swallow the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed a fly.
I guess she'll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a bird.
To swallow a Bird! How absurd!
She swallowed the bird to swallow the spider,
which jiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to swallow the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed a fly.
I guess she'll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a cat.
To swallow a cat, imagine that!
She swallowed the cat to swallow the bird.
To swallow a bird! How absurd!
She swallowed the bird to swallow the spider,
which jiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to swallow the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed a fly.
I guess she'll die.
It is painfully obvious that you have absolutely no idea on what Scripture teaches and what the Evilutionists hope to accomplish. The two are mutually exclusive by design.
Clearly this article is a joke, but the fish with legs was nothing less than hate-speech directed at the only group on earth where it is politically correct to openly hate, insult and demean.
I expect that from reprobates, but when the enemy within spreads a lie suggesting that six day creationism and evolution are compatible, then it is worth rebuking.
Except that evolution claims that death reigned before Adam sin. It doesn't matter if you reject Genesis 1-11, Exodus 20:11, 31:17; Hebrews 4:3; Luke 17:26-27; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; and a host of other Creation affirming passages; but it does show a particular brand of ignorance and misunderstanding of the entire Gospel message if you are comfortable with death preceded Adam's sin.
"evolution claims that death reigned before Adam sin."
Forgive my ignorance but I havn't the foggiest notion what
that purports to mean. Ive read the Gospel in Greek and studied it for years by higher critical methods and others.
The creation myths are attempts to explain theologically
that God is the force behind creation. Evolution is NOT
a theory but a fact. What best explains the fact is Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. To claim that the
Gospel in any way rejects this reality does a disservice
to religion. Besides, you'd be wasting your time fighting
yesterday's battles. The vast majority of scientists and
informed Christians accept evolution.
***You could have a bolt of lightning striking the Rex... ?***
How about a dead T-Rex choked by a TRUTH fish!
Also, this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1315656/posts "What Was Here Before the Beginning? [Big Bang, Cosmology]"
Hot topic these last few days!
Come on, you don't have to lie. You sound like someone who is throwing around words and have no idea what they mean. For instance, you don't have to be a Koine Greek scholar to be able to read and comprehend Romans 5. Second, "higher criticism" has nothing to do with doctrine, it deals with the sources of documents and attempting to determine authorship, date and place of composition. So it is difficult to "forgive your ignorance" when you are out to deliberately deceive and don't even know what you are talking about. sigh
The creation myths are attempts to explain theologically that God is the force behind creation.
By what standards of evidence and science are you qualified to call the Creation narrative "myth"? The material evidence that has been collected is consistent with Creationist explanations. For instance, the fossil record, magentic decay, stratification of sediment layers according to what is known about liquefaction are consistent with Creationist theories.
Evolution is NOT a theory but a fact.
Again, you show your ignorance and illiteracy since Evolution doesn't even qualify for Theory, but according to scientific terminology should correctly be called "hypothesis." It shows your prejudice and hate to call Creationism "myth" and toi foolishly call Evolution "fact". Because of your obvious allegiances to atheistic philosophy and a pattern of continual lying, it would seem that an honest person would recuse themselves from comment, but alas, according to the rules of procedure of the Athiestsic Evolutionists, you must always slander Christians, then gratuitously assert the unprovable as fact.
To claim that the Gospel in any way rejects this reality does a disservice to religion.
So far, you are batting a .000 in the truth department. I fail to see how a person who admittedly can't find the topic of "sin" and "death" in the gospel message can somehow feel confidence in saying that the great theological minds of the last two thousand years are all wrong and your biased words are right. But unwarranted pride and arrogance are also hallmarks of the evolutionist zealot, so this too is understandable.
The vast majority of scientists and informed Christians accept evolution.
Again, this is a outright lie. In the general population alone, the most recent surveys show that fewer than one third of the population accept evolution as an explanation of origins. Over half of the general population, Christian, agnostic and of other religions included in the survey accept intelligent design. So you seem to only know nothing but lies and have successfully convinced yourself of it.
Perhaps in your "reading the Gospel in Greek" you may have stumbled across Romand 1 and 2 Peter 3:5 which you embody quite well.
Stick that in your "higher criticism" crack pipe and smoke it.
I would normally be offended and not even respond to one
who calls another "deliberately deceptive", "ignorant",
"illiterate", and somewhere "prejudice" and "hate" are
included. But perhaps because I don't think you prefer such
ad hominem attacks to a rational argument and perhaps because I don't take you that seriously and am, in fact,
having some fun, I will just make a few observations. First, you are confusing "higher criticism" with textual
criticism. I would suggest you read the Nov. issue of
National Geographic for some understanding of what nearly
all scientists think about evolution. On the cover it
reads " WAS DARWIN RIGHT?" If you read the article you
will discover that the scientific community says "YES."
Please don't write the editors and say they are deceptive
liars, ignorant, illiterate, and full of hate and prejudice. You might unnecessarily insult the world's
foremost biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, and
anthropologists. Worse, if they're as good natured as I
am, they might embarrass you by asking for some facts.
If you'd like to learn more about biblical criticism (and
there are many types) I'd be glad to discuss it - and I'm
not being facetious, I mean it. All best,
Evolution by natural processes and without a prime mover is an idea that is accepted on faith. There is no way to verify it as there are no time machines. All one can do is assume it as fact and make it the interpretive framework for all geological and paleontological endeavor.
Creation by Divine fiat through mechanisms we are not capable of understanding is an idea that is accepted on faith. There is no way to verify it as there are no time machines. All one can do is assume it as fact and make it the interpretive framework for all geological and paleontological endeavor.
Anyone who claims their theory as scientific fact or, worse, points to popular sentiment to back their assertion, is either lying, blind, or deluded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.