Only God can save us as is promised. Those who are destroying the earth will be removed. Those who are destroying the earth are also destroying the human genome. This is in the scriptures.
I emailed Ken Miller three times and asked him for a debate in public anywhere on video. He refused and said that evolution is proven. Yet he doesn't want to stand up for his beliefs. He only does so when he is not up against a real scientist. With constant thousands of genetic diseases and mental retardation, people still think we are getting better. We are heading to extinction from bad mutations. We are beyond any possible redemption as a species, yet we believe in magical mutations?
Cont. As with all "transitions" we are told to believe that based on faith and magical thinking. Tik was 100% fish. There is 0 evidence that it ever had any descendants significantly different from itself in anyway. As with all "transitions" we are asked to believe that its invisible descendants' invisible descendants produced progeny by connecting the invisible dots with magical thinking based on...evidence? No - "It has characterisitcs of...similary homology." All evo is pure B.S.
Cont. They got great peer reviews & their claims were in children's text books. The truth? They created no life, only a few amino acids of the wrong kind, right & left handed, which actually maike life impossible. They did not show how life can come from even the right kind of amino acids since they are astronomically less complex than a living cell and are d-e-a-d. Then we are told by Miller & others that Tiktaalik is "as good as it gets" for a "transitional form". Cont.
/Cont. With magical thinking many evolutionists (admittedly not all since creationists starting asking for any actual ev-i-dence that life can come from inorganic matter) have promoted it, telling us they know how life came to be "millions of years ago" when they haven't got a clue. Some add more deception to that by saying that C. Ventner made a "synthetic cell" when all he did was alter a pre-existing living cell. Miller & Urey claimed to show abiogenesis. Cont.
Cont. Evolution is a religion that pushes magical thinking. For ex. on a clip from the Colbert show, seen her on YT, Colbert talks about the primal pond as if it is scientific fact. Miller just lets the comment slide. As a scientist he should have told the audience that there isn't a shred of evidence for the primal pond & that little kids should not be reading about it in school library books on evo. He should have said it is ANTI science since life comes from life 100% of times. Cont.
thanks you for allowing comments (as you said you censor only insults / vulgar )
many creatio. block comments. +1 for open discussion.
but to enter the topic, i don't understand all the problem of evolution. I live in Europe, and of course we have creationists also, but it seems very less influent than in USA or in muslim world.
most scholars/thelogians here admit that Evo. is a strong theory and that Genesis should be approached not too litteraly (as many things in any holy book).
@Lioobayoyo Understood, but when the BIble's specific timeline prophecies are studied in light of what history has recorded, one can only come to a few conclusions... 1) it was written after the fact (but that doesn't jive with the evidence) 2) It's true and it was predicted decades/centuries before hand. This is why many Christians DO take the historical accounts recorded within literally (and yes there are many allegories as well)
but, as other apologsists often say, the Bible is not A book, but a whole library. Some of the books in have to be treated with different approaches and viewpoints.
The "prophecies" part of the Bible, in addition to be seriously questionable, is not much tangled with the description of the Genesis. So from a logic point of view, i don't understand why "some prophecies of the bible are somehow true" implies "evolution theory is false".
@Lioobayoyo To the 1st part of your statement. I agree, the Bible is the book of books and yes some books/letters require different approaches of understanding.
@Lioobayoyo You only "question" the prophecies because I doubt you have seriously studied them. How do you explain the BIble predicting more than 1200 years of papacy rule during the dark ages for example? It is repeated numerous times in the old testament and then repeated again in the New Testament. History confirms this.
@Lioobayoyo and lastly... Most sound/reasonable people will look at the evidence independantly for the bible and for evolution. The evidence for the bible speaks for itself and by default doesn't negate evo. The evidence for and against evo/creationism speaks for itself. Two separate issues, yet in light of what the bible teaches jives perfectly.
What u stated is the common mis-understanding most have when it comes to Christians.. Bible true so Evo automatically false? Not quite.
@sleanos "The evidence for the Bible...doesn't negate evo." Actually it does. The Bible says the world was created in 7 "yom", i.e. days. In the context it is clear that this means 7 literal days as is seen by the repetion of the phrase "And the evening and the morning were the..." 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. "day." Further the Bible says the sun was created after the plants, making evolution impossible. Evolution actually IS impossible! Cont.
@Lioobayoyo Your statement shows perhaps I am not making myself clear or you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. If I say "bible prophecy is true" I am not saying that automatically makes evolution theory false. Both fields are to be studied and considered on their own merits. However, because you say the prophecies are seriously questionable, tells me you have not fully studied them out as they are VERY exact and with timelines to be considered w/ what history records.
@sleanos Miller does not hold the Bible as an infallible text, nor do a growing majority of Americans. And rightly so, considering the multitude of (mis)translations the book has encountered over nearly two millenia. As far as prophecies are concerned, we should merely look to Nostradamus: people read his texts and look for events that match the descriptions. Prophecy making is an old art form. Given Earth's population and timespan, most prophecies will find a suitable event to claim.
@Ematched You statement here tells me you have not seriously studied the timeline prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. They are worlds apart from Nostradamus. IF the bible prophecies were nothing more than horoscope like in nature/detail, I wouldn't have become a Christian because it was the prophecies that ultimately convinced me of the truthfulness of the Bible and it is the method Jesus used on the disciples as well.
@sleanos Who was responsible for preserving a majority of the "history records"? Priests in Catholic monasteries. That should immediately draw skepticism, as should the oft-mistranslated lines that run throughout: Mark 10: 25 "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." This is a very popular line, used constantly, despite it being a nonsensical analogy. Proper translation: "It's easier for a rope to pass throught the eye..."
@Ematched The Old Testament is the foundation for the new testament. Having said that, that is why protestants reject Catholicism and it's dogma as the only interpretors for the Bible. But the historical evidence still stands on it's own in favor for the accuracy of the Bible as we have it today. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls for example which word for word correlates with the protestant old Testament. And we have more historical evidence in favor of the NT than most writings of antiquity.
@sleanos Your response does nothing to strengthen your argument because it in no way accounts for repeated mistranslations and the utter mutability of the text. We're living in a Poststructuralist world. Read up on linguistics if you want to understand the absurdity of adhering to an almost 2000 year old text in translation. Even contemporizing Shakespeare's modern English renders the texts somewhat invalid. Catch up dude. You're way behind.
@Ematched I'll say it again. If you questions the translation of the text - LOOK at the dead sea scrolls. It's virtually identical to the protestant bible we have today. That is 3/4 of the book. That should put to rest any absurd arguments that you can't trust what's been translated for almost 2000 years let alone that the Catholic church is primarily responsible for it. You're arguments are old friend and have been laid to rest for quite some time.
I'd have less of a problem with the creationist side if they'd provide evidence for their position instead of poo-pooing the evidence for evolution as "just not good enough for me".
Try the countless books, websites and scientific journal entries sometime. Known non-creationists in the scientific world even argue against points that are flawed with the theory of evolution.
With the theory or with the strawman version that the creationist side so often presents?
Care to name one of these "countless books, websites and journals"? don't include Answers in Genesis's "journal" - the submission rules are woefully rigged.
Every theory is flawed: We haven't detected gravitational waves or gravitons which are predicted by our theory of gravity. (General Relativity) We are 85% short on the amount of mass needed to hold our galaxy together against the centrifugal effect. Relativity disagrees in a number of predictions with the most robust theory in physics Quantum Mechanics. Want to see physicists get into a fist fight? Shout: Explain gravity to me in a physics convention.
Just because there are disagreements about many points in a theory, be it gravity or evolution, doesn't mean that the foundations are not sound. Bluntly put, we understand evolution better than gravity at this point, so if you are going to argue that evolution doesn't happen are you going to argue that gravity doesn't happen? Should we teach both sides: Gravity and Intelligent Falling?
Please note: The ONLY reason you come on here is to "debate" and "argue". You were not invited here for your comments. I have every right to approve of comments left on MY personal youtube page (DO I NOT) especially considering that I use this site also as a Christian apologetics site and many of the youth I work with see this. And so you bet I censor inappropriate and VULGAR comments from my pages. I would censor yours as well if they were of such nature.
You have a historical misunderstanding of why Christian authors hated the Pharisee. Pharisees were strict Jews and they did not like Christianity because they did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. But those were the Christian authors who came after Christ saying that. They were having a sort of turf war after Christ died. Christ did not hate Pharisees. The Golden Rule that Jesus taught was first attributed to Rabbi Hillel who was considered the highest authority among the Pharisees.
Thanks for the history lesson. We know this good sir. And we didn't say Jesus hated the Pharisees. We are well aware of the rival groups/sects in Judaism.. Sadducces, Pharisses, Essenes , etc
Hate to burst you bubble but the God Rule goes back further than Rabbi Hillel. Have you read the Old Testament at all?
The reason for this discussion is because many say Evolution and Christianity are compatible because Darwin himself was a Christian (even though he rejected the faith in later life). Darwin also said (about origins of man) that the man is more highly evolved than women. Do you believe that as well?
"The reason for this discussion is because many say Evolution and Christianity are compatible because Darwin himself was a Christian (even though he rejected the faith in later life). Darwin also said (about origins of man) that the man is more highly evolved than women. Do you believe that as well?"
I don't "believe it". I accept it. Too much evidence pointing to it. You should too.
Although Darwin originally trained in theology and had studied the work of William Paley, he at some point rejected the Christian faith, if in fact, he ever had it. Read your history. This is a fact thereby making him anti-Christian. Anti doesn't always mean vehemently opposing something.
He started doubting Genesis at some point later in his life because the Hebrew word for day is up for questioning. But he never really did reject the existence of a God itself
That's beside the point. Deists believe in God also while some reject the Bible & Christian faith. Just because someone believes in "God" doesn't make them a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God in the flesh. The hebrew word for day is only in question by "higher criticism" which is a folly. The Jewish nation for 4000 years understand that God made the world in 6 24 hr days and rested the 7th.
Ah I see. Ok. I wasn't putting words in your mouth when I made that statement. Just making a point.
You're initial words were that Darwin wasn't anti-christian, which was incorrect by the time he passed away. Regardless if he believed in God, it wasn't the Christian concept of God.
okay...... I have seen a lot of debates about evolution and such..and you keep saying something that is twitching my ear a lil' bit. Darwinian Evolution. I imagine there is a good reason you keep saying this.. otherwise I imagine you would just say evolution. I assume you make a distinction. or perhaps you just enjoy tying darwins name to evolution.. A LOT. I would like to point out, however, Darwin's highly flawed original theory has gone a long way towards improving various fields of science.
I didn't make the distinction. Those who advocate evolution made it by saying at it's fundamental core evolution is just "change over time", mostly to appeace theists. If that's all it were, most creationists and IDers would have no problem with that broad difinition. It's darwins flavor and neo-darwinism evolution and it's ultimate conclusions that we disagree with in part based on scientific evidence.
God didn't use darwinian evolution. It is completely opposite on what the bible teaches. The two teachings are at opposite ends of each other. Only 1 can be completely truthful. Keep studying.
You seem to have a one-sided definition of what "anti" can mean. "anti" can be an outright rejection of something, an stance opposite of, or even set up in the place of. So in the sense that Darwin openly rejected the God of Christianity makes him by definition anti-Christian.
If you actually look up the religious views of Darwin, you would know that he WAS a Christian. His faith did start to disappear when he was older, but it was due to the death of his daughter, not his scientific theory
What's your point? We know very well He was brought up in the Christian faith, our point is, Darwin rejected the Judeo-Christian God (regardless of his personal reasons) and so is not a Christian. Can you be a Buddhist if you reject the teachings of Buddha? No. At best it is a hybrid form/mixing of thoughts/religions. There is no mixing in true biblical Christianity.
Let's remember something, MANY of the foundational branches of science throughout history were founded by "creationists" as well as others. Try asking Steven J. Gould (a well-known & respected evolutionist, if he were still alive) why he allowed known creationist even to this day Dr. Kurt Wise a doctorate in paleontology from Harvard?
I love science. I just dislike the lies/philosophies that are NOT founded on facts/science which comprises the bulk of the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution.
The only reason why Newton, Linnaeus, Gallileo, etc, were "creationists" was because they all lived BEFORE Darwin.
If you did truly love science, you would not dismiss evolution as a fairy tale. You don't have to believe it, but it order to make a valid argument you have to consider both sides of the argument.
I'm a bio major, if evolution were a conspiracy, I would be in on it
I dismiss darwinian evolution as a fairytale because I HAVE studied it out. In fact I have a biology major friend in University of Chicago who also rejects the theory and only studies it because it is required. It is a laughable theory piggy backing on true science. Not a conspiracy, but people are truly blinded if they think they evolved in the distant past from bacteria or whatever is conceived of as life originally.
Look, it is entirely possible it is false, but from what we have discovered so far, it explains everything perfectly. It is not a lie because everyone can admit it can be falsified. If we found a human in Permian stone, I would concede this argument immediately.
But until then, or until any ID "theorists" publish any peer reviews, back off
Darwinian Evolution explains nothing. Genetics (Mendell), Natural selection, adaptation, gene study does a great deal to explain diversity amongst species, but it falls FAAAR short of ever explaining and proving in a laboratory how all living organisms could have possibly evolved from a single common ancestor. What we know about natural selection and mutations DISPROVES the Darwin notion of "Tree of Life". And the Fossil record doesn't back it up either. Look into the Cambrian explosion for ex.
You familiar with Stephen j. Gould of Harvard? He awarded creationist before & after Dr. Kurt Wise his degree in paleontology. Or how about nuclear physicist & young earth creationist Robert Gentry who has PUBLISHED works in "NATURE" for an instant earth creation which has NOT been disproven nor rejected. Stop censoring science and believing all the hype and spin coming from propagandists. You're acting like a zealot religious extremist now.
WHAT?!! Gould was NOT a creationist. He was a leading advocate for evolution. Read some of his works.
Admittingly, I don't know much about Gentry, I know he is a creationist.
Oh and please tell me how I'M the one acting like a "zealot religious extremist." I am NOT trying to shake your faith. Its great you have faith, but dont let it blind you. Evolution can STILL be the work of God
Friend, please read more carefully! I NEVER SAID Gould was a creationist. I said he awarded Dr.Kurt Wise who was a known creationist with His degree in paleontology. If creationists cannot do "legetimate" science, WHY WOULD A KNOW evolutionists award a KNOWN creationist his degree from a prestigious school. Stop setting up your own straw men arguments please.
you know what, im tired of arguing with you. All i tried to say was that Ken Miller is a great example of how not every evolutionist is an atheist, but no YOU had to fucking crucify me for.
Ill just leave you with this: its evident you beleive god created the world, so what you have to ask is HOW he did it.
Please don't get upset with me because I have to correct your understanding of what I wrote. I'm not crucifying you, just sticking with the facts. I deal with 1 to many people like yourself who think they know it all or accuse me of the same just because I believe in God. And beleive me, I've studied the question out on HOW he did it according to what science knows today&darwinian evolution is so far from the truth, it's ridiculous. (The theory min you, not necessarily the people who believe it)
EVERYTHING about darwinian evolution (and even the big bang theory), man's attempts at explaining how we got here and the processes are COMPLETELY backwards opposite with the Bible. Darwinian Evolution was NOT used by God and it is because I understand the science that I say this, not because the Bible says so. Let's get it together now please.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.
No. Modern medicine, the study of genetics, science of nutrition have helped cure & prevent disease. The theory you are clinging to that says our great great ancestors are some form of ape is useless. Darwinism piggy backs on TRUE science.
An educated adult? If you believe in darwinian evolution, you're the one who believes your great great great cousin is an onion or an amoeba. *sigh* And all the evidence to consider against what Ken Miller has stated is found in the link to the right of the video for consideration along with scientific journal citations regardless if you don't like the author that it comes from.
- It makes a false claim (bearing false witness) about Millers book, claiming that it is full of straw-man arguments, but offers no arguments, no examples. Nothing.
- It hypocritically slams him for his faith, thereby elevating the authors own faith above that of someone else.
- It quotes the worst chapter Matthew ever wrote, in which Jesus actually condones the killing of children who disobey their parents.
"- It makes a false claim (bearing false witness) about Millers book, claiming that it is full of straw-man arguments, but offers no arguments, no examples. Nothing."
Did you look to the right of the video in the description box? (No. it would seem you did not.) The link to the MANY false statements made by Kenneth Miller are listed there. ----->
"- It hypocritically slams him for his faith, thereby elevating the authors own faith above that of someone else."
How is it hypocrtical? Study the bible. You'll see that MANY of the practices of Catholicism stem NOT from the Bible but from traditionand paganism. The TRUTH is the TRUTH.
Yea and I suppose the multitude of things Jesus had in common with pagan messiahs is pure co-incidence or lies put there by Satan while god was presumable pre-occupied.
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are One in purpose, divinity, eternalness and character, yet they have always been 3 seperate personages. Bible tells us before "Jesus of Nazerath" the Son was "the WORD" with God. And we have the Spirit of God back at creation creating with God. How can time be ONE yet past, present and future. How can light be composed of 3 different "lights" with different components and elements of heat yet it is light.
No. What I mean by personage - is for ex today's modern definition of person is not just limited to a physical human being, but can also refer to a company, party or entity. In Christianity, God is ONE in eternalness, divinity, character and purpose, yet three separate equal, co-eternal persons. Father is spirit, Son is now flesh and blood, Holy Spirit is spirit. How God chooses to reveal Himself to us now or in the future is His prerogative. Great is the mystery of Godliness. 1Ti 3:16
I agree. We cannot appeal to God to be anything but God as revealed in His Word and through His Son Jesus Christ.
I'm a little confused about your stance then on Jesus. Jesus is both fully God (divine) and was fully human. This is what the bible teaches. Jesus says God the Father is spirit. Please clarify on what or who you mean when you say God cannot have a body? U referring to the Son or Father?
Personally I think Kenneth Miller explains how evolution and Christianity are quite compatible.
Miller explains that in order for all the fossils we have to make sense and be Christian you have to a have a really low opinion of God - He's either not making organisms that can survive or He's trying to trick us.
Miller explains he believes in a God who used evolution to make all life that has ever lived on Earth possible. That sounds much more complimentary of God to me than a creatonist.
Or you have the alternative and true accord. ALl the species we find in the fossil record, many who are found grouped together as if hit by a flood, were buried by a world wide flood according the to Flood event recorded in the Bible. Today for example, the main reason creatures go extinct is because of mankind, (2nd is natural disasters), not that they can't necessarily survive.
Have you read the refutation to Miller's book? Yes or No? Have you read Miller's book? Yes or No? Have you double checked the facts in both. Yes or No? Once you've done that, guaranteed you will have a different perspective about what Ken Miller presents as science, let alone religious faith. He already admits to believe in darwin's god, a god that created everything and couldn't get it right the very first time. This is not the God of the Bible.
American Catholics have been educated mainly by state schools and the media rather than by the Church. Most Latin Catholics treat mass attendance as a Eucharistic vending machine and little more.
I don't understand this video to be honest though. From the view of Catholics, Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII (not sure about the latter's #) both acknowledged that evolution is combatible with Catholicism.
Ken Miller is good because he promotes science and tries to unite science and faith. Ken Miller is searching for truth and the Gospels all advocate Truth. Kenneth Miller is a great scientists and good Christian and a great man.
Reason why the popes of the Catholic church can claim faith and darwinian evolution to be compatible is because the Catholic faith holds the words of men and tradition superior to the Bible. They flat out admit that not everything in the Bible is true amongst other things. They wanted to make Mary a part of the Godhead/trinity. Protestants hold 2 sola scripture for our faith. It's the inspired Word of God & true in every sense. Nothing indicates Genesis is allegorical. See genealogies of Jesus.
I understand Catholicism well enough friend. I grew up Catholic myself. I don't remember where I read the infromation but there were attempts to make Mary a part of or equal with the Trinity. I doubt it will ever happen either, but let it be known when you pray Hail Mary Mother of God, you are praying to a good woman who cannot hear your prayers nor answer them. Only God through the Son can. God Bless.
Having grown up Catholic does not mean you know Catholicism. I am a revert who also grew up Catholic and came to realize I never truly understood it until later. I know MANY ex-Catholics who are exes precisely because they were never taught the faith or never cared to learn. If Mary cannot hear my prayers, then the JWs, SDAs and others have a point about soul-sleep. Catholicism has the highest conception of God, Love, and everything else. See my videos on Mary.
Sorry friend. The Bible has the highest conception about God period. The God you claim to love through catholicism is the same God who you believe will punish and burn his creation for eternity. This is a slander on the name of God. fyi: I'm a Seventh-day Adventist now. See my videos also.
Then my comment was perceptive wasn't it? IF you reject Catholicism in favor of SDAism, you DO NOT understand Catholic teaching. The SDA book on the 27 fundamental beliefs teaches that God has a body. THAT'S PAGANISM. A corporeal God cannot be truly Infinite.
Not really. I could tell you were fishing. You want to talk about paganism? Catholcism admits they changed the day of worship from the 7th day Sabbath (4th commandment) to Sunday (1st day) adopting the pagan day of sun worship and calling it our Lord's day. They admit there is NO scriptural support for such a change and that it is her ecclesiastical power alone that allows her to make a day holy. Now THAT is paganism, let alone a laundry of list of some 20+ other items.
How am I fishing? Read your book on the 27 fundamental doctrines under the section where man is created in God's image. Further, I have had more than one SDA admit to me that they believe God has a body. How can God be infinite if He has a body?
The Lord rose on Sunday and the Church has the authority to do what she does by virtue of the power of the keys (Matt. 16:19).
When I said "fishing" I meant it seemed like you may have already known I was a Seventh-day Adventist (no secret if you look at my main page). Wasn't speaking about our 27 fund doctrines. Aren't you limiting God the creator by saying He can do all things except have a body? You believe Jesus is God (the Son, equal and one with the Father) yes? Explain how Jesus can have a body. You sound like a muslim attacking Christians. And the keys are the GOSPEL message of Hope.
Brother like I said, I don't question your faith in God however, the Bible makes it very clear that NO MAN can tamper with the Holy Law of God (10 Commandments) which were spoken with the voice of God and written with His finger on enduring stone. Jesus claimed to be the great I AM so in effect it was He who gave those Holy and perfect precepts by which Most Christians including Catholicism claims to adhere to. Catholcism also CHOPPED the commandment on idolatry... wonder why.
We are not Jews and this is not the old covenant. SDA scholars have been dishonest in treating the historical aspect of this issue. The commandment on the sabbath was not repeated in the NT. Jesus rose again on the "Lord's Day" just as scripture says and Christians have always known.
Jesus was a Jew. Christians read from a Jewish book. There is NO covenant ever made with Gentiles and anyone who is a follower of Christ is grafted INTO the family of God and is the considered the seed of Abraham and heirs to the promises of God. Please give ONE scripture that calls the 1st day of the week, the Lord's day. Read the 4rth commandment in a protestant bible or Jewish Torah and it clearly reveals the 7th day as the Lord thy God's Holy Sabbath Day, not the first my friend.
I admit that Christ Himself gave to St. Peter the power to bind and loose. Binding and lossing are terms meaning the authority to prohibit or permit in matters of faith and morals. Matt. 16:19 makes clear that heaven ratifies what Peter binds or loosens - that's infallibility.
Sorry I have to disagree. Why would Jesus build His church on an infallible man such as Peter? When Jesus said "on THIS ROCK" He was speaking of Himself as countless scriptures that refer to Jesus as being the Rock of Ages backs up. Peter as does you and I have do have the keys though as believers. We can SHARE the gospel and salvation through Jesus Christ with others or not share it. Our authority is limited to teaching the WORDS of Jesus Christ, NOT making our own in matters of faith.
You are correct. Take part in the communion service which SYMBOLIZES the broken body and shed blood of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Jesus is NOT actually IN the wafer or the "wine" which should actually be an unfermented drink such as grape juice, since fermentation and leven are BOTH symbolic signs of SIN. The priest have NO power if they think they can make Jesus come down from heaven and into the wafer or cup.
When was unfermented grape juice invented? Jewish passover wine is weak but definitely fermented. Where does scripture say that it is unfermented? The Psalmist said "wine that gladdens the heart of man." Jesus turned water into the best wine. To symbolically eat flesh and drink blood is to persecute someone. They didn't understand it symbolically and Jesus didn't correct them.
You're asking when did people start drinking plain old grape juice fresh off the cluster? A loooong time. Jewish people SHOULD know better than to drink alcohol and so should Christians. There will be none in heaven. Blessings are found in the cluster (fresh grapes) not in alcohol. Isa 65:8 - Jesus is the bread of life and the Word incarnate. To 'eat Him' is to study the Bible. To drink Him symbolically is to accept His shed blood on the cross. crackers/bread and grape juice my friend.
It is implied by much scripture. Ex: Jesus calls Himself the Bread of Life and He is also the Word made flesh. Old & New Testament reveals Jesus. Eat His flesh - He isn't telling us to cannibalize Him, but rather "eat" His Words (accept Him & the Word of God). The "wine" represents His pure blood shed on cavalry. I Corinthians 11:26 tells us it is in remembrance of the Lord's death, as Jesus also tells us in Matthew 26:26-28.
Wow. You sound like a two year old who thinks 1X1 = 2, getting things confused. Just to clarify, the CIVIL judgments were given to the nation of Israel when they lived in a true theocracy. The OT religious ceremonies and civil judgments were dissolved when Christ died on Calvary as OT bible prophecy predicted in the book of Daniel. Judgment day is nearing, I pray that you find God and make peace with Him. He's waiting for you.
Also there was only the Old Testament, no printing press, and only about 3% of the population could read. Im sure Christ was saying go home and study The Bible for yourself.
No argument there. At the time of Christ, He started with Jerusalem. The chosen people who HAD the scriptures of which Jesus says they ALL testify of Himself.
Friend, it sounds like you'd rather argue points instead of just presenting & intelligently discussing viewpoints that differ. 1Co 2:13-14 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
So which is true? We don't know origins of man, man evolved from primeordial ooze, or God made Adam from the dust of the earth with His own hands and then Eve from the side of Adam? And how would one go about proving any of these 3? Smart Christians KNOW they cannot prove the 3rd option and should admit that we take it on faith. Science cannot prove the former 2 options and have not done so.
I believe scientist Francis Collins, a Christian, would refer to this comment as God of Gaps. Everything in existence has had a natural explanation, what makes you believe it would change one day?
Origins of any life have never been proven scientifically and the more we study the more we realize just how supremely complex even the most smallest molecule is. By natural laws, atoms shouldn't even be able to contain itself, yet it does, DEFYING a natural explanation and laws. You use "God of the Gaps" as a cop out to insinuate JUST because Christians believe God in the beginning that that will stop us from continuing to investigate scientifically. Poor assumption.
What are you talking about? Who is throwing stones? You asked a question and I am answering it. If you are going to quote the bible at least quote it correctly, for it also states that we are to give reasons for the hope that lies within us and to also contend for the faith in truth.
No not really. There is a more thorough refutation of Ken Miller's arguments in the description area on this page. This is primarily for Christians who think Darwinian evolution is true, like Ken Miller and others. I've been on here quite long enough to know that youtube debates through comment boxes are generally fruitless as well. I encourage you to view the rest of my videos.
FYI: I spent the last 30 years believing in secular ideologies, darwinian evolution, materialism, etc and NEVER considered any religion to be a possible answer to life, existence, purpose, etc. I was soooo wrong now having SERIOUSLY studied it. The only ignorance here is yours on display by making assumptions about a person's background and condemning them fairly quickly without getting all the facts. I pray that you'll think more before you speak. Am I relig. biased? Yes now that I know TRUTH.
Actually, BECAUSE of Christianity I actually care about science and history a great deal now. My wife is a nurse and I'm a software engineer. After spending the last few years carefully weighing the evidence from darwinian evolutionists, ID, and creationists, the evidence makes MUCH more sense from the creationists view. And Yes I unashamedly believe a world wide flood occurred in the past and the earth is approx. 6000 years old.
Please remember, YOU came to my page. YOU were not invited into a discussion, so please stop crying if I decide to "vote you" down. I read your response and responded and care not to see it anymore, hence the vote down. If you are looking for a debate, I suggest a different forum. I guess you don't read too well either, I already said I carefully investigated much of the science. Please point out what I am ignoring since you seem to claim omnipotence in terms of what I've studied.
I guess you believe somehow dirt became life all by itself without a supernatural cause and without 1 shred of evidence in support of it and that you are actually related to an onion.
All you can do is point the finger eh. So there is no confusion, yes I believe God made man in the beginning, but I do not call THAT science as if I can prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Nor do I say Darwinian evolution states that life came from dirt, but rather taken as a whole, the non-thiest accounts for origins has NO valid explanation or evidence to surmise a reasonable hypothesis on origins of mankind. Please stick with 1 topic at a time, instead of trying to bombard with questions.
We don't know exactly how many species were on the ark, but the ark was rather huge and could fit a lot of life in it. You've never heard of adapation, natural selection and mutations? This fits fine with the creationists view. Point is though, dog kinds only bring forth dog kinds... not evolving from so non-dog specie and into something other than a dog kind as darwinian evolution states.
You're arguing against your own straw man and this is a fallacious form of argument friend, please learn this. How and why did you use approx 3000 species on the ark? There are some estimates based on the dimensions of the ark and current animal sizes that it may have been more or less 35,000 species aboard. Just an estimate though.
And you have to remember, water life would not have been included and there was no need to include older/larger animals if the main purpose was to preserve a set number of species from the flood, so the younger more fertile animals would have been a more plausible choice. Just a reasonable guess though as scripture doesn't give us all the details.
We don't know exactly how many species were on the ark, but the ark was rather huge and could fit a lot of life in it. You've never heard of adapation, natural selection and mutations? This fits fine with the creationists view. Point is though, dog kinds only bring forth dog kinds... not evolving from so non-dog specie and into something other than a dog kind as darwinian evolution states.
the context and what was ment by "darwin's god" is clearly the crux of this, but i don't know them so i can't really comment. but it fully possible to be a christian and aceept evolution, francis collins would be another example.
If you mean simple "change over time" evolution then yes, we can accept that and continue scientific study on what types of changes are possible. Darwinian evolution: common ancestry of all life - tree of life evolution is a complete falsity masquerading as science now that we know it main tenant is false and the evidence proves it false.
I must admit I've not heard the argument Darwin was anti-Christian. I know he did attend Christ's College with the goal of being a clergyman, though he ultimately decided it was not for him. And he lost faith in religion (but not God) after the death of his daughter.
This would seem be an arguement against the claims of Harun Yahya's creationist group which states evolutionary theory was a Christian plot to make people doubt Islam, based on Darwin's early goal of being a member of the clergy.
I cannot comment on the book because I haven't read it. But I can make a hypothetical observation on Ken Miller.
The Bible is open to interpretation (demonstrated by the various Christian denominations). It is possible that Dr. Miller's interpretation of the Bible and the communications given by Pope Pius XII (1950) and Pope John Paul II (1996) concerning Evolution allow him to both believe in Jesus and practice and defend science.
I will not post again until I have found and read the book.
"The Bible is open to interpretation" - This is what most want u to believe. Read it thoroughly and all the way through. Then prayerfully study and see if you think the same after that as well. Most of the Christian world DOES NOT DEEPLY, prayerfully study the Word of God and instead relies on Pastors and Popes to tell them what it says. Jesus commands each and everyone of us that love him to study the scriptures.
Catholicism is deeply rooted in countless pagan traditions blended with Biblical Christianity. It is NOT Biblical Christianity in it's truest sense. This is not to be confused I'm sure with the utmost sincerity of it's followers and believers. Catholicism puts tradition above the clear words of scripture.
[] Catholicism puts tradition above the clear words of scripture. []
Please. So you honestly believe when the Bible quotes someone as saying "People are the salt of the Earth," that they actually believed people were made up of salt. Much of the Bible is allegorical and Genesis is but one area in which it is so.
You're video is clearly atheist agenda oriented and ultimately it only serves to hurt science but promoting the faith vs science misconception. So way to go!
Your statement reeks of immaturity. I acknowledge that there are many parts in the Bible that are allegorical and symbolic. Parables, prophecies, visions. There is NOTHING within the Bible that indicated the Genesis account is allegorical, SO, it is either 100% true or it is Not. (The Bible indicates when things are symbolic/allegorical or not). All the genealogies trace Jesus back directly to Adam. Was Jesus's descendants an allegory?
Your the one reading the Bible like a science book and interpreting Genesis entirely literally. 2000 years ago you think people were able to comprehend 4.5 billion years? No they couldn't.
Now, I'm not a creationist. I'm a Christian who acknowledges evolution.
Modern day people with a graduate education who took biology classes can't even understand evolution today. How would you expect farmers 2000+ yrs ago(because Genesis was written well before JC) to?
You need to read more carefully. I said your statement, not you reeks of immaturity. I don't know you personally and am only going by the statements you make and that one that I addressed is a VERY juvenile and immature understanding of what the Bible teaches and your ASSUMPTIONS about what I happen to know about it.
You just said it very plainly, you are a Christian. SO I will ask you, were Adam and Eve REAL people, for the Bible traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ DIRECTLY to Adam. Have you EVER studied how impressive the minds of ancient man was compared with today? The Mayans were said to have been extremely mathematically sophisticated. The Greeks wrote words side by side without spaces and punctuation. Have you any idea how sharp the mind has to be to accomplish those things?
"Modern day people with a graduate education who took biology classes can't even understand evolution today."
Then what makes you think it is true and fact (if you do?). They already admit that fossils and embryology really don't prove darwin's version of evolution occurred. Instead they rely on genetics today which actually disproves the darwininan concept of all life having a common ancestor - darwin's tree of life. This is what the disagreement is really about.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but most evolutionists admit that fossils to not prove evolution. Just by looking at bones or the strata they are in, you can't tell at all what specie gave birth to what or if they had offspring. They are all just guesses. Fossils do not prove evolution in principle. Bury two people today on top of each other, wait for the bones to fossilize. Then tell me how you can determine they are related, offspring, strangers, etc.
When you find a fossil in the dirt all you know is it died. You can't prove it had any kids let alone different kids and why do you think a bone in the dirt could do what an animal today can't do which is produce anything other than its kind?
People 2000 years ago weren't stupid enought to believe the evolution lie(evolution wasn't just invented 150 years ago it has been around since at least Moses' day).
Catholcism states that there are parts of the Bible that are not entirely true as well... if that's the case and it is supposed to be the inspired Word of God, at what point then does God inspire the bible writers to start telling the truth? It is like the Dali Llama making statements that Jesus is a good, holy man (more so than himself) who cannot lie (no no in Christianity AND Buddhism), yet was allowed to lie about certain things, like Him claiming to be the Son of God.
So you don't believe Dr Miller is a Christian because he attends church yet practices science and defends it against ignorance? How do YOU define a Christian?
Wrong. I don't believe Ken Miller is a true Christian because he has openly and willingly lied to the public about various scientific issues and created straw man arguments in other cases against anyone who questions Darwinian evolution-"tree of life" to make them look as though they do not nor can comprehend true laboratory science. If you read the article in the video or in the description you would know this.
Do you have any idea how many different types of creationism there are? Do you know how often these different groups change their arguments? Do you have any idea how often they steal ideas from each other, regardless of the idea's validity? You cannot know he was talking about your specific form of creationism or another one. He wouldn't say "These 67 forms of creationism believe this, but these 23 forms believe this, and these 2 believe this..." It would be ridiculous. So he generalizes.
Yes I do and yes we can know what kind Miller is talking about. You obviously have NOT read the book in question that He wrote NOR the refutation and insist that we cannot derive truth. This is a very shaky place to be in reality and I do hope you at least read His book, then the refutation and see if you still think the same afterwards. Good day.
I will be honest and say I have not read "Finding Darwin's God". I have read excerpts from it in online, but have not read the book itself. From what I can gather he does spends a few chapters debunking common creationist arguments (if you could be a little more specific about which creationists he is debunking, that would help me a lot) before moving on to berate "radical Darwinists" about their behavior. He then goes on to talk about what the 2 groups have in common. Or so I've read.
As I said before, please read His book, then the refutation. Only then can we have a discussion once BOTH parties have been fully informed about the topic that we are discussing. Anything else is based on speculation and assumptions and no offense to you, but I grow tired of having to tell people what it is they are trying to refute seeing they didn't do their homework to begin with before opening their "mouths".
Plain and simple a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus believed in the HISTORIC events of the Old Testament and a Christian should either. Either the Bible is ENTIRELY true or it isn't. It's that simple. The hard work comes in investigating science, history & theology to reconcile these views if possible..and it is.
Jesus Christ seemed to imply that humans had corrupted the interpretation of the scriptures over the years to serve their own ends (in Matthew 12:1-12, he claimed that the Sabbath had become corrupted by the Pharisees).
If 1 part of the scriptures had been interpretation and/or corrupted, would that make the rest of them corrupt too? How can we as flawed humans determine which ones (if any) have been corrupted?
Jesus made NO claim that the scriptures themselves were corrupted for He quotes them continuously in the Gospels. He rebuked the Pharisees with the issues of the Sabbath because they imposed their OWN man made rules over the clear words of scripture. Please do some homework on the types of silly & legalistic rules they had. More than 90% of the manuscripts we have support the KJV Bible. Start their my friend. That Bible is NOT corrupt in it's translated meanings.
Charles Darwin WAS a Christian. He even planned on becoming a priest. After the death of his daughter Annie in 1851 he lost faith in Christianity (this is not a unique situation). He was even quoted in saying "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." (1887).
Wow, what a mess. Where to start? First of all, it would have been nice if you'd presented just one example of "straw-man arguments and misinformation, and outright deception." Or are we simply to take your word on it? Secondly, while Darwin wasn't a believer, he was in no sense "anti-Christian." On the contrary, the potential implications of his theory bothered him immensely, and he died an unreconciled agnostic. Finally, what evidence is there that Miller's Catholicism is not sincere?
1) If you knew how to read you would see that I provided the link in the video at the end and off to the side (description) that gives you an article with the straw-men arguments & misinformation & outright deception. You've just displayed your ignorance on the matter. Please do not comment again UNTIL YOU'VE READ the article and investigated it's claims.
Only God can save us as is promised. Those who are destroying the earth will be removed. Those who are destroying the earth are also destroying the human genome. This is in the scriptures.
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
I emailed Ken Miller three times and asked him for a debate in public anywhere on video. He refused and said that evolution is proven. Yet he doesn't want to stand up for his beliefs. He only does so when he is not up against a real scientist. With constant thousands of genetic diseases and mental retardation, people still think we are getting better. We are heading to extinction from bad mutations. We are beyond any possible redemption as a species, yet we believe in magical mutations?
GoodScienceForYou 2 months ago
Cont. As with all "transitions" we are told to believe that based on faith and magical thinking. Tik was 100% fish. There is 0 evidence that it ever had any descendants significantly different from itself in anyway. As with all "transitions" we are asked to believe that its invisible descendants' invisible descendants produced progeny by connecting the invisible dots with magical thinking based on...evidence? No - "It has characterisitcs of...similary homology." All evo is pure B.S.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
Cont. They got great peer reviews & their claims were in children's text books. The truth? They created no life, only a few amino acids of the wrong kind, right & left handed, which actually maike life impossible. They did not show how life can come from even the right kind of amino acids since they are astronomically less complex than a living cell and are d-e-a-d. Then we are told by Miller & others that Tiktaalik is "as good as it gets" for a "transitional form". Cont.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
/Cont. With magical thinking many evolutionists (admittedly not all since creationists starting asking for any actual ev-i-dence that life can come from inorganic matter) have promoted it, telling us they know how life came to be "millions of years ago" when they haven't got a clue. Some add more deception to that by saying that C. Ventner made a "synthetic cell" when all he did was alter a pre-existing living cell. Miller & Urey claimed to show abiogenesis. Cont.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
Cont. Evolution is a religion that pushes magical thinking. For ex. on a clip from the Colbert show, seen her on YT, Colbert talks about the primal pond as if it is scientific fact. Miller just lets the comment slide. As a scientist he should have told the audience that there isn't a shred of evidence for the primal pond & that little kids should not be reading about it in school library books on evo. He should have said it is ANTI science since life comes from life 100% of times. Cont.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
thanks you for allowing comments (as you said you censor only insults / vulgar )
many creatio. block comments. +1 for open discussion.
but to enter the topic, i don't understand all the problem of evolution. I live in Europe, and of course we have creationists also, but it seems very less influent than in USA or in muslim world.
most scholars/thelogians here admit that Evo. is a strong theory and that Genesis should be approached not too litteraly (as many things in any holy book).
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
@Lioobayoyo Understood, but when the BIble's specific timeline prophecies are studied in light of what history has recorded, one can only come to a few conclusions... 1) it was written after the fact (but that doesn't jive with the evidence) 2) It's true and it was predicted decades/centuries before hand. This is why many Christians DO take the historical accounts recorded within literally (and yes there are many allegories as well)
sleanos 1 year ago
@sleanos
but, as other apologsists often say, the Bible is not A book, but a whole library. Some of the books in have to be treated with different approaches and viewpoints.
The "prophecies" part of the Bible, in addition to be seriously questionable, is not much tangled with the description of the Genesis. So from a logic point of view, i don't understand why "some prophecies of the bible are somehow true" implies "evolution theory is false".
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
@Lioobayoyo To the 1st part of your statement. I agree, the Bible is the book of books and yes some books/letters require different approaches of understanding.
sleanos 1 year ago
@Lioobayoyo You only "question" the prophecies because I doubt you have seriously studied them. How do you explain the BIble predicting more than 1200 years of papacy rule during the dark ages for example? It is repeated numerous times in the old testament and then repeated again in the New Testament. History confirms this.
sleanos 1 year ago
@Lioobayoyo and lastly... Most sound/reasonable people will look at the evidence independantly for the bible and for evolution. The evidence for the bible speaks for itself and by default doesn't negate evo. The evidence for and against evo/creationism speaks for itself. Two separate issues, yet in light of what the bible teaches jives perfectly.
What u stated is the common mis-understanding most have when it comes to Christians.. Bible true so Evo automatically false? Not quite.
sleanos 1 year ago
@sleanos "The evidence for the Bible...doesn't negate evo." Actually it does. The Bible says the world was created in 7 "yom", i.e. days. In the context it is clear that this means 7 literal days as is seen by the repetion of the phrase "And the evening and the morning were the..." 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. "day." Further the Bible says the sun was created after the plants, making evolution impossible. Evolution actually IS impossible! Cont.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@Lioobayoyo Your statement shows perhaps I am not making myself clear or you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. If I say "bible prophecy is true" I am not saying that automatically makes evolution theory false. Both fields are to be studied and considered on their own merits. However, because you say the prophecies are seriously questionable, tells me you have not fully studied them out as they are VERY exact and with timelines to be considered w/ what history records.
sleanos 1 year ago
@sleanos Miller does not hold the Bible as an infallible text, nor do a growing majority of Americans. And rightly so, considering the multitude of (mis)translations the book has encountered over nearly two millenia. As far as prophecies are concerned, we should merely look to Nostradamus: people read his texts and look for events that match the descriptions. Prophecy making is an old art form. Given Earth's population and timespan, most prophecies will find a suitable event to claim.
Ematched 1 year ago
@Ematched You statement here tells me you have not seriously studied the timeline prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. They are worlds apart from Nostradamus. IF the bible prophecies were nothing more than horoscope like in nature/detail, I wouldn't have become a Christian because it was the prophecies that ultimately convinced me of the truthfulness of the Bible and it is the method Jesus used on the disciples as well.
sleanos 1 year ago
@sleanos Sure I have. My brother is a Baptist minister.
It's all cherrypicking, whether or not you acknowledge it.
Ematched 1 year ago
@Ematched With Baptists and most other denominations it is cherry picking I'd agree. For a Bible believing Christian though it isn't.
sleanos 1 year ago
@sleanos Who was responsible for preserving a majority of the "history records"? Priests in Catholic monasteries. That should immediately draw skepticism, as should the oft-mistranslated lines that run throughout: Mark 10: 25 "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." This is a very popular line, used constantly, despite it being a nonsensical analogy. Proper translation: "It's easier for a rope to pass throught the eye..."
Ematched 1 year ago
@Ematched The Old Testament is the foundation for the new testament. Having said that, that is why protestants reject Catholicism and it's dogma as the only interpretors for the Bible. But the historical evidence still stands on it's own in favor for the accuracy of the Bible as we have it today. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls for example which word for word correlates with the protestant old Testament. And we have more historical evidence in favor of the NT than most writings of antiquity.
sleanos 1 year ago
@sleanos Your response does nothing to strengthen your argument because it in no way accounts for repeated mistranslations and the utter mutability of the text. We're living in a Poststructuralist world. Read up on linguistics if you want to understand the absurdity of adhering to an almost 2000 year old text in translation. Even contemporizing Shakespeare's modern English renders the texts somewhat invalid. Catch up dude. You're way behind.
Ematched 1 year ago
@Ematched I'll say it again. If you questions the translation of the text - LOOK at the dead sea scrolls. It's virtually identical to the protestant bible we have today. That is 3/4 of the book. That should put to rest any absurd arguments that you can't trust what's been translated for almost 2000 years let alone that the Catholic church is primarily responsible for it. You're arguments are old friend and have been laid to rest for quite some time.
sleanos 1 year ago
I'd have less of a problem with the creationist side if they'd provide evidence for their position instead of poo-pooing the evidence for evolution as "just not good enough for me".
jcgadfly 2 years ago
Try the countless books, websites and scientific journal entries sometime. Known non-creationists in the scientific world even argue against points that are flawed with the theory of evolution.
sleanos 2 years ago
With the theory or with the strawman version that the creationist side so often presents?
Care to name one of these "countless books, websites and journals"? don't include Answers in Genesis's "journal" - the submission rules are woefully rigged.
jcgadfly 2 years ago
Every theory is flawed: We haven't detected gravitational waves or gravitons which are predicted by our theory of gravity. (General Relativity) We are 85% short on the amount of mass needed to hold our galaxy together against the centrifugal effect. Relativity disagrees in a number of predictions with the most robust theory in physics Quantum Mechanics. Want to see physicists get into a fist fight? Shout: Explain gravity to me in a physics convention.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
Just because there are disagreements about many points in a theory, be it gravity or evolution, doesn't mean that the foundations are not sound. Bluntly put, we understand evolution better than gravity at this point, so if you are going to argue that evolution doesn't happen are you going to argue that gravity doesn't happen? Should we teach both sides: Gravity and Intelligent Falling?
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
Oh, and HOW did I KNOW that this was going to be PENDING APPROVAL.
You creationists are about 80% cowards. I've only seen ONE advocate of evolution censor their comments.
ALMOST ALL of you creationists do.
Whats the matter? Cant let your ideas stand on their own merits?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago 3
Please note: The ONLY reason you come on here is to "debate" and "argue". You were not invited here for your comments. I have every right to approve of comments left on MY personal youtube page (DO I NOT) especially considering that I use this site also as a Christian apologetics site and many of the youth I work with see this. And so you bet I censor inappropriate and VULGAR comments from my pages. I would censor yours as well if they were of such nature.
sleanos 2 years ago
Sticks and stones my friend.. sticks and stones.
sleanos 2 years ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 2 years ago
You have a historical misunderstanding of why Christian authors hated the Pharisee. Pharisees were strict Jews and they did not like Christianity because they did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. But those were the Christian authors who came after Christ saying that. They were having a sort of turf war after Christ died. Christ did not hate Pharisees. The Golden Rule that Jesus taught was first attributed to Rabbi Hillel who was considered the highest authority among the Pharisees.
quinn2469 2 years ago
Thanks for the history lesson. We know this good sir. And we didn't say Jesus hated the Pharisees. We are well aware of the rival groups/sects in Judaism.. Sadducces, Pharisses, Essenes , etc
Hate to burst you bubble but the God Rule goes back further than Rabbi Hillel. Have you read the Old Testament at all?
sleanos 2 years ago
Darwin went to Cambridge to be an Anglican priest.
quinn2469 2 years ago 7
And your point is please? History clearly reveals this and we acknowledge it as well. He died a non-Christian having rejected the faith.
sleanos 2 years ago
Who cares what faith he is. He is famous for discovering evolution.
gregrutz 2 years ago 5
The reason for this discussion is because many say Evolution and Christianity are compatible because Darwin himself was a Christian (even though he rejected the faith in later life). Darwin also said (about origins of man) that the man is more highly evolved than women. Do you believe that as well?
sleanos 2 years ago
"The reason for this discussion is because many say Evolution and Christianity are compatible because Darwin himself was a Christian (even though he rejected the faith in later life). Darwin also said (about origins of man) that the man is more highly evolved than women. Do you believe that as well?"
I don't "believe it". I accept it. Too much evidence pointing to it. You should too.
macomoto 2 years ago
Darwin was not freakin anti-Christian dammit
He worshipped God regularly, but stuck to evolution as his greatest accomplishment of his life
He didn't see a reason why God couldn't have used evolution because God is timeless
Ken Miller thinks the same way, stating that young-earth creationism has many translation and order errors messed up throguht history
tynoobi 3 years ago
Although Darwin originally trained in theology and had studied the work of William Paley, he at some point rejected the Christian faith, if in fact, he ever had it. Read your history. This is a fact thereby making him anti-Christian. Anti doesn't always mean vehemently opposing something.
sleanos 3 years ago
He started doubting Genesis at some point later in his life because the Hebrew word for day is up for questioning. But he never really did reject the existence of a God itself
tynoobi 3 years ago
That's beside the point. Deists believe in God also while some reject the Bible & Christian faith. Just because someone believes in "God" doesn't make them a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God in the flesh. The hebrew word for day is only in question by "higher criticism" which is a folly. The Jewish nation for 4000 years understand that God made the world in 6 24 hr days and rested the 7th.
sleanos 3 years ago
exactly, just because someone believes in God don't make them A Christian
I never claimed the opposite
tynoobi 3 years ago
I thought we were talking about Darwin & whether or not he was a christian or anti-christian. Help me understand what your point is?
sleanos 3 years ago
I was just justifying the comment I made earlier that made you think I was talking about all thiests being Christians
it wasn't that misleading. I said he never rejected the existence of God by itself.
tynoobi 3 years ago
Ah I see. Ok. I wasn't putting words in your mouth when I made that statement. Just making a point.
You're initial words were that Darwin wasn't anti-christian, which was incorrect by the time he passed away. Regardless if he believed in God, it wasn't the Christian concept of God.
sleanos 3 years ago
okay...... I have seen a lot of debates about evolution and such..and you keep saying something that is twitching my ear a lil' bit. Darwinian Evolution. I imagine there is a good reason you keep saying this.. otherwise I imagine you would just say evolution. I assume you make a distinction. or perhaps you just enjoy tying darwins name to evolution.. A LOT. I would like to point out, however, Darwin's highly flawed original theory has gone a long way towards improving various fields of science.
ultimategoobah 3 years ago
I didn't make the distinction. Those who advocate evolution made it by saying at it's fundamental core evolution is just "change over time", mostly to appeace theists. If that's all it were, most creationists and IDers would have no problem with that broad difinition. It's darwins flavor and neo-darwinism evolution and it's ultimate conclusions that we disagree with in part based on scientific evidence.
sleanos 3 years ago
God didn't use darwinian evolution. It is completely opposite on what the bible teaches. The two teachings are at opposite ends of each other. Only 1 can be completely truthful. Keep studying.
sleanos 3 years ago
Um Darwin was not anti-Christian. True, he was not devoutly religious, but he wasn't anti-Christian
Anyway, leave it to Creationists to slander a man who believes in the compromise of science and faith
ojuice3117 3 years ago
You seem to have a one-sided definition of what "anti" can mean. "anti" can be an outright rejection of something, an stance opposite of, or even set up in the place of. So in the sense that Darwin openly rejected the God of Christianity makes him by definition anti-Christian.
sleanos 3 years ago
If you actually look up the religious views of Darwin, you would know that he WAS a Christian. His faith did start to disappear when he was older, but it was due to the death of his daughter, not his scientific theory
ojuice3117 3 years ago
What's your point? We know very well He was brought up in the Christian faith, our point is, Darwin rejected the Judeo-Christian God (regardless of his personal reasons) and so is not a Christian. Can you be a Buddhist if you reject the teachings of Buddha? No. At best it is a hybrid form/mixing of thoughts/religions. There is no mixing in true biblical Christianity.
sleanos 3 years ago
Let's remember something, MANY of the foundational branches of science throughout history were founded by "creationists" as well as others. Try asking Steven J. Gould (a well-known & respected evolutionist, if he were still alive) why he allowed known creationist even to this day Dr. Kurt Wise a doctorate in paleontology from Harvard?
I love science. I just dislike the lies/philosophies that are NOT founded on facts/science which comprises the bulk of the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution.
sleanos 3 years ago
The only reason why Newton, Linnaeus, Gallileo, etc, were "creationists" was because they all lived BEFORE Darwin.
If you did truly love science, you would not dismiss evolution as a fairy tale. You don't have to believe it, but it order to make a valid argument you have to consider both sides of the argument.
I'm a bio major, if evolution were a conspiracy, I would be in on it
ojuice3117 3 years ago
I dismiss darwinian evolution as a fairytale because I HAVE studied it out. In fact I have a biology major friend in University of Chicago who also rejects the theory and only studies it because it is required. It is a laughable theory piggy backing on true science. Not a conspiracy, but people are truly blinded if they think they evolved in the distant past from bacteria or whatever is conceived of as life originally.
sleanos 3 years ago
Look, it is entirely possible it is false, but from what we have discovered so far, it explains everything perfectly. It is not a lie because everyone can admit it can be falsified. If we found a human in Permian stone, I would concede this argument immediately.
But until then, or until any ID "theorists" publish any peer reviews, back off
ojuice3117 3 years ago
Darwinian Evolution explains nothing. Genetics (Mendell), Natural selection, adaptation, gene study does a great deal to explain diversity amongst species, but it falls FAAAR short of ever explaining and proving in a laboratory how all living organisms could have possibly evolved from a single common ancestor. What we know about natural selection and mutations DISPROVES the Darwin notion of "Tree of Life". And the Fossil record doesn't back it up either. Look into the Cambrian explosion for ex.
sleanos 3 years ago
You familiar with Stephen j. Gould of Harvard? He awarded creationist before & after Dr. Kurt Wise his degree in paleontology. Or how about nuclear physicist & young earth creationist Robert Gentry who has PUBLISHED works in "NATURE" for an instant earth creation which has NOT been disproven nor rejected. Stop censoring science and believing all the hype and spin coming from propagandists. You're acting like a zealot religious extremist now.
sleanos 3 years ago
WHAT?!! Gould was NOT a creationist. He was a leading advocate for evolution. Read some of his works.
Admittingly, I don't know much about Gentry, I know he is a creationist.
Oh and please tell me how I'M the one acting like a "zealot religious extremist." I am NOT trying to shake your faith. Its great you have faith, but dont let it blind you. Evolution can STILL be the work of God
ojuice3117 3 years ago
Friend, please read more carefully! I NEVER SAID Gould was a creationist. I said he awarded Dr.Kurt Wise who was a known creationist with His degree in paleontology. If creationists cannot do "legetimate" science, WHY WOULD A KNOW evolutionists award a KNOWN creationist his degree from a prestigious school. Stop setting up your own straw men arguments please.
sleanos 3 years ago
you know what, im tired of arguing with you. All i tried to say was that Ken Miller is a great example of how not every evolutionist is an atheist, but no YOU had to fucking crucify me for.
Ill just leave you with this: its evident you beleive god created the world, so what you have to ask is HOW he did it.
ojuice3117 3 years ago
Please don't get upset with me because I have to correct your understanding of what I wrote. I'm not crucifying you, just sticking with the facts. I deal with 1 to many people like yourself who think they know it all or accuse me of the same just because I believe in God. And beleive me, I've studied the question out on HOW he did it according to what science knows today&darwinian evolution is so far from the truth, it's ridiculous. (The theory min you, not necessarily the people who believe it)
sleanos 3 years ago
EVERYTHING about darwinian evolution (and even the big bang theory), man's attempts at explaining how we got here and the processes are COMPLETELY backwards opposite with the Bible. Darwinian Evolution was NOT used by God and it is because I understand the science that I say this, not because the Bible says so. Let's get it together now please.
sleanos 3 years ago
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.
sleanos 3 years ago
It is useless? Except that it has helped cure disease
ojuice3117 3 years ago
No. Modern medicine, the study of genetics, science of nutrition have helped cure & prevent disease. The theory you are clinging to that says our great great ancestors are some form of ape is useless. Darwinism piggy backs on TRUE science.
sleanos 3 years ago
Still got nothing on evolution eh, well best slander the scientist then instead of tackling what he says like an educated adult.
MaxSafeheaD 3 years ago
An educated adult? If you believe in darwinian evolution, you're the one who believes your great great great cousin is an onion or an amoeba. *sigh* And all the evidence to consider against what Ken Miller has stated is found in the link to the right of the video for consideration along with scientific journal citations regardless if you don't like the author that it comes from.
sleanos 3 years ago
This video is full of fail.
- It makes a false claim (bearing false witness) about Millers book, claiming that it is full of straw-man arguments, but offers no arguments, no examples. Nothing.
- It hypocritically slams him for his faith, thereby elevating the authors own faith above that of someone else.
- It quotes the worst chapter Matthew ever wrote, in which Jesus actually condones the killing of children who disobey their parents.
LazyJones1 3 years ago 3
"- It makes a false claim (bearing false witness) about Millers book, claiming that it is full of straw-man arguments, but offers no arguments, no examples. Nothing."
Did you look to the right of the video in the description box? (No. it would seem you did not.) The link to the MANY false statements made by Kenneth Miller are listed there. ----->
sleanos 3 years ago
"- It hypocritically slams him for his faith, thereby elevating the authors own faith above that of someone else."
How is it hypocrtical? Study the bible. You'll see that MANY of the practices of Catholicism stem NOT from the Bible but from traditionand paganism. The TRUTH is the TRUTH.
sleanos 3 years ago
Yea and I suppose the multitude of things Jesus had in common with pagan messiahs is pure co-incidence or lies put there by Satan while god was presumable pre-occupied.
Your hypocrisy is staggering.
MaxSafeheaD 3 years ago
"- It quotes the worst chapter Matthew ever wrote, in which Jesus actually condones the killing of children who disobey their parents. "
Utter NONSENCE. Read all of Matthew 23. Where does it condone killing anybody? Stop making things up.
sleanos 3 years ago
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are One in purpose, divinity, eternalness and character, yet they have always been 3 seperate personages. Bible tells us before "Jesus of Nazerath" the Son was "the WORD" with God. And we have the Spirit of God back at creation creating with God. How can time be ONE yet past, present and future. How can light be composed of 3 different "lights" with different components and elements of heat yet it is light.
sleanos 3 years ago
What is a "personage?" Do you mean three bodies?
patrissimo 3 years ago
No. What I mean by personage - is for ex today's modern definition of person is not just limited to a physical human being, but can also refer to a company, party or entity. In Christianity, God is ONE in eternalness, divinity, character and purpose, yet three separate equal, co-eternal persons. Father is spirit, Son is now flesh and blood, Holy Spirit is spirit. How God chooses to reveal Himself to us now or in the future is His prerogative. Great is the mystery of Godliness. 1Ti 3:16
sleanos 3 years ago
I agree. We cannot appeal to God to be anything but God as revealed in His Word and through His Son Jesus Christ.
I'm a little confused about your stance then on Jesus. Jesus is both fully God (divine) and was fully human. This is what the bible teaches. Jesus says God the Father is spirit. Please clarify on what or who you mean when you say God cannot have a body? U referring to the Son or Father?
sleanos 3 years ago
Like it or not, the true Catholic Tradition is incompatible with Darwinism.
patrissimo 3 years ago
ugh, compatible* not combatible. sorry about that. LOL. one word kind of changes the meaning, eh?
born50yearstoolate 3 years ago
Yeah big time ;) Ask an atheist when he reads a paraphrased Bible.
sleanos 3 years ago
Personally I think Kenneth Miller explains how evolution and Christianity are quite compatible.
Miller explains that in order for all the fossils we have to make sense and be Christian you have to a have a really low opinion of God - He's either not making organisms that can survive or He's trying to trick us.
Miller explains he believes in a God who used evolution to make all life that has ever lived on Earth possible. That sounds much more complimentary of God to me than a creatonist.
born50yearstoolate 3 years ago
Or you have the alternative and true accord. ALl the species we find in the fossil record, many who are found grouped together as if hit by a flood, were buried by a world wide flood according the to Flood event recorded in the Bible. Today for example, the main reason creatures go extinct is because of mankind, (2nd is natural disasters), not that they can't necessarily survive.
sleanos 3 years ago
Have you read the refutation to Miller's book? Yes or No? Have you read Miller's book? Yes or No? Have you double checked the facts in both. Yes or No? Once you've done that, guaranteed you will have a different perspective about what Ken Miller presents as science, let alone religious faith. He already admits to believe in darwin's god, a god that created everything and couldn't get it right the very first time. This is not the God of the Bible.
sleanos 3 years ago
American Catholics have been educated mainly by state schools and the media rather than by the Church. Most Latin Catholics treat mass attendance as a Eucharistic vending machine and little more.
patrissimo 3 years ago
I don't understand this video to be honest though. From the view of Catholics, Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII (not sure about the latter's #) both acknowledged that evolution is combatible with Catholicism.
Ken Miller is good because he promotes science and tries to unite science and faith. Ken Miller is searching for truth and the Gospels all advocate Truth. Kenneth Miller is a great scientists and good Christian and a great man.
Your entitled to your opinion, but i disagree.
born50yearstoolate 3 years ago
Reason why the popes of the Catholic church can claim faith and darwinian evolution to be compatible is because the Catholic faith holds the words of men and tradition superior to the Bible. They flat out admit that not everything in the Bible is true amongst other things. They wanted to make Mary a part of the Godhead/trinity. Protestants hold 2 sola scripture for our faith. It's the inspired Word of God & true in every sense. Nothing indicates Genesis is allegorical. See genealogies of Jesus.
sleanos 3 years ago
This is calumny. The Church has never and will never attempt to make Mary equal to the Trinity. You do not understand Catholicism if you think that.
patrissimo 3 years ago
I understand Catholicism well enough friend. I grew up Catholic myself. I don't remember where I read the infromation but there were attempts to make Mary a part of or equal with the Trinity. I doubt it will ever happen either, but let it be known when you pray Hail Mary Mother of God, you are praying to a good woman who cannot hear your prayers nor answer them. Only God through the Son can. God Bless.
sleanos 3 years ago
Having grown up Catholic does not mean you know Catholicism. I am a revert who also grew up Catholic and came to realize I never truly understood it until later. I know MANY ex-Catholics who are exes precisely because they were never taught the faith or never cared to learn. If Mary cannot hear my prayers, then the JWs, SDAs and others have a point about soul-sleep. Catholicism has the highest conception of God, Love, and everything else. See my videos on Mary.
patrissimo 3 years ago
Sorry friend. The Bible has the highest conception about God period. The God you claim to love through catholicism is the same God who you believe will punish and burn his creation for eternity. This is a slander on the name of God. fyi: I'm a Seventh-day Adventist now. See my videos also.
sleanos 3 years ago
Then my comment was perceptive wasn't it? IF you reject Catholicism in favor of SDAism, you DO NOT understand Catholic teaching. The SDA book on the 27 fundamental beliefs teaches that God has a body. THAT'S PAGANISM. A corporeal God cannot be truly Infinite.
patrissimo 3 years ago
Not really. I could tell you were fishing. You want to talk about paganism? Catholcism admits they changed the day of worship from the 7th day Sabbath (4th commandment) to Sunday (1st day) adopting the pagan day of sun worship and calling it our Lord's day. They admit there is NO scriptural support for such a change and that it is her ecclesiastical power alone that allows her to make a day holy. Now THAT is paganism, let alone a laundry of list of some 20+ other items.
sleanos 3 years ago
How am I fishing? Read your book on the 27 fundamental doctrines under the section where man is created in God's image. Further, I have had more than one SDA admit to me that they believe God has a body. How can God be infinite if He has a body?
The Lord rose on Sunday and the Church has the authority to do what she does by virtue of the power of the keys (Matt. 16:19).
patrissimo 3 years ago
When I said "fishing" I meant it seemed like you may have already known I was a Seventh-day Adventist (no secret if you look at my main page). Wasn't speaking about our 27 fund doctrines. Aren't you limiting God the creator by saying He can do all things except have a body? You believe Jesus is God (the Son, equal and one with the Father) yes? Explain how Jesus can have a body. You sound like a muslim attacking Christians. And the keys are the GOSPEL message of Hope.
sleanos 3 years ago
Brother like I said, I don't question your faith in God however, the Bible makes it very clear that NO MAN can tamper with the Holy Law of God (10 Commandments) which were spoken with the voice of God and written with His finger on enduring stone. Jesus claimed to be the great I AM so in effect it was He who gave those Holy and perfect precepts by which Most Christians including Catholicism claims to adhere to. Catholcism also CHOPPED the commandment on idolatry... wonder why.
sleanos 3 years ago
We are not Jews and this is not the old covenant. SDA scholars have been dishonest in treating the historical aspect of this issue. The commandment on the sabbath was not repeated in the NT. Jesus rose again on the "Lord's Day" just as scripture says and Christians have always known.
patrissimo 3 years ago
Jesus was a Jew. Christians read from a Jewish book. There is NO covenant ever made with Gentiles and anyone who is a follower of Christ is grafted INTO the family of God and is the considered the seed of Abraham and heirs to the promises of God. Please give ONE scripture that calls the 1st day of the week, the Lord's day. Read the 4rth commandment in a protestant bible or Jewish Torah and it clearly reveals the 7th day as the Lord thy God's Holy Sabbath Day, not the first my friend.
sleanos 3 years ago
Catholics leaders even admit that the CHURCH changed the Day. NOT God the Son nor God the Father in the Bible.
sleanos 3 years ago
So you admit the Catholic Church has the power(they think) to change God's holy law?
daro2096 3 years ago
I admit that Christ Himself gave to St. Peter the power to bind and loose. Binding and lossing are terms meaning the authority to prohibit or permit in matters of faith and morals. Matt. 16:19 makes clear that heaven ratifies what Peter binds or loosens - that's infallibility.
patrissimo 3 years ago
Sorry I have to disagree. Why would Jesus build His church on an infallible man such as Peter? When Jesus said "on THIS ROCK" He was speaking of Himself as countless scriptures that refer to Jesus as being the Rock of Ages backs up. Peter as does you and I have do have the keys though as believers. We can SHARE the gospel and salvation through Jesus Christ with others or not share it. Our authority is limited to teaching the WORDS of Jesus Christ, NOT making our own in matters of faith.
sleanos 3 years ago
Know what is paganism? Worshipping that wafer as though it was God.
daro2096 3 years ago
But Jesus said that if we don't eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us.
patrissimo 3 years ago
You are correct. Take part in the communion service which SYMBOLIZES the broken body and shed blood of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Jesus is NOT actually IN the wafer or the "wine" which should actually be an unfermented drink such as grape juice, since fermentation and leven are BOTH symbolic signs of SIN. The priest have NO power if they think they can make Jesus come down from heaven and into the wafer or cup.
sleanos 3 years ago
When was unfermented grape juice invented? Jewish passover wine is weak but definitely fermented. Where does scripture say that it is unfermented? The Psalmist said "wine that gladdens the heart of man." Jesus turned water into the best wine. To symbolically eat flesh and drink blood is to persecute someone. They didn't understand it symbolically and Jesus didn't correct them.
patrissimo 3 years ago
You're asking when did people start drinking plain old grape juice fresh off the cluster? A loooong time. Jewish people SHOULD know better than to drink alcohol and so should Christians. There will be none in heaven. Blessings are found in the cluster (fresh grapes) not in alcohol. Isa 65:8 - Jesus is the bread of life and the Word incarnate. To 'eat Him' is to study the Bible. To drink Him symbolically is to accept His shed blood on the cross. crackers/bread and grape juice my friend.
sleanos 3 years ago
"To 'eat Him' is to study the Bible. To drink Him symbolically is to accept His shed blood on the cross." Where does scripture actually say this?
patrissimo 3 years ago
It is implied by much scripture. Ex: Jesus calls Himself the Bread of Life and He is also the Word made flesh. Old & New Testament reveals Jesus. Eat His flesh - He isn't telling us to cannibalize Him, but rather "eat" His Words (accept Him & the Word of God). The "wine" represents His pure blood shed on cavalry. I Corinthians 11:26 tells us it is in remembrance of the Lord's death, as Jesus also tells us in Matthew 26:26-28.
sleanos 3 years ago
It's also 'implied' if your wife isn't a virgin when you marry you should stone her.
Maybe the 'stones' represent sticks, insults ... or hamburgers.
MaxSafeheaD 3 years ago
Wow. You sound like a two year old who thinks 1X1 = 2, getting things confused. Just to clarify, the CIVIL judgments were given to the nation of Israel when they lived in a true theocracy. The OT religious ceremonies and civil judgments were dissolved when Christ died on Calvary as OT bible prophecy predicted in the book of Daniel. Judgment day is nearing, I pray that you find God and make peace with Him. He's waiting for you.
sleanos 3 years ago
Also there was only the Old Testament, no printing press, and only about 3% of the population could read. Im sure Christ was saying go home and study The Bible for yourself.
patrissimo 3 years ago
No argument there. At the time of Christ, He started with Jerusalem. The chosen people who HAD the scriptures of which Jesus says they ALL testify of Himself.
sleanos 3 years ago
Friend, it sounds like you'd rather argue points instead of just presenting & intelligently discussing viewpoints that differ. 1Co 2:13-14 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
sleanos 3 years ago
So which is true? We don't know origins of man, man evolved from primeordial ooze, or God made Adam from the dust of the earth with His own hands and then Eve from the side of Adam? And how would one go about proving any of these 3? Smart Christians KNOW they cannot prove the 3rd option and should admit that we take it on faith. Science cannot prove the former 2 options and have not done so.
sleanos 3 years ago
I believe scientist Francis Collins, a Christian, would refer to this comment as God of Gaps. Everything in existence has had a natural explanation, what makes you believe it would change one day?
BoneztoBonez 3 years ago
Origins of any life have never been proven scientifically and the more we study the more we realize just how supremely complex even the most smallest molecule is. By natural laws, atoms shouldn't even be able to contain itself, yet it does, DEFYING a natural explanation and laws. You use "God of the Gaps" as a cop out to insinuate JUST because Christians believe God in the beginning that that will stop us from continuing to investigate scientifically. Poor assumption.
sleanos 3 years ago
Whats that bit of the bible about throwing stones?
Or that can conveniently be ignored when you feel like it? Seems to be the christian trend!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
What are you talking about? Who is throwing stones? You asked a question and I am answering it. If you are going to quote the bible at least quote it correctly, for it also states that we are to give reasons for the hope that lies within us and to also contend for the faith in truth.
sleanos 3 years ago
Ouch! Trying to gain sympathy by quoting the bible on the internet? you must be new here....
goomba000 3 years ago
No not really. There is a more thorough refutation of Ken Miller's arguments in the description area on this page. This is primarily for Christians who think Darwinian evolution is true, like Ken Miller and others. I've been on here quite long enough to know that youtube debates through comment boxes are generally fruitless as well. I encourage you to view the rest of my videos.
sleanos 3 years ago
Just plainly Ignorant and religiously biased!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
FYI: I spent the last 30 years believing in secular ideologies, darwinian evolution, materialism, etc and NEVER considered any religion to be a possible answer to life, existence, purpose, etc. I was soooo wrong now having SERIOUSLY studied it. The only ignorance here is yours on display by making assumptions about a person's background and condemning them fairly quickly without getting all the facts. I pray that you'll think more before you speak. Am I relig. biased? Yes now that I know TRUTH.
sleanos 3 years ago
Truth? LOL you ignore fact and science and believe in an imaginary god who there is no evidence for.
Guess your one who believes
6000 year old earth?
Flood story?
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Actually, BECAUSE of Christianity I actually care about science and history a great deal now. My wife is a nurse and I'm a software engineer. After spending the last few years carefully weighing the evidence from darwinian evolutionists, ID, and creationists, the evidence makes MUCH more sense from the creationists view. And Yes I unashamedly believe a world wide flood occurred in the past and the earth is approx. 6000 years old.
sleanos 3 years ago
"unashamedly believe"
Well thats the problem you should be, so like to vote down people who agree with you?
So a scientist who likes to ignore science, how ironic is that.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Please remember, YOU came to my page. YOU were not invited into a discussion, so please stop crying if I decide to "vote you" down. I read your response and responded and care not to see it anymore, hence the vote down. If you are looking for a debate, I suggest a different forum. I guess you don't read too well either, I already said I carefully investigated much of the science. Please point out what I am ignoring since you seem to claim omnipotence in terms of what I've studied.
sleanos 3 years ago
I guess you believe somehow dirt became life all by itself without a supernatural cause and without 1 shred of evidence in support of it and that you are actually related to an onion.
sleanos 3 years ago
Dirt into life thats the bible.
You are very biased on evidence!
SO how many kinds of animals where on the ark and how did that become the millions of species we have today? Enlighten me.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
All you can do is point the finger eh. So there is no confusion, yes I believe God made man in the beginning, but I do not call THAT science as if I can prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Nor do I say Darwinian evolution states that life came from dirt, but rather taken as a whole, the non-thiest accounts for origins has NO valid explanation or evidence to surmise a reasonable hypothesis on origins of mankind. Please stick with 1 topic at a time, instead of trying to bombard with questions.
sleanos 3 years ago
Well im not going to get you change your mind, only you can do that.
So how many kinds of animals where on the ark and how did that become the millions of species we have today? Enlighten me.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
We don't know exactly how many species were on the ark, but the ark was rather huge and could fit a lot of life in it. You've never heard of adapation, natural selection and mutations? This fits fine with the creationists view. Point is though, dog kinds only bring forth dog kinds... not evolving from so non-dog specie and into something other than a dog kind as darwinian evolution states.
sleanos 3 years ago
So we will be generous and say 3000 kinds
That is NOT enought if you are only to count species, even counting similar birds that can interbreed.
No person who understands evolution would claim, you can get 3000 species to evolve into what we have today in 4400 years.
Dont believe in Evolution, but use SUPER evolution as proof it doesnt exist!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
You're arguing against your own straw man and this is a fallacious form of argument friend, please learn this. How and why did you use approx 3000 species on the ark? There are some estimates based on the dimensions of the ark and current animal sizes that it may have been more or less 35,000 species aboard. Just an estimate though.
sleanos 3 years ago
And you have to remember, water life would not have been included and there was no need to include older/larger animals if the main purpose was to preserve a set number of species from the flood, so the younger more fertile animals would have been a more plausible choice. Just a reasonable guess though as scripture doesn't give us all the details.
sleanos 3 years ago
We don't know exactly how many species were on the ark, but the ark was rather huge and could fit a lot of life in it. You've never heard of adapation, natural selection and mutations? This fits fine with the creationists view. Point is though, dog kinds only bring forth dog kinds... not evolving from so non-dog specie and into something other than a dog kind as darwinian evolution states.
sleanos 3 years ago
Well either the dirt became alive by itself or by God.
daro2096 3 years ago
the context and what was ment by "darwin's god" is clearly the crux of this, but i don't know them so i can't really comment. but it fully possible to be a christian and aceept evolution, francis collins would be another example.
flyingdrake 3 years ago
If you mean simple "change over time" evolution then yes, we can accept that and continue scientific study on what types of changes are possible. Darwinian evolution: common ancestry of all life - tree of life evolution is a complete falsity masquerading as science now that we know it main tenant is false and the evidence proves it false.
sleanos 3 years ago
I must admit I've not heard the argument Darwin was anti-Christian. I know he did attend Christ's College with the goal of being a clergyman, though he ultimately decided it was not for him. And he lost faith in religion (but not God) after the death of his daughter.
This would seem be an arguement against the claims of Harun Yahya's creationist group which states evolutionary theory was a Christian plot to make people doubt Islam, based on Darwin's early goal of being a member of the clergy.
Kieran27 3 years ago 2
I cannot comment on the book because I haven't read it. But I can make a hypothetical observation on Ken Miller.
The Bible is open to interpretation (demonstrated by the various Christian denominations). It is possible that Dr. Miller's interpretation of the Bible and the communications given by Pope Pius XII (1950) and Pope John Paul II (1996) concerning Evolution allow him to both believe in Jesus and practice and defend science.
I will not post again until I have found and read the book.
Atriviality 4 years ago
"The Bible is open to interpretation" - This is what most want u to believe. Read it thoroughly and all the way through. Then prayerfully study and see if you think the same after that as well. Most of the Christian world DOES NOT DEEPLY, prayerfully study the Word of God and instead relies on Pastors and Popes to tell them what it says. Jesus commands each and everyone of us that love him to study the scriptures.
sleanos 4 years ago
Catholicism is deeply rooted in countless pagan traditions blended with Biblical Christianity. It is NOT Biblical Christianity in it's truest sense. This is not to be confused I'm sure with the utmost sincerity of it's followers and believers. Catholicism puts tradition above the clear words of scripture.
sleanos 4 years ago
[] Catholicism puts tradition above the clear words of scripture. []
Please. So you honestly believe when the Bible quotes someone as saying "People are the salt of the Earth," that they actually believed people were made up of salt. Much of the Bible is allegorical and Genesis is but one area in which it is so.
You're video is clearly atheist agenda oriented and ultimately it only serves to hurt science but promoting the faith vs science misconception. So way to go!
Not!
born50yearstoolate 3 years ago
Your statement reeks of immaturity. I acknowledge that there are many parts in the Bible that are allegorical and symbolic. Parables, prophecies, visions. There is NOTHING within the Bible that indicated the Genesis account is allegorical, SO, it is either 100% true or it is Not. (The Bible indicates when things are symbolic/allegorical or not). All the genealogies trace Jesus back directly to Adam. Was Jesus's descendants an allegory?
sleanos 3 years ago
I'm immature?
Your the one reading the Bible like a science book and interpreting Genesis entirely literally. 2000 years ago you think people were able to comprehend 4.5 billion years? No they couldn't.
Now, I'm not a creationist. I'm a Christian who acknowledges evolution.
Modern day people with a graduate education who took biology classes can't even understand evolution today. How would you expect farmers 2000+ yrs ago(because Genesis was written well before JC) to?
born50yearstoolate 3 years ago
You need to read more carefully. I said your statement, not you reeks of immaturity. I don't know you personally and am only going by the statements you make and that one that I addressed is a VERY juvenile and immature understanding of what the Bible teaches and your ASSUMPTIONS about what I happen to know about it.
sleanos 3 years ago
You just said it very plainly, you are a Christian. SO I will ask you, were Adam and Eve REAL people, for the Bible traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ DIRECTLY to Adam. Have you EVER studied how impressive the minds of ancient man was compared with today? The Mayans were said to have been extremely mathematically sophisticated. The Greeks wrote words side by side without spaces and punctuation. Have you any idea how sharp the mind has to be to accomplish those things?
sleanos 3 years ago
"Modern day people with a graduate education who took biology classes can't even understand evolution today."
Then what makes you think it is true and fact (if you do?). They already admit that fossils and embryology really don't prove darwin's version of evolution occurred. Instead they rely on genetics today which actually disproves the darwininan concept of all life having a common ancestor - darwin's tree of life. This is what the disagreement is really about.
sleanos 3 years ago
Fossils do prove evolution and genetics supports it. I'm not quite so familiar with embryology.
Tiktaalik Rosae. Intermediate fossil. fish-amphibian intermediate.
born50yearstoolate 3 years ago
Sorry to burst your bubble, but most evolutionists admit that fossils to not prove evolution. Just by looking at bones or the strata they are in, you can't tell at all what specie gave birth to what or if they had offspring. They are all just guesses. Fossils do not prove evolution in principle. Bury two people today on top of each other, wait for the bones to fossilize. Then tell me how you can determine they are related, offspring, strangers, etc.
sleanos 3 years ago
When you find a fossil in the dirt all you know is it died. You can't prove it had any kids let alone different kids and why do you think a bone in the dirt could do what an animal today can't do which is produce anything other than its kind?
daro2096 3 years ago
People 2000 years ago weren't stupid enought to believe the evolution lie(evolution wasn't just invented 150 years ago it has been around since at least Moses' day).
daro2096 3 years ago
Catholcism states that there are parts of the Bible that are not entirely true as well... if that's the case and it is supposed to be the inspired Word of God, at what point then does God inspire the bible writers to start telling the truth? It is like the Dali Llama making statements that Jesus is a good, holy man (more so than himself) who cannot lie (no no in Christianity AND Buddhism), yet was allowed to lie about certain things, like Him claiming to be the Son of God.
sleanos 3 years ago
So what does God mean when he says he made the world in six days and rested the seventh?
daro2096 3 years ago
So you don't believe Dr Miller is a Christian because he attends church yet practices science and defends it against ignorance? How do YOU define a Christian?
Atriviality 4 years ago
Wrong. I don't believe Ken Miller is a true Christian because he has openly and willingly lied to the public about various scientific issues and created straw man arguments in other cases against anyone who questions Darwinian evolution-"tree of life" to make them look as though they do not nor can comprehend true laboratory science. If you read the article in the video or in the description you would know this.
sleanos 4 years ago
Do you have any idea how many different types of creationism there are? Do you know how often these different groups change their arguments? Do you have any idea how often they steal ideas from each other, regardless of the idea's validity? You cannot know he was talking about your specific form of creationism or another one. He wouldn't say "These 67 forms of creationism believe this, but these 23 forms believe this, and these 2 believe this..." It would be ridiculous. So he generalizes.
Atriviality 4 years ago
Yes I do and yes we can know what kind Miller is talking about. You obviously have NOT read the book in question that He wrote NOR the refutation and insist that we cannot derive truth. This is a very shaky place to be in reality and I do hope you at least read His book, then the refutation and see if you still think the same afterwards. Good day.
sleanos 4 years ago
I will be honest and say I have not read "Finding Darwin's God". I have read excerpts from it in online, but have not read the book itself. From what I can gather he does spends a few chapters debunking common creationist arguments (if you could be a little more specific about which creationists he is debunking, that would help me a lot) before moving on to berate "radical Darwinists" about their behavior. He then goes on to talk about what the 2 groups have in common. Or so I've read.
Atriviality 4 years ago
As I said before, please read His book, then the refutation. Only then can we have a discussion once BOTH parties have been fully informed about the topic that we are discussing. Anything else is based on speculation and assumptions and no offense to you, but I grow tired of having to tell people what it is they are trying to refute seeing they didn't do their homework to begin with before opening their "mouths".
sleanos 4 years ago
Plain and simple a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus believed in the HISTORIC events of the Old Testament and a Christian should either. Either the Bible is ENTIRELY true or it isn't. It's that simple. The hard work comes in investigating science, history & theology to reconcile these views if possible..and it is.
sleanos 4 years ago
Jesus Christ seemed to imply that humans had corrupted the interpretation of the scriptures over the years to serve their own ends (in Matthew 12:1-12, he claimed that the Sabbath had become corrupted by the Pharisees).
If 1 part of the scriptures had been interpretation and/or corrupted, would that make the rest of them corrupt too? How can we as flawed humans determine which ones (if any) have been corrupted?
Atriviality 4 years ago
Jesus made NO claim that the scriptures themselves were corrupted for He quotes them continuously in the Gospels. He rebuked the Pharisees with the issues of the Sabbath because they imposed their OWN man made rules over the clear words of scripture. Please do some homework on the types of silly & legalistic rules they had. More than 90% of the manuscripts we have support the KJV Bible. Start their my friend. That Bible is NOT corrupt in it's translated meanings.
sleanos 4 years ago
Charles Darwin WAS a Christian. He even planned on becoming a priest. After the death of his daughter Annie in 1851 he lost faith in Christianity (this is not a unique situation). He was even quoted in saying "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." (1887).
Atriviality 4 years ago
Thank you for restating this. Yes Charles Darwin died agnostic and NOT a Christian. Agnosticism and Christianity are NOT compatible either.
sleanos 4 years ago
Wow, what a mess. Where to start? First of all, it would have been nice if you'd presented just one example of "straw-man arguments and misinformation, and outright deception." Or are we simply to take your word on it? Secondly, while Darwin wasn't a believer, he was in no sense "anti-Christian." On the contrary, the potential implications of his theory bothered him immensely, and he died an unreconciled agnostic. Finally, what evidence is there that Miller's Catholicism is not sincere?
ClumsyRoot 4 years ago
1) If you knew how to read you would see that I provided the link in the video at the end and off to the side (description) that gives you an article with the straw-men arguments & misinformation & outright deception. You've just displayed your ignorance on the matter. Please do not comment again UNTIL YOU'VE READ the article and investigated it's claims.
sleanos 4 years ago
Fair enough. I will read the article and investigate its claims.
ClumsyRoot 4 years ago