Posted on 11/26/2012 2:10:21 AM PST by kathsua
Bill Nye, the so-called "science guy," recently said that the teaching of creation to young people is harmful. I beg to differ.
Does anyone remember Columbine? The shooters were not wearing Christian T-shirts. They were wearing evolutionary t-shirts touting "natural selection." These losers apparently believed that if they were only the results of mutation and natural selection over millions of years, with no God or afterlife, then why not vent their anger and go out with a bang?
----------advertisement-----------
It's little wonder that they were fans of Adolf Hitler, another avid disciple of Darwin, and committed their atrocities on his birthday.
Perhaps it's the dogmatic teaching of evolution that is harmful to young people. Bill Nye and the scientific Gestapo refuse to allow even a hearing for "intelligent design" in the pubic schools. What are they afraid of? The subject of origins clearly has religious connotations for both theism and atheism. It's unfair to accept the evidence for one view as science, and reject the evidence for the other as religion.
Some Christians feel compelled (coerced is more like it) to compromise and accept evolution as God's method of creation. I could do that if the evidence was truly convincing, but it's not. Evolution is simply assumed, not proven.
As Dr. Morris points out, it's an exercise in circular reasoning: They begin with the assumption that evolution is true, proceed to interpret all of the evidence to fit that model, and then offer it as "proof" for evolution. The assumption of evolution becomes the proof for evolution. That's not science. Dr. Wiersbe calls it "a failure to distinguish information from imagination."
I don't mean to insult anybody's religion, but evolution has to be the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, and it's not always harmless, either, as demonstrated by the Columbine shooters. How much better to teach children that we are here because "In the beginning, God created ...," and because of that, life is full of meaning and purpose, for time and eternity.
Some may laugh at us for believing in Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden thousands of years ago, but we laugh at them for believing in molecule to man through mutation and natural selection millions of years ago.
One day we'll see who has the last laugh.
Creationism is also a myth. Earth is older than 6000.
Creationism is also a myth. Earth is older than 6000.
Will President Bush go to the Bad Place?
It's not that anyone is "afraid" of anything. It's that the science classroom is not the place to teach religion. If you find discussions of the religious connotations of origins interesting, that's fine, but the appropriate place for those discussions would be in Sunday school or a religious studies class.
Some Christians feel compelled (coerced is more like it) to compromise and accept evolution as God's method of creation. I could do that if the evidence was truly convincing, but it's not. Evolution is simply assumed, not proven.
Christians have accepted for a long time that the actual earth and universe do not match the Biblical descriptions. If you do not believe that the earth is flat, that the sky is a solid shell on which the sun and all stars are fixed, or that all of space outside the earth and its sky/shell is filled with water, then you also do not literally believe the bible.
As Dr. Morris points out, it's an exercise in circular reasoning: They begin with the assumption that evolution is true, proceed to interpret all of the evidence to fit that model, and then offer it as "proof" for evolution. The assumption of evolution becomes the proof for evolution. That's not science. Dr. Wiersbe calls it "a failure to distinguish information from imagination."
Hmm, I wonder what kind of doctors they are? They probably are not doctors of biochemistry like me; they probably aren't even scientists. Yet there they are, being presented as experts in a subject they clearly know nothing about.
Fossils of strange animals that no one has ever seen have been observed ever since there were humans. The existence of those fossils led to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution caused more scientific investigation to collect more data that would either refute or support the theory. So far, all data has been supportive.
In the world of real science, you can't just make up some assertion, call it a theory, and expect anyone to believe you. You have to provide evidence. Anyone claiming there is no evidence of evolution is a liar.
There are only two possible explanations for the origin of life——spontaneous generation of matter from nothing or special creation (ex nihilo) by a living God Who exists outside of the space-time dimension.
The first explanation was disproved over one-hundred years ago, leaving evolutionary naturalists to either believe and teach a lie as “science” or to move on to another even more impossible explanation: panspermia. Several theories revolve around this idea, including the notion that extraterrestrials do in fact exist and that they seeded our world with life. C. Arthur Clark posited this idea in his book, “Childhoods End.” More recently Richard Dawkins signaled his acceptance of panspermia.
Always seeking the origin of life but never finding it. This means that no matter how persuasive evolutionary theories sound, ultimately all of them are exercises in futility.
From the time of the early Church Fathers ‘gnostic’ Christians have been dehistoricizing the Bible, beginning with Genesis. This means that Bush is not positing something new and scientific but rather a very old heresy.
Bill Nye and the scientific Gestapo refuse to allow even a hearing for "intelligent design" in the pubic schools.I'll bet they don't want to waste time in schools debating "Flat Earthism" either.
Absolute nonsense. That bible doesn't teach any of that.
Again total nonsense. The data just isn't there, certainly in the fossel record to support Darwinism. That's why Harvard evolution guru Stephen Gould came up with his theory of punctuated equilibrium, to deal with the fact there is no date to support classic Darwinism. The trouble is, there is no data to support puntuated equilibrium either. Science is based on observation and measurement. Evolution has never been observed and the theory can't be faslified, another scientific flaw. It is a mere tautology.
Real Science can explore the origin of earth and not need to deny the existence of God or insult people of Faith who believe God created the heavens and this earth.
Absolute nonsense. That bible doesn't teach any of that.
Really? You might want to double-check that. That's all based in scripture, along with a lot of other inaccurate notions of the physical earth. Here's a link that contains specific Bible references to a flat earth and other inaccuracies.
Honestly, I am somewhat amused by people who are dead-set on believing that the story of creation is literal, but then go on to deny that every other inaccurate Biblical description of the earth even exists in the Bible.
Since God created time, maybe a day is a billion years in His realm.
I, too, would rest after 6 billion years of work.
You’re arguing apples and oranges.
I don’t need a biology book to understand Jesus is my savior. I also don’t need a scientist to explain how God created the universe.
“Creationism is also a myth”
Prove it.
Not a single one of those references has anything to do with the earth being flat. That God has fixed the earth “firm and unmoveable” in its courses is pretty consistent with modern science. Our revolutions around the sun have been the same for thousands of years. And whether scripture is to be taken literal or allegorically depends entirely on genre and context. I’m always amused by people who have never even read the bible presuming to criticise it.
According to the science of Einstein and general relativity, time is relative depending on a variety of variables such as velocity and gravitational force.
“Evolution has never been observed and the theory can’t be faslified, another scientific flaw. It is a mere tautology.”
Spirited: Exactly. Furthermore, true science can know nothing about events that occured before time, life, conscious awareness and death even existed.
In this sense, contemporary evolutionary naturalism resides alongside of all pagan evolutionary cosmogonies extending back to the ancient Babylonian Enuma Elish which speaks of all things emerging (evolving) out of already existing primordial waters (matter).
In his international bestseller, “The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality,” France’s preeminent contemporary philosopher Andre Comte Sponville confesses that though he knows God exists “straight up” (outside the space-time dimension) he is nevertheless offended by Jesus Christ God incarnate.
In a general sense Sponville speaks for all Westerners who are uncomfortable with or outright offended by Jesus Christ God incarnate. And having rejected Him they must in turn reject eternal life in Paradise and instead anchor their hopes in nihilism, the “nothingness” that is left to them: spontaneous generation and evolutionary naturalism along with the idea that “We are already in the kingdom. Eternity is now.” (p. 206)
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.