Christian topic

This was intended for the 'Thread' - 'Creation/Evolution - the final word.' However, that seems to have diverged so greatly I feel a new thread is necessary to get this back on the original track!

For many years I have been handling UK £10 Notes. These have throughout had an impress of Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882). Over this same very long period. I have methodically and carefully observed that Charles has not changed (evolved) even one tiny bit. This, I submit, having been scientifically undertaken, can be taken as irrefutable evidence that the Theory of Evolution is, in fact, what it is shown to be - False!

This must truly be taken to be the last 'last word' on "Evolution versus Creationism."

In truth, of course, neither science nor logic can settle the matter. Science cannot prove Macro-Evolution. Neither can Creationism be proved or disproved. I find it intensely irritating on these boards, in this so-called debate, that the required distinction is usually ignored, between Macro-Evolution (the origin of origins) and micro-Evolution. Virtually everybody should be able to accept the latter, religious or not, because changes within species are happening all around us. (Why, for example, has man been able to produce so many different breeds of dogs - which must have all come from the wolf or wild dog. Man has repeated this procedure throughout all species he has domesticatedl) It would seem that species are maintained pure and separate in Nature (Creation, actually) by not reproducing across species. All classifications of birds, butterflys , fish and so forth remain true to type, even though for size and other characteristics they could readily interbreed. What force or law keeps them separate? The Bible provides the answer.

But it is strongly unacceptable in my reasoning to then process this thinking about the acceptability of micro-evolution backwards to conclude that this is how the 2 million or so known separate species of living organisms came into existence, seemingly from a single-celled origin, which itself had burst into life. Either we clearly accept 'micro' and 'Macro' properly as different classifications or a new word should be found for the 'origin of origins' (genesis) stage. The only true and readily acceptable evolution is micro-evolution.

Actually, debate between the two ideas - Science and Religion - might better cease entirely, because it is going nowhere, and so will remain. Personally, I am extremely pleased to be a committed Christian. I never have sought, and never will seek for proof of Creationism. I have gained overwhelming 'evidence' of God and His outworking reality that I readily take on trust that He is indeed the Creator, as He claims for Himself in the Bible.

I fail completely to understand how Atheists, Evolutionists etc., can live in this World and Universe, (of such universal complexity, great variety but interdependency, and absolute beauty in so many ways, such as sunsets, mountain and valley scenery, the rainbow, the peacock and cock pheasant, butterflys and paradise birds, bird structure and flight, the structure of the beehive and anthill, exotic tropical fish, coral reefs and associated life, the birth of new born creatures, sunshine, the moon and stars, not excluding Humans who despite our many failings we are told we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" - who can doubt it? - and so many other things) and yet still try to convince themselves that the Theory of Evolution [without the distinction it is so necessary to make] is as if proven. As if the 2 million separate species I have spoken of above could all have arrived at their wonderful state of perfection, as of now, by sheer chance of 'the survival of the fittest"

It seems self-evident to me that this denial of creation by a Creator God can only be for two reasons: (i) They have no or insufficient knowledge of God and His ways, or (ii) they cannot take the responsibility of being loyal to God and endeavouring to live a Christlike life; despite the numerous benefits that the bestowal of an immortal life would bring; including living forever continuing to enjoy, in peace and perfected health, the many delightful things hinted at above.

Kind Regards, Glorybe.

.... or a new word should be found for the 'origin of origins' (genesis) stage.

Quoted from this message

Hey! How about 'abiogenesis'? It sounds good.

Abio = non biological

Genesis = beginnings of life.

Do you think it will catch on?

glorybe21

Actually, debate between the two ideas - Science and Religion - might better cease entirely, because it is going nowhere.

Quoted from this message

Atheists and evolutionists have tried to hijack human beings origins away from God.

Re: MB 2 - 'Be Rational' :
"Shalom ! " - Hi ! 'BR' : I respectfully suggest you get two books, one for yourself. Be sure, yours will need to be the very first grade. You are obviously years younger than me!
Kind Regards, Glorybe.

Be sure, yours will need to be the very first grade.

Quoted from this message

No. You see, it was funny when Rational suggested that you get a colouring book, because you had just displayed a chronic aversion to reading books. You don't read books, therefore get a colouring book. That's how the joke works, see?

It doesn't work when you say the same thing back to Rational. Rational, as far as we can tell, reads.

You need to think of a different insult for him. One that's funny, or at least relates to him in some way.

Ploughgirl.

You need to start reading books too, perhaps. I suppose I'd be wasting my time to mention the Vole Clock? A rather neat conjunction between mammalian evolution and the investigation of human cultural phenomena. I'm afraid that Bishop Usher was just plain wrong: why? because he was ignorant. We live in a more informed age now, please pay attention.

Persecuted,

No, rather, literalists like you would seek to use God as a means of preventing people using the intelligence he gave to everyone of us. God and science are not incompatible. You'd be much happier if you realised that.

Pax

Nice discourse glorybe! God Bless

I fail completely to understand how Atheists, Evolutionists etc., can live in this World and Universe, (of such universal complexity, great variety but interdependency, and absolute beauty in so many ways, such as sunsets, mountain and valley scenery, the rainbow, the peacock and cock pheasant, butterflys and paradise birds, bird structure and flight, the structure of the beehive and anthill, exotic tropical fish, coral reefs and associated life, the birth of new born creatures, sunshine, the moon and stars, not excluding Humans who despite our many failings we are told we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" - who can doubt it? - and so many other things)

Quoted from this message

Why do creationists never mention all the other things? Arid salt flats and rivers of sulphuric acid that support no life but bacteria, the pathetic wings of flightless birds, whales and dolphins with lungs and vestigial rear leg bones, tapeworm, guinea worm, Ebola, Smallpox, Elephantisis, Bubonic Plague, conjoined twins, street entertainers etc etc.

and yet still try to convince themselves that the Theory of Evolution [without the distinction it is so necessary to make] is as if proven.

Quoted from this message

I don't convince myself, the mountains of evidence convince me. And it is only creationists who find it so necessary to make the distinction between micro & macro evolution, because they realise that evolution is an undeniable and observable fact and must change the terms to fit their argument.

As if the 2 million separate species I have spoken of above could all have arrived at their wonderful state of perfection, as of now, by sheer chance of 'the survival of the fittest"

Quoted from this message

If you think that all species are at a wonderful state of perfection and that it's down to sheer chance then you should learn the basics of evolution before you start threads denying it.

If someone came on this MB claiming that Jesus was a woman who lived in China in the 19th century, their understanding of Christianity would be on a par with your understanding of evolution by natural selection.

Nice discourse glorybe! God Bless

-----------------------------------


Was it.?

Do think the comment about Darwin’s picture on a 10 quid note not evolving added anything to the message?

I did.

I think it set us up nicely for the childish tripe that followed.

Mock Creation if you will,

----------------------------

Orange

So the word ‘stretched’ makes you think the original authors knew about an expanding universe? Bit of a straw grasping exercise there me thinks.