Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution vs. God: Shaking the foundations of Faith
Way of the Master ministries ^ | Oct 2, 2013 | Ray Comfort

Posted on 10/17/2013 1:18:41 PM PDT by redleghunter

If you are familiar with Ray Comfort and the man on the street Way of the Master ministries, you will like this video. WoM ministries produced the linked youtube 30 minute video on Evolution vs. God. Ray and crew go to two CA universities to interview and debate science students and science faculty on Darwinian evolution.

So please set aside a half hour from your busy schedule and enjoy "Evolution vs. God."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ#t=743


TOPICS: Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Religion & Science; Skeptics/Seekers
KEYWORDS: bible; evolution; faith; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-64 last
To: mdmathis6

I concur with the glaring obvious truthfulness presented by God through faith in Jesus Christ, of His Plan for all of us,..but quite truthfully, His Resurrection is merely secondary evidence of His stature. He has already presented more than overwhelming evidence of His being the Messiah for those who merely accept what He provides us through grace,


51 posted on 10/17/2013 8:50:39 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

Thank you for a well thought out response. I think in our post-modern society can’t get past Genesis 1:1.

Interesting in the video Comfort mentions micro-biology is observable. I think we all agree because there is evidence. The changes of ‘kind’ is what he beats on. Then he shifts the interview to the “morals” of evolutionists. The part about the drowning dog and neighbor was telling. All those students chose to save the dog instead of the neighbor.

If you had time to see the video, Comfort entered with an ID approach. Meaning what we observe requires a designer.

One of the best modern era Christian philosophers was Francis Schaeffer. His ministry focused on big international university intelligentsia. Schaffer when confronted with the Genesis account would remind people that The Bible is God’s revelation to mankind. It is not a complete revelation by God of His complete Nature and Power. Schaffer went as far as to say most would argue what God revealed may not be the best answer they are looking for. In the second breath, he would then tell them, but it is the only answer.

Another point. God communicated Genesis in a very concrete language using a vocabulary for a nomadic people. I think if a dedicated scientist looked deeper into the text they might be surprised at what they find.


52 posted on 10/17/2013 9:47:43 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Where did the video make the faith vs. science claim. It did not. If you watched it you would see it employed the scientific model.


53 posted on 10/17/2013 10:01:44 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

?


54 posted on 10/17/2013 10:04:12 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

Excellent post. And might I say the God of Resurrection certainly would not require billions of years to simply form a man from dust!


55 posted on 10/17/2013 10:15:57 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Catmom

“Religious people who disrespect science are every bit as annoying as scientific people who disrespect faith.”


But neither of them are anywhere as annoying as those who think that Christians ought to live with falsely called “science,” not saying a word as stupidities go forward unchallenged.


56 posted on 10/17/2013 11:26:46 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans (If anyone tells you it's a cookbook, don't believe them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

“I think if a dedicated scientist looked deeper into the text they might be surprised at what they find.”

Interesting comment.

What do you mean? Can you expand on that?


57 posted on 10/17/2013 11:33:53 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
If we look at the concrete language God uses to communicate Genesis 1 we see he used things the recorder (Moses by most accounts) and Israelites understood. They understood things like stretching out tents made of animal skins, water, dirt, sky, blood, fire, wind etc., things they could observe with their current development. God did not communicate (as far as we know) "Hey Moses, I took this liquid which you understand as water but at the very basic elemental level created the matter, which was the mixing bowl (you understand that) to create thus and thus. Then of course the energy came from Me...Moses you still there...":) In the end what we have is God communicating He created the world and did so in the language, understanding and "science" of the time and recorder. If a scientist approached creation with a masterful laboratory in mind, the approach may be different. However, most of them can't get past Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God..." and that is the problem. In other ways not getting past Genesis 1:1, creates the most difficult problem for the scientists who adhere to evolution (big bang specifically). They know from their own observation, something does not come from nothing. Sure, any 6th grade science student can demonstrate a chemical reaction showing a transformation from one state to another. But no one has been able to take nothing and make it something. So in the end, and after all the science is debated and we drone on about finch beaks, those who hand wave Genesis 1:1 end up having "origins issues." It all comes down to origins after we chase all the rabbits and walking whales down holes. No matter (not the science term) how much time++++ we add or explain "chance", as if chance is a deity, it all makes no sense. Chance (by accident) something from nothing plus a WHOLE lot of time is a blind leap in the dark 'faith.' The most accomplished gambler would not bet his/her own house and fortune in Vegas on that.
58 posted on 10/18/2013 8:11:01 AM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Paul was saying that the resurrection of the dead was proof of God’s power, indeed of his existence. Otherwise Christianity is nothing but another dead religion. Christ was without sin, thus he had not incurred the wages of sin which was death. Christ was the love letter sent by God, his very imprimatur stamped into matter...the resurrection was God’s exclamation point and a sign of our future hope of such a same resurrection. No other religion makes such a promise in the way Christianity does; which is why there is such angry vehemence directed against it. Salvation simply by grace, by confession that Jesus is Lord and a belief that God has raised him from the dead? “Such offensive comments” cry the scoffers and critics!

No, my friend, Paul’s statement underscores the very importance of the resurrection to Christianity for if we have men coming back to life by the power of God, then we have indeed found the well springs of Life eternal. It proves Christ’s divinity, humanity, and his sinlessness.

Still, scientifically speaking, the concept of the resurrection would be considered at best a tautology, a question only answered within the heart and faith of the individual who considers Christ.
Paul posits the resurrection as a “if, then statement”. If Christ had not risen from the dead, then we might as well just live like the murdering, rutting animals we are by our very nature. There is no other hope but Christ, but our hope in Christ is in vain had he just been an enlightened rabble rouser killed by the Romans, whose body simply rotted in the ground like all the rest of us!


59 posted on 10/18/2013 1:23:50 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

I agree the Resurrection verifies His Word, but our salvation is paid for at the Cross, not the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the First Fruits of one of our future rewards.


60 posted on 10/19/2013 2:17:48 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

If there is no fall of Adam, there is no original sin and no sin nature inherited by everyone of his progeny, Jesus of Nazareth excepting, of course.


61 posted on 11/01/2013 1:47:04 PM PDT by attiladhun2 (The Free World has a new leader--his name is Benjamin Netanyahu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town; redleghunter
The THEORY of evolution does not preclude the fact of God. They are not mutually exclusive ideas.
The problem is that we have no way to understand the concept of eternity.

Are you certain about that? William Provine prior to his despatch was a leadin spokesman for Darwinism. Here is just one of his many quotes on the subject.

“Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judaeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless…. [Such a God] has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and, indeed, all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
“My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious. Many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.” William B. Provine, review of Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), Academe, vol. 73 (January/February 1987), pp. 51-52 Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University

62 posted on 11/09/2013 4:25:32 AM PST by GarySpFc (We are saved by the precious blood of the God-man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Willam Provine speaks.

“Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.” William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 65

63 posted on 11/09/2013 4:32:46 AM PST by GarySpFc (We are saved by the precious blood of the God-man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All
“The conflict is fundamental and goes much deeper than modern liberal theologians, religious leaders and scientists are willing to admit. Most contemporary scientists, the majority of them by far, are atheists or something very close to that. And among evolutionary biologists, I would challenge the reader to name the prominent scientists who are ‘devoutly religious.’ I am skeptical that one could get beyond the fingers of one hand. Indeed, I would be interested to learn of a single one.” William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 69

“A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up and works through laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetectable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism. To anyone who adopts this view I say, ‘Great, we’re in the same camp; now where do we get our morals if the universe just goes grinding on as it does?’ This kind of God does nothing outside of the laws of nature, gives us no immortality, no foundation for morals, or any of the things that we want from a God and from religion.” William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 70

64 posted on 11/09/2013 4:38:16 AM PST by GarySpFc (We are saved by the precious blood of the God-man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-64 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson