Posted on 05/11/2012 10:56:54 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV
The Bible is factual, not relative.
For some reason when I re-posted the article here it missed this paragraph:
Original sin is the idea that God created an absolutely perfect “good” world and a single sin against God committed by one person marred the purity of creation and implicated all of humanity in the act. The Christian gospel teaches that the pre-existing penalty for act of separation from God was eternal death. Being that humanity could not save itself from this penalty, Jesus Christ, a member of the Holy Trinity, personally came to earth, lived a pure life, died, and was resurrected, reconciling fallen humanity to God, thus closing the sin-caused gap between humans and God. Human beings who accept this death as substitution for their own prospective penalty will be given eternal life in a new earth.
(This is compromised by evolutionary thought.)
Tell me how and why an eyeball evolved. What came first, our immune systems or our need for an immune system? Could someone direct me to evidence of a single transitional fossil? No, not evidence of slight changes within a species, transitional fossils from one species to another. After all, there should be countless numbers of them. Please, someone give me the best 5 examples we see in nature today of something from one species that’s in the middle of turning into another. I’m not greedy, the top 5 will do. How about 1? Don’t tell me we just happen to be in a time in all the supposed billions of years of history that we can’t witness macroevolution happening. Lol.
Next time someone tells you you believe in fairy tales because you believe in the Bible tell them you’re not the one who believes a frog turns into a prince. Only evolutionists and 3-6 yr old girls believe that. :)
Man goes up to God and asks, “What’s a million years to you?”
God says, “a second”
Man asks, “What’s a million dollars to you?’
God says, “a penny”
Man then asks, “Can I have a penny?”
God says, “Sure, in a second.”
Good one!
Prove that.
Again, prove that assumption
From an august 2007 article by Scott Richert:
Almost 11 years ago, Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, caused quite a stir by declaring that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." Some Catholics, particularly traditionalists, believed that the Holy Father was stepping outside of his competence in making judgments on scientific matters. Others, including Catholic scientists, welcomed Pope John Paul's reaffirmation of the traditional Catholic principle that "Truth cannot contradict truth." In other words, to the extent that the theory of evolution has a solid scientific basis, it must be compatible with Catholic doctrine.
A decade before, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, delivered a series of homilies that were published in 1990 under the title In the Beginning . . . : A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. In those homilies, he made a similar argument: The creation story in Genesis is a spiritual history. It simply doesn't matter what physical means God used to create the world and all living creatures therein; what matters is that man is both body and soul, and his creation is not complete until God has breathed the breath of life into him. And about the creation of the soul (and, thus, of the complete man), science can tell us nothing.
The probability of occurrence of the utterly improbable is extremely low, to the poinit of being unbelievable.
On this basis alone respected, highly accomplished, peer reviewed and published university faculty scientists of my acquaintance have declined to accept the evolutionary model. However, considering who it is that controls the gateways to advancement and tenure, they keep their doubts pretty much to themselves.
I don’t have much of a science background, but the problem I have with evolution generally is that it is hard for me to understand that genetics is that unstable and even if it is, why would a living thing mutate into something more complex rather than just breaking down.
Can you answer the question? Is general relativity a fraud?
I find evo hard to grasp after a close examination of the five senses. The more you learn the more the realize that thatwe were created by God.
I have more respect for those who believe ET seeded the planet then those who believe life evolved by chance
yeah, right.
If secularists can reduce us to mere animals they can do anything to us.
The probability of occurrence of the utterly improbable is extremely low, to the point of unbelievability.
On this basis alone respected, highly accomplished, peer reviewed and published university faculty scientists of my acquaintance have declined to accept the evolutionary model. However, considering who it is that controls the gateways to advancement and tenure, they keep their doubts pretty much to themselves.
Right on. Mutations [like the 2nd thermodynamic law] cause disorder, chaos, & extinctions. For evolution to be true it would be like DNA code providing the ‘intelligence’ thru random changes to rewrite itself but never causing any harm to the life forms.
Here’s a couple of links providing all the science one needs to know.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
The fact that we are alive is a sin, move on to Grace, something that is really important.
I don’t think you’re supposed to consider “old Earth” theories separately. It interferes with the conflation.
Yeah, like NONE!
“the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”
Strongly supported? What does that mean? That a lot of Godless leftists support it, then I guess that is a true statement though meant to deceive.
“....fact of science” .....”mythos of their faith”.????
More like the mythos of their science” .....” fact of our faith.
The trouble here is as with everything else, THE MEDIA. They report leftist views as scientific fact (when they are anything but scientific) and report religious views as crazy.
I have no trouble accepting the idea of an earth millions of years old but that cannot be equated with accepting the notions of evolution.
“In the beginning” has no time associated with it.
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.