Posted on 06/15/2023 1:26:47 AM PDT by spirited irish
When modern pagan materialists speak frankly, they not only confess their fear and hatred of the Triune God but admit that their so-called ‘scientific theories’…the products of their darkened imaginations…are foolishness:
“…one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched…. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories. (One Long Argument,1991, p. 99, Ernst Mayr, 1904–2005, Professor of Zoology at Harvard University)
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotandliberty.com ...
Should be self-evident that the phrase “evolutionary theist” is oxymoronic.
ping
Thomas Aquinas and Augustine believed in evolution so that is good enough for me
Referenced material please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBssnELtE94
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ_prUuzX50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EPmPA7mvVU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNfUrgb-1c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y_15D23tRM
* In the beginning the universe was void and without form - Sounds like the singularity, within which even the laws of physics did not exist (i.e., without form).
* And God said, "Let there be light." -- The Big Bang.
* And then an Earth covered with water, then plant life, then animal life, then humans. -- Which is how evolution is said to have progressed.
* Finally, a thousand years is as a day to God. So billions of years of evolution could be six days to God.
Except that there is no evidence for evolution. You go there after you reject God.
If the word evolution is used to describe a process of transformation of a fertilized human egg to its fullness, a human baby, the word is applicable. However, if it is used as pagan Atomists, ancient Egyptians, and mystical pantheists use it, to describe a process of change over long periods of time from one kind ie.,a snake, to another kind, ie. a human, the word is not applicable.
* In the beginning the universe was void and without form - Sounds like the singularity, within which even the laws of physics did not exist (i.e., without form).
Applying modern, yet ancient concepts to the void leads to errors in thinking. To ancient and modern Hindus the Big Bang is a pilapia.
* And then an Earth covered with water, then plant life, then animal life, then humans. -- Which is how evolution is said to have progressed.
Evolution is fully compatible with how the human mind thinks, that is, a process beginning with one word, then another, and another, and so on. Thus it is presumptuous for humans to assign evolution as a process to God as if He too must think one word, then another, and so on. God has told us He does not think as humans think and we would do well to remember this
. * Finally, a thousand years is as a day to God. So billions of years of evolution could be six days to God.
God created time, but He is not within time but outside of time. Now here is what Ambrose said about the beginnings of all things:
"Hexameron, Book 1, Ch. 2: He linked together the beginnings of things, the creator of the world, and the creation of matter in order that you might understand that God existed before the beginning of the world or that He was Himself the beginning of all things. FCAm, 5
Now Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1, Q 65, Art 4: Accordiongly, the corporeal forms that bodies had when first produced came immediately from God. Whose bidding alone matter obeys, as its own proper cause. ST, 616
Aquinas said bodies were produced immediately, thus birds were birds, fish were fish, and humans were humans from the very beginning because produced immediately. Thus bodies did not come about through a billion year process of evolutionary change as man presumes
Yes, there’s the apparent remains of many animals and plants of different kinds no longer seen alive, but no evidence of change from one kind, let’s say, simpler and less functional, to another more complex or well-adapted kind. The absence of the latter in the fossil record at this point is fairly screaming: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has zero evidentiary support (i.e., is wrong!).
See post 9
That’s a very weird argument.
There’s as much evidence for evolution as there is for Creation.
The Bible explained the “what”. Science explains “how”.
What cracks me up, as a born again Christian, why anyone would think there’s a conflict between them.
It’s like saying, all medical and scientific observation over the last 300 years around the “evolution” from unfertilised egg and a sperm all the way to the arrival of a newborn baby is heresy.
Without it, claiming to be “pro life” as regards the unborn child would be a nonsense. Before we understood how it worked, maybe 80% of all pregnancies failed in the first trimester, the only way to save a premature baby had an 80% chance of killing the mother, and a fifth of all babies born live didn’t live long enough to walk. Infant and fetal mortality was an occupational hazard.
We can only be Pro Life because we understand the science. And the science is God’s Majesty. Read Psalm 139. AFTER you’ve figured that babies aren’t delivered fully formed by storks, or left under a gooseberry bush, and what sounded poetic suddenly becomes epic.
13 You formed my inmost being;
you knit me in my mother’s womb.e
14 I praise you,
because I am wonderfully made;
wonderful are your works!
My very self you know.
15 My bones are not hidden from you,
When I was being made in secret,
fashioned in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw me unformed;
in your book all are written down;
my days were shaped, before one came to be.
The same happens when you have a comprehension of the scale of the cosmos.
He made the earth in a week by our measurement of time? Like a sandcastle? Meh. So what.
He made the UNIVERSE in what He thinks of as a week, and in human chronology that was 13 billion years. But it wasn’t a sandcastle, it was an ever expanding super sized quantum computer that He can direct. It self organises, rearranges, combines, divides, renews and destroys, ALL THE TIME. And He wrote the program.
Mind. Blown.
2 Corinthians 5:7 , Hebrews 11:1.
There is no beginning.
Darwin said his theory only works as long as every part of every complex biological system could be broken into small parts that could have each evolved over time. A system that could not be divided without losing its benefits was called Irreducibly Complex. Such a system invalidated Evolutionary theory.
DNA is Irreducibly Complex. It invalidates evolutionary theory. Evolutionary biologists don’t even have any legitimate suggestions on how it could have evolved.
I know a man who said the bible was written by man..thus was not infallible.
God took him to see heaven. When the imaginary place becomes real... all doubt disappears. Not everyone gets to see ..Jesus said blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe
Thank you.
ERVs conclusively demonstrate that humans and chimps had a common ancestor that was neither human nor chimp.
Unless you’ve got a way to completely deny genetics as it’s been developed over the past 75 years.
Yup. Evolutionary “theories” existed back to ancient Greek times. Mankind’s attempt to comprehend the variety of life versus the sheer impossibility of organisms living very long in a hostile environment. Each iteration of evolutionary theory uses current scientific “knowledge” faulty or not.
The ideas of Anaximander, Empedocles, Ibn Kaldun, might seem archaic to modern evolutionary concepts, but the impetus is the same. Those forces still haven’t stopped many, many scientists from signing the declaration of dissent regarding Darwin’s(Wallace’s) theories being able to account for the origin of life and its variations.
It takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in an all powerful Creator.
The complete “geologic column” doesn’t exist in it’s entirety anywhere in the world.
There are literally millions of reasons why Darwin’s evolutionary theory is virtually or literally impossible.
The statistical probability (i.e., unlikelihood) of evolution occurring is staggering. Just one example is good enough for me: what are the odds that bees just happened to evolve at the exact same time as all the plant species that require their existence for pollination?
The same forces of “natural selection” that supposedly advance the process would kill any specimen that was in the process of attempting to evolve a new appendage or organ or whatever.
Even Darwin himself suggested a test for his theory that fails empirical evidence: the sudden appearance of new species.
It seems silly to me to believe in a God who can create life but is incapable of creating it in the literal way described in his word.
The fact that there hasn’t been a single evolutionary advancement in all of recorded history (no new species have appeared while many have become extinct) is another nail in Darwin’s theory’s coffin.
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.