Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If a person is already saved then his salvation cannot possibly be at risk.
Scientists Question Darwinism
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
If a person is already saved then his salvation cannot possibly be at risk.
I've heard people who believe that. Their argument is that if one is saved, that person would not make an idol of creationism. However...
Colossians 1:21 And you, whereas you were some time alienated and enemies in mind in evil works: [22] Yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unspotted, and blameless before him: [23] If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister.
St. Paul says it's conditional on continuing in the faith. I think he's right. What do you think?
genuineoriginal
New member
| More Than 1,000 Ph.D. Scientists Are 'Skeptical' of Darwinian Evolution On the 210th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday, the Discovery Institute is going public with a list of more than 1,000 Ph.D. scientists who declared their skepticism toward Darwin's mechanism for evolution: natural selection acting on random mutation. This mechanism is the centerpiece of Neodarwinism, the current but eroding consensus on how evolution took place. "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged," the statement reads. "Our statement is not anti-evolution, it's on what is the mechanism," John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, told PJ Media on Monday. He said the list originated in 2001 "as a response to claims that were frequently parroted by the media that there are no scientists who raise questions about Darwinian theory." The Discovery Institute found 100 Ph.D. scientists and published the list in The New York Review of Books. After a few years, "the pushback became really harsh; some of the people on the list lost funding, some were threatened with their jobs. We thought, 'We don't have to keep promoting this.' People kept signing anyway." West insisted that the list "keeps growing on its own accord without our promotion." In fact, West told PJ Media that the Discovery Institute encouraged many professors not to sign, lest they lose their jobs. "There are people who want to sign and we tell them not to because they don't have tenure. It's not like we're begging people to sign," he said. Importantly, not everyone on the list is a Christian, and the list has nothing to do with the theory of Intelligent Design. Americans need to understand that there is a real debate about key aspects of Darwin's theory of evolution, and that dissent is not merely a religious position, but a scientific one. |
Scientists lose funding and lose their jobs just for questioning whether "natural selection acting on random mutation" is responsible for the complexity of life?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Perhaps.
Tell us why "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.
You really think your new interpretation is better than the Bible?
As you have been taught, the creation story is explicitly historical narrative.
From the beginning, God mocked those who rejected His word.
Take it up with God.
Question-begging nonsense. Try engaging rationally.
The good news for you is that it is not crucial whether you approve. You can be anti-YE creationist and still be saved. Even if you make it into an idol.
Because what people believe is irrelevant compared with what the Bible teaches. And as you have been taught, the Bible is explicit:
"Six days."
"The whole world."
Instead of losing your temper, and making foolish and false accusations, why not learn a little bit about what the Bible says?
Wouldn't hurt to try?
Because it does not fit with the evidence. And dont bother to ask "What evidence?" You know the evidence. Your fear of your vengeful deity makes you incapable of rational thought.
The evidence is the words of the text. They say "six days." The Bible plainly says "six days." The evidence is that it says "six days."
If you want to disagree, you have to claim that the Bible does not plainly say "six days." Show us your evidence that the Bible cannot mean what it plainly says.
Go have a nice lie down and think through your approach before you post again. :up:
Kit the Coyote
New member
Words written in a book are not evidence, they are a testimony. We measure the accuracy of such testimony by how well it fits the observable evidence. In this case, a literal six-day creation does not fit the observable evidence. Starting simply with the observable age of the Universe and the Earth. The observable horizon of the universe and the chemical composition of the Sun and Earth tell us that this solar system is rather recent creation in a much older universe.
:sigh:
Of course they can be. The claim is that the Bible teaches "six days" of creation. Where else are we supposed to look to find out what scripture says other than the text?
If the claim was: "Tolkien uses an out-of-universe metaphor in The Lord of the Rings, the evidence would obviously be in his book.
Why are Darwinists so universally dense?
You need to respond to what people have claimed, not what you wish they had said.
Note the deception, how they assert that a belief in creationism is the same or similar to believing in the flat earth, and that believing the earth is round (a fact) is the same or similar to believing the lie of evolution.
:blabla:
Are you trying to assert that Galileo did not believe in God? I'm not sure what your point is here...
Creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive.
"Theistic evolution," as it's called, is an oxymoron, self-contradictory.
You can't have a guided unguided process.
Plus, God Himself says He created man AT THE BEGINNING of creation, not at the end.
It's not a question of whether God is capable of such, but a question of DID He, and since He did not (no such thing as a "guided unguided process"), then it would be irrational to try to argue against what He DID do, which is create man at the beginning of the creation.
Derf
Well-known member
Personally, I think it's more accurate to say that creationism and evolutionism are mutually exclusive. Evolutionism is what teaches an unguided process. Evolution CAN be guided, but evolutionism insists that the creature is the creator of himself.
Ps 100:3 ...It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves...
Last edited:
Don't feed the troll who's trying to derail the thread, the topic of which is "Scientists Question Darwin".
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
my bad - he does that so often i didn't even notice what thread we're in :chuckle:
i reported the post where jg took it off the rails
Way ahead of you, haha
genuineoriginal
New member
You mean this evidence?
| No Slow and Gradual Erosion The fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record consists of tens of thousands of feet of sedimentary layers, of which about 4,500 feet (1,372 m) are exposed in the walls of Grand Canyon. If this enormous thickness of sediments was deposited over 500 or more million years, as conventionally believed, then some boundaries between layers should show evidence of millions of years of slow erosion, when deposition was not occurring, just as erosion is occurring on some land surfaces today. On the other hand, if this enormous thickness of sediments was all deposited in just over a year during the Genesis Flood, then the boundaries between the layers should show evidence of continuous rapid deposition, with only occasional rapid erosion or no erosion at all. And that’s exactly what we find, as illustrated by strata boundaries in the Grand Canyon. The biblical account of the Flood describes the waters sweeping over the continents to cover the whole earth. The waters flowing right around the earth would have catastrophically eroded sediments from some locations, transported them long distances, and then rapidly deposited them. Because the waters flowed “continually” (the word used in the Scriptures), erosion, transport, and deposition of sediments would have been continually rapid. Thus billions of dead plants and animals were rapidly buried and fossilized in sediment layers that rapidly accumulated, with only rapid or no erosion at their boundaries because they were deposited just hours, days, or weeks apart. So the evidence declares that the Genesis Flood actually happened, being a major event in the earth’s history, just as God has told us in His eyewitness account. |
Right Divider
Body part
I appreciate the sentiment of your post, but that verse is NOT about the creation of humankind, but about the creation of Israel.
Psa 100:3 KJV Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Derf
Well-known member
They merely accept the current scientific theories, too, of which I am skeptical of some. To put current scientific theories on the level of the bible is not a Christian position, however many Christians may hold it.
To put current scientific theories on the level of the bible is not a Christian position, however many Christians may hold it.[/QUOTE]
Yep. You won't go to hell for being a creationist or for accepting evolution. It's just not a salvation issue. Unless you make one of them an idol and demand that all Christians must believe it your way. That could put your salvation in danger.