Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
as usual all we get from the posters who believe in evolution are insults and
confabutory rhetoric that dances around the weakness of their arguments.
by the way, if the thought has ever occurred to you that the human experience
may be one of devolution, meaning a regression instead of a progression,
you might want to check out Human Devolution by Michael Cremo.
"None of this disputes the fact that Dr. Berlinski understands molecular biology" - I can't speak to Dr Berlinski's understanding of biology, and neither can you, so I don't know why you refer to that as a fact. I merely pointed out that post doc fellow is not quite the lofty credential that Eusebius seemed to think it is.
as usual all we get from the posters who believe in evolution are insults and
confabutory rhetoric that dances around the weakness of their arguments.
by the way, if the thought has ever occurred to you that the human experience
may be one of devolution, meaning a regression instead of a progression,
you might want to check out Human Devolution by Michael Cremo.
Yes Snowball7, if the scholar, in this case Dr. Berlinski, does not agree with the evolutionist, they will change the subject from what the scholar says about evolution and focus instead on his degrees. Such a pity. I believe it is called a form a character assassination.
I just kind of wonder how many who have written negatively of Dr. Berlinski actually watched the entire video? or like AREQUIPA likes to do, listen to one minute and give us all the reasons why the person is wrong or just read a paragraph of an entire book and tell us the writer is wrong. They must feel they are God-like to have such prescience as to know everything about what the scholar said or wrote without even listening or reading all they wrote and usually the naysayers are wrong in their surmisings. And these same people want us to believe in the unprovable assumptions of evolution? No thanks.
Becasue not every variation of Christianity holds the same beliefs about sin. Some hold that there is no "original" sin or imputed sin, that is the connection between God and man is severed only by our own missing of the mark and not that of our ancestors. They still believe redemption is necessary, and that Christ did it on the cross, they just believe that the sin you must be redeemed from is your own sin, and not someone else's...
I am sure there are even more views of original sin, ranging all the way to the idea that sin itself doesn't exist as something that destroys your connection to God, but rather is simply a description of when you fail to be like Christ.
I think you can say with certainty that your particular interpretation or tradition of Christianity cannot coexist with modern science. Maybe that points to a problem with your theology, since others can trust firmly in Christ's sacrifice for their salvation, knowing they are saved by grace, and still not close their eyes to what we have learned about the world.
-NoCapo
The apostle Paul, in his grand treatise to the Romans, explained that it was not sin which was passed down from Adam but rather the process of dying.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed through into all mankind, on which all sinned -"
It is because we are dying that we sin.
But Paul does not leave it at that. He shows us the solution to this dilemma in Romans 5:18,19; 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and other passages.
The person you replied to, Amaznjohn, is correct in that if Adam and Eve were just figments of someone's imagination, this then disrupts the evangel.
Trust me, in terms of the mental acrobatics involving the tightrope of doctrine while juggling the clubs of metaphorical truth and Jesus as partially omniscient, mindful of the solid ground of doubt when the safely net of flat denial (with the naysayers gleefully flicking the peanuts of Bible discrepancy) has been removed, it is not a great demand on apologetical inventiveness to get over, under and around it. Indeed, I have suggested a couple of plausible explanations myself.
Which, coming from one of the Hellbound Satanspawn should make both of 'em suspect right away.
And this from someone who tells us how a writer is wrong when all he did was read a couple sentences from that writer or watched maybe a minute if he even watched it of a video of an evolutionist denier.
Unfortuntely such will not help. I left this thread because the faith in Evolution is based on man and is shakier than belief in a Creator. I am back for this post as my final word on the subject.
(Note: I am sure it will be mocked, but no factual testable evidence will or can be produced to refute it).
NO evidence exists.
Lucy
The Coelacanth
Archeopteryx
and all other fossils Prove .............. nothing
They all exist complete and are nor showing any "transitional" evidence.
In effect they are simply species within a kind. It is the desire of Evolutionists to have them be something they are not. No eye with no nerve connecting it to the brain and no eye with brain incapable of receiving input from the eye and using such or any actual transition (incomplete) exists. None.
The fact they do not exist, Oops except for the Coelacanth, is simply part of life. Even today we have members of species going extinct. Lucy is a perfect example. Lucy is simply the remains of an extinct species, or member of a species, kinda like the Passenger pigeon is. NO Evolution.
We have members with odd variations, such as is claimed for Lucy, i.e. Bi-pedal VS non Bi-pedal. OK flightless Birds VS Birds that can fly. Variation, or evolution within a Kind, is all it is.
Evolutionists will claim evidence, support from the majority of scientists and mock those who disagree, but ................ they have no evidence just assumptions to fit a preconceived belief.
expatCA, I applaud you for boiling down the argument in such a succinct way.
I personally would chalk up evolution proponents to having an excessive imagination while denying the facts.
Scientifically, if anything demonstrated the evolution was a fact, it would be the Law of Evolution, rather than the Theory of Evolution.
If evolution occurred rapidly and you brought an animal evolving into a major league stadium with a sell out crowd and televised to billions of people it would still be the theory of evolution not the law. In science words like law and theory have precise meanings regardless of what non scientists think.
ToE also has definitions and much of what has been used here to attack it are outside of what it actually states. That has been repeatedly pointed out and yet non sense statements of what evolution is keep being repeated.
As far as the post fellowship person goes he himself states he was a research assistant. There is a lot of math in biology and without him having written any papers it may be he was there to model some of the math.
It is find to state that he was not taken serious however the thousands of biologists, geographers and geologists of the last 100 years get not only dismissed but their honesty is put to question. (not by you but by others)
Jonathan Wells, P.hD. molecular and cell biology, University of California Berkeley
Biologist Exposes Lie of "Overwhelming Evidence for Evolution" - Part 1
These eminent scientists expose the lies of evolution.
Can a Christian believe in evolution? Sure they CAN, but it would be a detriment to their fuller, truthful understanding of God creating mankind, plants and animals, not by evolutionary means but rather as fully functioning humans, plants and animals.
[quote=Eusebius;38156772]Jonathan Wells, P.hD. molecular and cell biology, University of California Berkeley
Biologist Exposes Lie of "Overwhelming Evidence for Evolution" - Part 1
These eminent scientists expose the lies of evolution.
Can a Christian believe in evolution? Sure they CAN, but it would be a detriment to their fuller, truthful understanding of God creating mankind, plants and animals, not by evolutionary means but rather as fully functioning humans, plants and animals.[/quote]
As the 19th century Jewish rabbi I quoted said--it shows God to be infinitely greater by bringing about everything in existence from a one-celled organism.
The faith of those who have to see things too literally is what is called into question by rejecting God-given intellectual and common sense abilities.
Jonathan Wells, P.hD. molecular and cell biology, University of California Berkeley
Biologist Exposes Lie of "Overwhelming Evidence for Evolution" - Part 1
These eminent scientists expose the lies of evolution.
Can a Christian believe in evolution? Sure they CAN, but it would be a detriment to their fuller, truthful understanding of God creating mankind, plants and animals, not by evolutionary means but rather as fully functioning humans, plants and animals.[/quote]
As the 19th century Jewish rabbi I quoted said--it shows God to be infinitely greater by bringing about everything in existence from a one-celled organism.
The faith of those who have to see things too literally is what is called into question by rejecting God-given intellectual and common sense abilities.
The three videos disprove that theory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
