I find their discreditation of evolution highly suspect. They purportedly can prove evolution to be false by interviewing a number of random people who are not experts in evolution or scientists themselves. Obviously these people can’t give specific evidence or provide case study documents to the people holding the microphone.
This method is all fine and well — a few people who believe in evolution aren’t experts and can’t provide concrete evidence to support their claims because they digested the broken down simply version via education while they focused on other areas of their lives. Guess what? Anyone could turn that around and do that same to someone of any religious faith with just as much efficiency.
They tell people that people who believe in evolution are discredited because they use terms like “probably” or “maybe”. They sell this like it’s a huge negative — and it is not. One of the things I like about evolutionists, if you will, is that they don’t claim to have all the answers and that somethings ARE unknown. However, despite holes in the knowledge and understanding or simply leaving things up to a blind sort of faith, they will seek out the answers and fill in the gaps.
Finally, this is all based on an amazingly false dichotomy. Simply proving evolution wrong does NOT prove anything else right.
tcarstense invited 20 users to read this post 1 year, 5 months ago.
Well now, thank you for being my first ever poster! Ding ding ding! Yeay!
I would like to add a few more websites to the list, some from a creationist viewpoint (and saying creationist, I am referring to all religions; people usually assume only christians are creationists, which is not true) and some from an evolutionists viewpoint. OK?
Creation
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ind… (this one helps a bit)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Evolution
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism…
(I couldn’t find many other helpful sites on evolution other than straight textbook sites. of course, you all have seen those!!!)
And if you guys have any more websites or articles to list, bring em on!
I can understand that if you don’t let people know that they’re sinning that you’re condemning them to hell. I’ve heard that preached a million and six times. But sometimes there are people who take it too far. People can’t stand preachers because they’re condescending, and I felt like this website was talking to a small, slightly slow child.
tcar: go to youtube and search for “Richard Dawkins”
Which of his movies do you want me to watch? I’ve watched several and I find him to pose several thought provoking questions. I watched his rant with the bishop of oxford and that I find it disturbing as a christian, to say the least, that there are christians who decide to adapt what they believe to the current trends and thoughts instead of baseing what they believe on one solid, unchanging foundation, like the bible. I doubt those people really believe the bible is true, and thus I doubt they are truly saved (Christians). Again, if you are interested, religious or athiest etc, check out Answers in Genesis. I put that link on because it has actual scientists who can prove evolution untrue.
Now, you are very right, Chuy, about the disproving of evolution not proving creationism. They could both (Hypothetically) be either true or false. Answers in Genesis goes over this more, but right now I’ll try and explain this: there is a difference between Evolution science and frog anatomy science. You know what the difference is? Frog science is observational science, while evolution science is an origins science or a belief science. Yes, because evolution has never been recorded or observed, it is a faith, a religion. Of course, creation science is a religion too. Neither Evolution or Creation can be proven without a doubt, by the definition of science as a foundation. They can only be built up a little by observations confirming, or torn down a little by observations contradicting. You see?
And also, in my experiance, I’ve found that when it comes to creation versus evolution, both creationists and evolutionists claim that they don’t know everything in the world, but they both claim to have unbreakable foundations (Human Science for evolutionists and the Bible for creationists) that are supported by their observations.
The funny thing is, their observations are the same! When they observe fossils, or layers in rock, the evolutionists look through their science foundation based ‘glasses’ and say, “well, since I know this and that about evolution is true, this must mean, well, if you look at it this way, it confirms evolution! Yay!” The Creationists look through their Bible based (or Koran or Book of Mormon based) foundation ‘glasses’ and say, “well, since I know this and that about creation is true, this must mean, well, if you look at it this way, it confirms evolution! Yay!”
So it is both sides that KNOW they don’t know it all, but both sides claim they have the truth (through Bible or Science)
Chuy, I just wanted to interrupt my lecture to explain this to you… when they use the design needs designer argument or the illogic of chance or whatever arguement to disprove evolution, they hit both birds with one stone, because they are both proving chance to be insufficient (because it cannot create) AND proving Creation to be the only possible conclusion (because creating can only occur through, you guessed it, creation!).
So it isn’t really a false Dichotomy, because, in this case, the universe could only be created, or not created. That is the arguement the creationists are pushing. The theory of evolution will ‘evolve’ through time, and indeed has already evolved much, but creationists will still fight the Creation VS Non Creation fight for a long time
Also, one more thing for now;
Did you every notice why it seems a lot easier for evolutionists to prove their theories than for Creationists to prove theirs?
It’s all based on their foundations. Also, the fact that they are both Origins sciences, that is, Beliefs about the past that cannot be proved, only confirmed or weakened by observations.
Like I say over and over, evolution’s foundation is Science and Creation’s foundation is the Bible. Well, if you look at the secular world today, are people wanting things to be proven to them on the foundation of the bible? No! of course not! People are saying to Creationists, “Back off of your beliefs, back off your and prove creation by evolutionists foundation, their belief system.” That doesn’t sound like too much to ask, does it? (By the way, we’re still talking about Origins Science, faith, not observational, testable real science.) Everyone expects Creationists to say, OK, Here I am, I will prove Creation to be true, relying on the evolutionary system of beliefs. That seems so hard for Christians, and you know why? Here, I’ll show you…
How about we simply switch the situation around. Instead of having a creationist prove what he believes on a foundation of evolutionary theories, lets compare it to a Christian asking an evolutionist to back off of his belief system, and prove evolution happened, using the Bible as an infallible Foundation for his or her arguements. This makes no sense at all, does it?
Lilla, try http://www.answersingenesis.org/
They will give more answers in a more ‘grownup fashion’…
Also, please invite people to the post. I want discussion and arguements, not a lot of one-way talking to an audience of nobody.
tcarstense invited 20 users to read this post 1 year, 5 months ago.
.......... invited 35 users to read this post 1 year, 5 months ago.
there is a difference between Evolution science and frog anatomy science. You know what the difference is? Frog science is observational science, while evolution science is an origins science or a belief science. Yes, because evolution has never been recorded or observed, it is a faith, a religion.
That is quite simply untrue. Faith is a believe (and action) based in (and upon) something forgoing evidence whereas evolution requires no such commitment. Additionally, evolution has been, and is an observed science.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evol…
You can skip to the bottom Notes for a wonderful example of natural evolution.
What about missing links? How come we haven’t found any? Maybe the really are “Missing links”!
What about species changing from one to another. How come we have not observed this happening? Maybe because it might not really be happening at all?
Evolution and creationism have both never been observed, (except maybe by God and Aam… )
The are theories… Faiths, upon which observations are made.
Evolutionists make observations and interpret them THROUGH EVOLUTION. That is how they work. Creationists interpret their observations THROUGH THE BIBLE.
This is a quote taken from http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evol…
” An example was described by Cristina Sandoval in the May 23, 2002 issue of Nature. A species of insect called the “walking stick” (Timena cristinae) found in the Santa Ynez Mountains of California now exists in two distinct varieties or forms that are in the process of evolving into two separate species by adapting to different environments. The insect forms differ in terms of genetically determined color patterns–one is striped and the other is not. The striped ones hide from predators on the striped chamise plant, while the unstriped ones hide on the unstriped blue lilac plant. Those that have inherited the appropriate camouflaging color pattern for their chosen environment survive the onslaught of lizards and birds. In this case, the natural predators, rather than humans, are the driving forces of natural selection. Mating experiments show that each variety of “walking stick” prefers to mate only with others having the same color pattern. This breeding isolation is leading to the evolution of two distinct species. “
AHA! This will be fun; I’ve just been learning about things like this!
(By the way my sources are all over the web; most all of it can be found in the article section of Answersingenesis.org)
to be con’t…
What about missing links? How come we haven’t found any? Maybe the really are “Missing links”!
No one who believes in evolution would not state that “the missing link” is anything but, as titled, the missing link. However, lack of evidence is not a deterrent, but a stepping stone to further exploration and answers.
One of my things I recall from being a young kid was teacher who told me to go up to the empty white board. This was one of those, “entire wall” 25 foot long white boards. He said, “Take that marker, and put the smallest possible dot you can on the board.” After doing so, he invited me to the back of the room to observe the board and dot and recounted:
The smallest measureable part of the black dot you just made is what you know.
The black dot represents what you know you don’t know.
The rest of the board is knowledge of which we have absolutely no comprehension.
In religion and faith, I find people content to sit back and ignore the vastness of the white board as simply incomprehensible and unapproachable, while evolutionary minded people seek to expand the black dot and the smallest measurable portion of it.
The above (skip a post) example demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by NATURAL SELECTION, WITHIN ONE CREATED KIND (WALKING STICKS). May I ask, are any of these situations demonstrating, a walking stick even simply turning into fly? This example offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for ameba-to-man evolution.
(NATURAL SELECTION IS COMPLETELY TRUE, That is observational science. We can observe, “The differential survival and reproduction of organisms with genetic characteristics that enable them to better utilize environmental resources”
-www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1994/glossary.html )
This is all natural selection, and this example is the same exact replica of the peppered Moth fiasco (which did, unfortunately turn out to be a fiasco).
These two forms of walking stick are still walking sticks!
Take dogs, for an example of natural selection; there is almost hundreds of ‘kinds’ dogs, but all of them are 100% dog, not 74% dog and 26% ambhibian creature! They are all dogs, with MORE OR LESS GENETIC INFORMATION! I can go on forever about genetics, such as if you take an identical wolf pair (much dna information) you will get a variety of pups with a variety of genetic information (small pups, large pups, shorthair, longhair, etc.) If you take an identical poodle pair, with most of the genetic info leaked out through centuries of breeding, (artificial selection), they only have poodle pups, same size and same color, because they don’t have the same variety of dna!
And lastly, of course, they are breeding out the genetic info themselves. Duh! everyone knows animals generally are instinctly drawn to mate with others that most genetically resemble them. Put a girl german shepherd with a boy poodle on one side and a boy german shepherd on the other. Which dog will she chose? The german shepherd, of course, at least most of the time. Each animal prefers an animal closest to it’s genetic info. Also, are they hinting that although the walking sticks are exactly the same in every other way, their COLOR ALONE determines that they are seperate species? Uh, I think you may be knowing where I am going with this…
Hey world, does anyone out there agree with me that color alone cannot determine a seperation between species of animals… or humans… ?
I mean if it works for animals, why should we be so against it as humans?
(NOTE: THIS DOES NOT REFLECT MY VIEWS, I AM MERELY TAKING THE EXAMPLE TO IT’s LOGICAL MORAL CONCLUSION - assuming that it is an example of evolution and not merely Natural Selection… !)
Actually, we ‘religious people’ are kind of divided on your point, Chuy. Some are content to live their lives, not really caring if there is two colors of walking stick in CA or not. Some however are excited about science and explore it. However, they have a different goal; they don’t search primarily to know more about science and draw people to know and love science, They search primarily to know more about God and draw people to know and love God.
Knowing more about science and history, etc, is seen as necessary for athiests, because they derive their wisdom from this and live their lives by this wisdom. We christians have it easier; we merely read the Bible and study it, and pray FIRST, Then God reveals, gradually his wisdom to us and live our lives by this wisdom.
We have the same board, the same white with tiny dot. We don’t know anymore than you do… only our savior, Creator, Daddy and friend, for him, not only the whole board is black!
You are trying to draw, point by point, on the board to add to what you know.
For us, we rely on God to show us his board, parts of it at a time, and paint our board for us.
You learn for yourself, but we learn from He who is omniscient
Nope, I never heard of it.
You should look it up and http://www.answersingenesis.org/
They might help you.
tell me, if it’s not too personal, why are you a ‘confused Christian’, as your profile explains? What are you confused about? Are you feeling a bit disillusioned? Can I help?
How did I miss this post? Hmmmm. I’ll check out that site.
“We believe and teach that salvation is by grace, through faith, and not of works.”
Yet, Jesus taught that eternal life was gained by deeds, not faith.
Matthew 25:
The Sheep And The Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His shining-greatness, He will sit down on His throne of greatness. All the angels will be with Him. 32 All the nations of the earth will be gathered before Him. He will divide them from each other as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on His right side, but the goats He will put on His left side. 34 “Then the King will say to those on His right side, ‘Come, you who have been called by My Father. Come into the holy nation that has been made ready for you before the world was made. 35 For I was hungry and you gave Me food to eat. I was thirsty and you gave Me water to drink. I was a stranger and you gave Me a room. 36 I had no clothes and you gave Me clothes to wear. I was sick and you cared for Me. I was in prison and you came to see Me.’
37 “Then those that are right with God will say, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You? When did we see You thirsty and give You a drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and give You a room? When did we see You had no clothes and we gave You clothes? 39 And when did we see You sick or in prison and we came to You?’ 40 Then the King will say, ‘For sure, I tell you, because you did it to one of the least of My brothers, you have done it to Me.’
41 “Then the King will say to those on His left side, ‘Go away from Me! You are guilty! Go into the fire that lasts forever. It has been made ready for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry but you did not give Me food to eat. I was thirsty but you did not give Me water to drink. 43 I was a stranger but you did not give Me a room. I had no clothes but you did not give Me clothes. I was sick and in prison but you did not come to see Me.’
44 “Then they will ask, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger? When did we see You without clothes or sick or in prison and did not care for You?’ 45 Then He will say to them, ‘For sure, I tell you, because you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 These will go to the place where they will be punished forever. But those right with God will have life that lasts forever.”
So, since thier teaching is in direct conflict with the biblical teaching of Jesus, I would have to say that, like most modern Christian dogma, it’s a bunch of BS.
Like most modern modern christian Dogma, its a bunch of BS? (All this from one sentence)
Wait a minute… isn’t that kind of generalizing? About the site, and about most “Christian dogma”?
The passage you quoted is relevant, but there are some other passages that clarify some things.
It is a fundamental Christian belief that we are justified by faith. Justification means that God declares a sinner to be righteous. He does this by crediting, by reckoning the righteousness of Jesus to the sinner. This is done by faith. That is, when the sinner puts his faith in the sacrifice of Jesus and trusts in Him and not himself for righteousness, then God justifies him. “And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” (Rom. 4:3). But, if the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith, does it also teach we are justified by works as James seems to say? Do we have a contradiction? The answer is no.
It is erroneous to take a verse, read it without its context, and then attempt to develop a doctrine from that verse alone. Therefore, let’s take a look at the context of James 2:24 which says that a man is justified by works. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us to not show favoritism. Verses 8- 13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works.
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
Notice that James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith, verses 14. He then immediately gives an example of what true and false faiths are. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17). Then he shows that that type of faith isn’t much different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith by showing Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds.
James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, “Faith without works is dead,” (James 2:20).
This is why in the middle of his section on faith and works, he says in verse 19, “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” James says this because the demons believe in God, that is, they have faith, but the faith they have is useless. It does not result in appropriate works. Their faith is only a mental acknowledgment of God’s existence.
Ascentia and Fiducia
Two words are worth introducing here: ascentia and fiducia. Ascentia is the mental ascent, the mental acknowledgment of something’s existence. The demons acknowledge and believe that God exists. Fiducia is more than mental acknowledgment. It involves a trust in something, a giving over to it, a complete believing and acceptance of something. This is the kind of faith that a Christian has in Christ. A Christian, therefore, has fiducia; that is, he has real faith and trust in Christ, not simply an acknowledgment that He lived on earth at one time. Another way to put this is that there are many people in the world who believed that Jesus lived: ascentia. But they do not believe that He is their savior, the one to be looked to and trusted for the forgiveness of their sins.
Ascentia does not lead to works. Fiducia does. Ascentia is not of the heart. Fiducia is.
What is James Saying?
James is simply saying that if you ‘say’ you are a Christian, then there had better be some appropriate works manifested or your faith is false. This sentiment is echoed in 1 John 2:4 which says, “If you say you have come to know Him, yet you do not keep His commandments, then the truth is not in you and you are a liar.”
Apparently, there were people who were saying they were Christians, but were not manifesting any of the fruit of Christianity. Can this faith justify? Can the dead ‘faith’ that someone has which produces no change in a person and no good works before men and God be a faith that justifies? Absolutely not. It is not merely enough to say you believe in Jesus. You must actually believe and trust in Him. If you actually do, then you will demonstrate that faith by a changed and godly life. If not, then your profession is of no more value than the same profession of demons: “We believe Jesus lived.”
Notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul uses to support the teaching of justification by faith in Rom. 4:3. James 2:23 says, “and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’” If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example.
Therefore, we are justified by faith. That is, we are made righteous in the eyes of God by faith as is amply demonstrated by Romans. However, that faith, if it is true, will (it is forced to) result in deeds appropriate to salvation. After all, didn’t God say in Eph. 2:8-10, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
tcarstense invited 14 users to read this post 1 year, 3 months ago.
I haven’t really checked out the sites (I had 5 hrs of sleep last night :P). Anyways, I’m just posting facts I’ve learned about evolution from a variety of bio courses which seem to make se
Jeff
LillaCat
mills
sathanas6
elatenradiate