Ya know, you're the kind of person that makes me embarrassed to call myself a Christian. :|
nik
Ya know, you're the kind of person that makes me embarrassed to call myself a Christian. :|
nik
"Ya know, you're the kind of person that makes me embarrassed to call myself a Christian."
Should Christians be weak and embarrassed, or strong and confident?
Should Christians be weak and embarrassed, or strong and confident?
There's no way I'm reading the 6+ pages but I just felt I needed to include my POV.
Evolution can be broken down into two parts. Microevolution and Macroevolution.
Microevolution - Microevolution is described as the small changes that occur within a group or species of organisms. This would include the changes that have been produced with hybrid plants, varieties of fruits and different breeds of animals. These are ?small (micro) changes (evolution)? that occur within the framework of the genetic makeup that God has given these organisms. This type of ?evolution? is a scientifically provable fact. It does not oppose what God has told us about the creation of the world. In fact, it is just what we would predict would be seen because God told all living things to reproduce ?after their kind.? Many times in science textbooks the Peppered Moth, drug resistant bacteria or Darwin?s Finches are shown as ?proof? of the General Theory of Organic Evolution, when in fact they are only examples of microevolution. We need to understand this and point this out to those we talk with about this.
Macroevolution - Macroevolution on the other hand is described as the large changes that occur between species or groups of organisms. It is the supposed change from a fish to a salamander, a salamander to a lizard, a lizard to a monkey and a monkey to a man. This is NOT a scientifically provable fact! This in theory is supposedly shown to have happened in the fossil record, but NO fossils of a ?half-this, half-that? have ever been found. This idea is unscientific and unbiblical. This is the concept that is most often referred to when someone uses the word evolution.
Given Genesis 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
According to what I read, from this I gather, man was not born like by our means of birth, but created as a grown man. If a doctor of our time could go back to that day, would that doctor be able to tell that Adam was only 1 day old instead of a man of many years as he appeared? No. Why? Because he was created with the appearance of age. Given this, the world was also created with the appearance of age. And why shouldn't it have been. How do you make a rock look 1 day old?
Also take into the circumstance of the biblical "flood" that overtook the entire earth for months. Before this time the atmosphere of the planet was extremely different b/c it had never rained before. If science has told us anything it is that given a different environment things grow/change/evolve differently. The tales of men living to be 600-800 years old can be accepted as true b/c of the different environment. We cannot disprove it b/c no way of recreating what life had been like before the flood.
Something that separates what the bible teaches versus others is that the Bible is self proving. In the old testament prophesies were made hundreds (~600) of years before they were done. I'm specifically talking of the crucifiction of Jesus Christ and his resurrection (most importantly his resurrection). Given everything else, Moses, Noah, Abraham....all the way up to Jesus, assume its true, if Jesus had not died and had been resurrected all of it would have been hogwater. It is Jesus's sacrifice that was the cornerstone of God's plan. There is proof of Jesus's existance, other than the Bible. Given that Jesus existed, his story is told in the Bible. Given this was his story, say it is true. Given this is the true story of Jesus and he was resurrected 3 days after his death, I am forced to believe his story b/c it would have been impossible to occur without God.
Given other storys there is no self proving evidence, which again, is why I chose my religion to be focused around the bible.
Evolution can be broken down into two parts. Microevolution and Macroevolution.
Microevolution - Microevolution is described as the small changes that occur within a group or species of organisms. This would include the changes that have been produced with hybrid plants, varieties of fruits and different breeds of animals. These are ?small (micro) changes (evolution)? that occur within the framework of the genetic makeup that God has given these organisms. This type of ?evolution? is a scientifically provable fact. It does not oppose what God has told us about the creation of the world. In fact, it is just what we would predict would be seen because God told all living things to reproduce ?after their kind.? Many times in science textbooks the Peppered Moth, drug resistant bacteria or Darwin?s Finches are shown as ?proof? of the General Theory of Organic Evolution, when in fact they are only examples of microevolution. We need to understand this and point this out to those we talk with about this.
Macroevolution - Macroevolution on the other hand is described as the large changes that occur between species or groups of organisms. It is the supposed change from a fish to a salamander, a salamander to a lizard, a lizard to a monkey and a monkey to a man. This is NOT a scientifically provable fact! This in theory is supposedly shown to have happened in the fossil record, but NO fossils of a ?half-this, half-that? have ever been found. This idea is unscientific and unbiblical. This is the concept that is most often referred to when someone uses the word evolution.
Given Genesis 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
According to what I read, from this I gather, man was not born like by our means of birth, but created as a grown man. If a doctor of our time could go back to that day, would that doctor be able to tell that Adam was only 1 day old instead of a man of many years as he appeared? No. Why? Because he was created with the appearance of age. Given this, the world was also created with the appearance of age. And why shouldn't it have been. How do you make a rock look 1 day old?
Also take into the circumstance of the biblical "flood" that overtook the entire earth for months. Before this time the atmosphere of the planet was extremely different b/c it had never rained before. If science has told us anything it is that given a different environment things grow/change/evolve differently. The tales of men living to be 600-800 years old can be accepted as true b/c of the different environment. We cannot disprove it b/c no way of recreating what life had been like before the flood.
Something that separates what the bible teaches versus others is that the Bible is self proving. In the old testament prophesies were made hundreds (~600) of years before they were done. I'm specifically talking of the crucifiction of Jesus Christ and his resurrection (most importantly his resurrection). Given everything else, Moses, Noah, Abraham....all the way up to Jesus, assume its true, if Jesus had not died and had been resurrected all of it would have been hogwater. It is Jesus's sacrifice that was the cornerstone of God's plan. There is proof of Jesus's existance, other than the Bible. Given that Jesus existed, his story is told in the Bible. Given this was his story, say it is true. Given this is the true story of Jesus and he was resurrected 3 days after his death, I am forced to believe his story b/c it would have been impossible to occur without God.
Given other storys there is no self proving evidence, which again, is why I chose my religion to be focused around the bible.
LOL, you really should have read the thread...
If you don't have the energy to read the thread, don't post in it... isn't that simple enough for you?
I wasn't involving myself in the discussion, but rather putting my POV out according to the original topic in the thread. I think I'm allowed to. 
That and MrPALCO wasn't discussing the topic in the correct manner for the people being talked to. (coming off as a all knowing godfreak, which isn't how I wanted people reading this thread to portray all Christians)
edit, I did manage to read 3+ pages worth of posts.
That and MrPALCO wasn't discussing the topic in the correct manner for the people being talked to. (coming off as a all knowing godfreak, which isn't how I wanted people reading this thread to portray all Christians)
edit, I did manage to read 3+ pages worth of posts.
"That and MrPALCO wasn't discussing the topic in the correct manner for the people being talked to. (coming off as a all knowing godfreak, which isn't how I wanted people reading this thread to portray all Christians) "
By your own admission you decided not to read the whole thread.
Therefore, Christian or not, you do not have all the information with which to see the flow and plan to my response.
Line upon line, precept upon precept.
By your own admission you decided not to read the whole thread.
Therefore, Christian or not, you do not have all the information with which to see the flow and plan to my response.
Line upon line, precept upon precept.
Evidently not since I'm reading some responses to your statements such as
I could keep going, but that's just from the first page.
Christians aren't supposed to pick fights, or be prideful, or make trouble, either. Go read your Bible and STFU.
nik
The bible instructs us to talk with people about religion/Jesus/God/etc, but not in a way that would promote this type of feedback but rather discussing it with them in mind. ie. in a topic regarding evolution you're discussing people's conscious's/parenting ablilites/ect.
Just doesn't seem to fit to me.
Also, you're jumping around like a madman with all the topics you are bringing up without anything to back up what you are saying (ex. bible verses)
It is. It takes faith to believe in creationism. It takes faith to believe that amino acids could figure out how to reproduce during their tiny lifespans, as well.
"Just doesn't seem to fit to me." -- GtPrOjEcTX
Since you refuse to start from the beginning and read this thread statement by statement, I will summarize for you my purpose in this thread.
This thread started by referring to Creationists as "numnuts".
I decided it would be an interesting exercise to allow the foolish to speak while answering foolishness with Wisdom. In so doing believers in the group would either be offended because of their youth or gratified that foolishness had been answered with Power.
GtPrOjEcTX, each thread has a purpose. Judging from the degradation and muddleheadedness of the foolish respondents to my posts, I now say my purpose has been achieved in this thread.
Loving kindness for the sincere.
Punishment for the fool.
Since you refuse to start from the beginning and read this thread statement by statement, I will summarize for you my purpose in this thread.
This thread started by referring to Creationists as "numnuts".
I decided it would be an interesting exercise to allow the foolish to speak while answering foolishness with Wisdom. In so doing believers in the group would either be offended because of their youth or gratified that foolishness had been answered with Power.
GtPrOjEcTX, each thread has a purpose. Judging from the degradation and muddleheadedness of the foolish respondents to my posts, I now say my purpose has been achieved in this thread.
Loving kindness for the sincere.
Punishment for the fool.
It sure has. But that's what happens when MrPALCO was dropped on his head several times when he was smaller.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter