Posted on 12/14/2008 8:37:32 AM PST by tpanther
Strength For The Journey New Creation People Part 1 August 4, 2005 Is Evolution A Fact?
READ: Genesis 2:1-7, Hebrews 11:1-3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. —Hebrews 11:3The theory of evolution is not without its problems. One scientist says this about life starting on its own: "Amino acids would have to be arranged in an exact sequence to form a protein . . . just like the letters in a sentence. Mere laws of chemistry and physics cannot do that. The probability of a protein forming by chance would be 1064 [10 with 64 zeros after it] to 1!"
Many people assume the theory of evolution to be true. But can it be scientifically proven? Something is considered scientifically true only if it can be repeatedly verified under laboratory conditions. The claim that life sprang up on its own out of a long impersonal process cannot pass this test of truth. That is why evolution remains only a theory.
So if you're ever tempted to doubt the Genesis account of the creation story, consider the alternative. The odds against even a simple protein creating itself are astronomical. How much more reasonable to believe God and His Word: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:3).
Isn't it more reasonable to believe that God designed and created the universe? (Genesis 1:1). — Dennis Fisher
All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small, All things wise and wonderful— The Lord God made them all. —Alexander
All creation points to the almighty Creator.
At what point did life go to a positive and negative charge? I had read somewhere that the determinating factor in the sex of a baby is whether the male sperm has a positive charge and the egg has a negative charge or vice versa. The same goes through out nature quite a curious chance.
Science postulates that ours is an ordered universe, governed by universal laws. If it becomes apparent that those rules do not apply at a particular place and time, then the presumption is that we didn't understand the rules, and science goes on to refine them.
Science does not rule out the possibility of supernatural forces; they are simply outside its scope. Science assumes, as it must, that phenomena have a rational, natural explanation, even if it's one that we don't understand them yet. To do otherwise would be to simply stop inquiring, and inquiring is what science is for.
Scientists are in no position to sneer at faith.
Some scientists sneer. Science does not. But faith as a stopping point is antithetical to the very essence of science, which is to keep questioning everything.
When did the GLNEAEA start marching into churches and theology schools and start shutting them down? No one is being silenced. Science classes are being limited to science.
The odds of winning the Powerball are about 1:150,000,000. And yet people routinely win.
At no level, no number of powers of ten, does unlikely become impossible. You can refer to something as impossible in practical terms, because there are not enough repetitions for the unlikely event to occur. “One in a million” is meant to describe someone as unique or nearly so, but it describes at least a thousand people in China and a dozen in New York City.
With enough repetition, an unlikely event becomes all but inevitable. It’s an infinite number of monkeys problem.
And the term "Creationist" is used by Evo's to show the respect they have for their mental processes.
And you get SO much useful mileage out of it.
NOT!
I personally like the "Goat Herder" description of Scripture writers.
It shows SO much understanding of what they so easily deride.
I've got 4 New Zealand Reds and, so far, that all I keep getting.
What?
That’s just shocking!
And History classes are limited to history; too.
Is this the flip side of the Evo mantra - "given enough time..."
Your math MIGHT be possible - given INFINITE time, but, as 'science' says, we've only experienced so much of it.
Of course there is. Wallace even wrote a book called "Darwinism".
Actually it is quite shocking when the two touch they give off a electrical charge that holds the two together.
Opposites attract!
Very true my wife and I are opposite, just like a left and right bookend.
“there are many things pointing to creation by God...it is just your thoughts that tend to make you doubt them that you think is you thinking which is the problem. The incredibly complex dna code which has a numeric sequence to it and is far more complex then a computer code is proof of a designer...along with so many archealogical finds that prove the accuracy of the bible. These are FACTS, not made up theories.”
Like all the creationists, you are confusing the “what” and the “how”. Did God create everything? I believe so, as do many (most) evolutionists. However, that does not answer the question as to “how” he did it. In that regard, evolution and Christianity are completely compatible. And regarding your contention that extreme complexity is proof of a creator: that is nonsense on its face—akin to a “man will never fly” argument. That Luddite-equivalent mindset is reason enough to deny creationism the status of science.
Ditto. As CS Lewis said, Science teaches us how God created the world, the Bible teaches us why.
Double ditto...
No science classes are being limited to the cult of evolution.
Here’s another clue, defending the indefensable NEA godless liberal agenda is hardly a conservative position.
Well, that is everything but origins. The evo-cultists sue those that disagree with them.
What a rather absurd statement that flies in the face of the evidence!
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.