10. Pagan Origins: Abiogenesis and the evolution of genera are not new ideas. These emerged from mythology. Ancient Egyptian mythology records the myth, and later, Greek philosophers accepted it like Anaximander and Democritus. Diodorus Siculus, a first-century BC historian, presented in his “Universal History” the ancient Egyptian myth that life emerged from membranes in a wet marsh. He reported that Egyptians believed that bestial man hunted and gathered, invented language from grunts, and discovered fire. Does that sound familiar? Such theories are not original to science. Read more.
9. Habitability: The universe is fine-tuned for life. The cosmological constants perfectly set against naturalistic odds. The earth is precisely balanced for life. The habitable zone from the sun, the amount of liquid water, protective “gas giant” planets, the ideal orbit for stable temperatures, a precise axial tilt to maintain seasons and warmth, a protective magnetic field, an open position in the galaxy, and essential elements of biochemistry are some conditions necessary for life on Earth. Secular scientists have yet to observe another planet that meets these few conditions despite the thousands of observable planets. The earth is observably 1 in 10^24. Read more.
8. Hoaxes: Evolution of humanity rests on refuted conjectures and frauds. Find a “missing link”; find a hoax. “Missing links” are based solely on conjecture. The list of evolutionary hoaxes presented as the primitive man include the Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce man, Cro-magnon, and Neanderthal. Another hoax that stands out is Haeckel’s embryos. This fraud is still used in textbooks to indoctrinate children and adolescents that they evolved through forms of animals in the womb. There is no doubt that this lie is the basis the U.S.’s 50 million plus abortions since 1973 as seen by Carl Sagan’s belief that unborn children are just animals.
7. Biology: Whatever system is more complex than design is most likely designed. Biology is more complex than human design. Therefore, biology is most likely designed. The complexity of the internal order of the cell displays a complex machine. Kinesins are motor proteins that walk on cytoskeleton. Every process of every cellular organelle performs essential functions for each living cell to exist. Comprehending the processes of the cell only reveals a complex order equal from within only by its genetic code. The functions of a cell is an example of the irreducible order of life.
6. DNA: People learn and educate themselves to communicate in complex languages, and they intelligently design complex computer codes. According to evolutionists, nature formulated its own code — a molecular mechanical strand containing more than a trillion processes that instructs the building and maintaining each cell. The order of each code is different for every living organism. As scientists have observed, if SETI received a code one billionth in size to any strand of DNA, then they would declare the existence of intelligent life somewhere else in the Universe. How is it that DNA does not declare intelligent design behind life on Earth?
5. Radiometric Dating: God would create a mature and habitable earth rather than a mass of radioactive lava. By presuming that natural processes formed the original rock without God, secularists ignore any consideration that God could and would have created the universe for life to live in the beginning. According to Genesis, God created man and woman in maturity not infancy, and likewise, God created the earth and its life in maturity. Radioactive measurements reflect a mature creation not long ages. The atheistic assumption undermines long ages that secularists presume. Scientists recognize the assumptions upholding radiometric dating by presuming the original elements. Read more.
4. Causality: Causality is the law of cause and effect. The law affirms that everything that begins to exist has a greater cause. Trace the effect of every cause back and find the greatest cause of all. The cause of the universe must extend beyond the universe, and so the cause must transcend nature. Atheistic origins assert that a quantum flux formed mass-producing particles forming a dense ball of matter once known as the singularity that exploded in the Big Bang forming the precise order of the universe with fine-tuned cosmological constants. Read more here: The Law of Causality and Cause and Effect.
3. Biogenesis: As Louis Pasteur affirmed, life only comes from life, and life only produces after its own kind. This scientific fact is indisputable and no experiment has yet disproved this scientific Law. No scientist has formed life in the lab. No life has evolved from nothing. However, secular evolutionists conjecture without proof that there could have been a time when this might have happened given a number of assumptions. Read more.
2. Constant Virtues: Why believe someone who believes himself to be an ape and lays aside a constant standard of virtue? Why trust the person who believes humans are highly developed animals who invented morals? Why undermine all human rights by there being no constant right and wrong? Why reject the belief that virtues are constant? Right and wrong are always right and wrong. Why believe those who see the virtue of honesty as an idea invented by people? Evolution and its constructs are the prejudice that rejects virtues, because people attempt to console their guilty consciences and appease their own faults through self-righteousness. At the core of doubt and unbelief is the guilty conscience allowing self and society to claim morality. Read more.
1. God in the Flesh: Jesus Christ also testified to the Genesis account of the Creation of the universe (Matt 19:4–9; Mark 10:5–9). Critical scholars admit that Jesus lived as an apocalyptical preacher and his followers and opponents sincerely experienced appearances of Jesus risen from the dead (1 Cor 15:1–4). Furthermore, the writers of the Gospels testify of what they saw and heard, and they also testify to the testimonies of other eyewitnesses. Historical criticism affirms that Christ lived, was crucified, buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, women found the tomb empty, many experienced appearances of Jesus resurrect, and the church began upon faith in the resurrection. Their written testimonies remain for an honest examination before all. The written statements of the Gospels attest to Jesus as the predicted Messiah doing miracles, predicting Jerusalem’s destruction, and resurrecting from the dead (Ps 22; Isa 52:13–53:12). Read more.
The Breath of God 
“Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses” (Matt. 18:32-35).
Yes, I was hurt. I felt attacked. You called me an “immature” Christian and hit me with Bible verses. Please be careful how you speak and act, it will very easily drive away people who are considering Chritianity. And I am fine with my views, thank you.
Thanks Mike. You are correct. I believe that (since even the earliest Jews couldn’t have had accurate accounts of the creation of the earth, and there is no mention of the countless prehistoric speices we know of) that the story of Adam and Eve is a story created by the Jews, and the God created the world through evolution. (wow that’s a long sentence!) I still believe in the truth and credibility of the Bible (people pick and chose with the Bible all the time, so why can’t I?) but I can’t not accept evolution because I would feel like I was lying to myself, making a fool of myself. It is through this compromise that I have actually been able to hold onto my faith these past couple years.
I find evolution fascinating. I love fossils, and the concept of carbon dating. I enjoy learning about prehistoric creatures (all time favorite would probably hav to be the Megalodon) and the age of the earth always manages to blow my mind. If the history of the earth wa a 24 hour clock, humans would only be around for the last 5 minutes. If all of human history was on a 24 hour clock, civilization wouldn’t start until the last five minutes. It’s almost mind numbing! It actually strenghthens my faith, looking at the complexity of life, te earth, the way the earth and life have evolved, the concept of the big bang, the endlessness and beauty of our universe, it’s all so amazing, so mind blowing, so awe inspiring. To me, it shows the amazing power of God. And to me, Scott, that’s something to be proud of.
Hi carolines23.
If you looked into it deeper you will find that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis is at least in part a story that comes from the Canaanite believers in a pantheon of gods they called the Elohim (literally “the gods of El”, El being the chief deity.) I have to wonder what accepting that story as myth does for the concept of Jesus dying for that original sin (not that it make much sense to me any way.) But this blog entry is about evolution, so perhaps not really the place for that discussion here.
Carbon dating: Be careful that looks a little like falling into the creationist mindset (just a little), who like to pretend that carbon dating is it, when there are quite a number of different “Radiometric dating” methods.
Megalodon eh? Cool. I always liked Ankylosaurus myself.
24 clock of time: That’s a mind blower isn’t it? Have you seen Carl Sagan present that analogy in his Cosmos series? Excellent stuff.
As for the amazing, mindblowing stuff; I agree that it is (and the more you look and study the more so it becomes!) But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that it is an unfounded leap from that to believing in a god (and I don’t think that anyone COULD make such a leap unless they already believed in a god beforehand,) and thus far from something to be proud of. On the contrary it is this very kind of thing that one should be on the look out for in one’s own mental states, as it is there where we most often make mistakes.
“Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.”
Your first 2 comments sounded nothing like a Christian or claimed to be a Christian. You made an assertion against the conclusions of this article in the midst of hundreds of comments from hateful atheists. Any offense was unintended. Who should really be offended? It is neither you nor me. I did not call you “immature”, but not reaching maturity is not something by which to be offended. The Scriptures describe some Christians as being immature and needing milk (1 Cor. 3:1-23). When we have been born again through the resurrection of Christ, then we are infants and need the pure spiritual milk of the Word (2 Pet. 1:3, 1:22-23, 2:1-2). Being immature is only shameful for those who should be mature. The Apostle described that some should be mature eating solid food, and yet these need milk being unskilled in the Word (Heb. 5:11-14). Let us not be immature claiming to follow Christ and set aside some of His words. If we do this, we need to go back to the milk. What kind of a Christian would I be not to challenge you to reconsider or should you not consider my words not like Paul’s to the Corinthians or the Lord’s words to the churches of Asia (Rev. 2-3)? Beware that your pride not be offended and you feel attacked. You have clearly not considered the assumptions for consistent carbon in the atmosphere or the Law of Biogenesis. Beware of disregarding the words of Christ in Mark 10:6 and the like to side with Darwinists and their pagan myths (2 Tim. 4:3-4).
“Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can understand it?‘ When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.‘ For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. And He said, ‘Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.’ From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. Then Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Do you also want to go away?’ But Simon Peter answered Him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'”
Where do we find these eternal words of Christ? Can we not trust Jesus Christ when we claim to be Christians? Did Jesus not say “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.'”? Man has Been on the World Since… Consider the spiritual conclusion of evolution. In the course of evolution, when would humans and, or primates have received their souls? When would they have fallen by sin or have been found guilty of sin? See, I implore you to accept the words of Christ, and to interpret literally what He interprets literally and the rest of the Biblical writers interpret literally.
Please, consider these things. God bless.
This is Mike again. have you blocked me? You really can’t take it when your lies and deceptions are treated as the foolishness they are, can you?
Your article is pointed towards atheists, but there are also Christians that believe in evolution. I believe that God created the world in that way, and the story of Adam and Eve is simply the story the early Jews created for the creation of the Earth. I find the scientific evidence undeniable, yet I still believe in, and follow, God. I fuel my brain with science, and my heart with God. Is that so bad? To be both religious and intellectual?
An immature Christian may believe in evolution at first, but a mature Christian will believe the words of Christ. We cannot be ashamed of His words or Christ will be ashamed of us (Luke 9:26). To Jesus, the Genesis record of man and woman was and is Truth, and Jesus referred to this record as the basis for the institution of marriage and the home (Mark 10:6). Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female'”. Here Jesus speaks of the beginning, and quotes from Genesis for proof. Moses wrote Genesis, and he was God’s prophet. Christ accepted Moses and referred to Moses prediction of His coming in John 5 of Deuteronomy 18. Throughout the Bible, none of the Genesis account is treated by Israel, her prophets, or any Christian apostles and prophets as a tale or a mythical story. Exodus 20:11 among other scriptures refer to the Creation as literal and the days as literal for which the Sabbath day was established as a literal day and not thousands or millions of years.
As Christians believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, the Christian faith rests in the hope of being saved when raised with Christ spiritually and being raised with Christ on the last day. Being that Christians believe this, they have no reservation about believing in the Genesis. By the way, this is all based on historical evidence, and the Genesis account is scientifically plausible unlike evolution as this article proved.
You clearly believe in God, and no this article was not directed to atheists, but to all including everyone who religiously believes in Darwinian evolution.
Do you believe that humankind are primates? Within the evolution framework, when would the apes have received souls and become human? When did people become conscience develop a moral conscience? That is not a gradual process either you have a soul or not. These are things to consider. The same is true of virtue. Either virtue is a survival instinct, a convenient invention of men not engrained with them, or virtues are eternal as God is eternal. Did virtue then evolve? Did love evolve or is God love?
Humans are primates. They would never have received a “soul.” No such thing can be shown to exist so we may as well conjecture as to when they got their invisible third arm. Humans developed social responsibility well back in our evolutionary history because ti benefits reproductive success.
You are quite unsophisticated in your understanding of many things. Your point #1 is simply a lie. Your point #2 is an arrogantly overblown and unsupported assumption. Your point #3 is a strawman. Your point #4 is simply wrong. There is no such thing as a “Law of Cause and Effect”. In #5 you seem to think, incorrectly, that Carbon dating in the only method used. In #6 you are confusing a code with information. In #7 you make the assumption that complexity directly implies design. This is not a fact. In #8 you cite some hoaxes, each and every one of which was discovered and exposed by science, not by ignorant creationists. In #9 you assume that Life exists, thus the conditions must have been created. That is simply insane. In a very large universe (or maybe even multiverse) the conditions you cite occurred randomly out of a VERY large set and then life occurred. In #10 you engage in the most gross of Ad Hominums I have ever witnessed. The AH fallacy is not, as most people believe, simply an insult, It is saying that we should not accept an argument because of it’s source. It is irrelevant where the ideas of Evolution came from… they have been shown to be correct.
You are a soiphist sir, a far too wordy clown with no understanding yet an overweening arrogance. It is ridiculous for you to make claims about a god that can’t be shown to exist. It is simply pathetic.
Your sarcasm is amusing. Thank you. Some people would give the same answers without even reading the article as your satire presents. :-)
Let’s see… you think that two people claiming to have seem something is evidence. You say it over and over, yet you refuse to convert to Mormonism when their are multiple eye witness accounts to it’s events. I use “evidence” in it’s more formal definition. If you want, I can make it easy for you and explain it or I can let you do yourself some good and let you learn it for yourself. Which do you prefer, simpleton?
You are right about one thing. “Some people would give the same answers without even reading the article as your satire presents.” Indeed they would. Uninformed creationists and mindless religious fanatics have been making those same inane arguments for years. Some people can make the objections I did from only your title and they would be, much like myself, completely correct.
I note without surprise you fail to rebut anything.
No stop right there with the first statement. We need eyewitnesses.
That is what eyewitnesses are, you silly little man.
I note again that you are dodging the actual issues, coward.
What I mean is that we need eyewitnesses for Mormonism to examine their faith. We need their records of their accounts to be examined to see what they Mormons saw. Without these witnesses, what is the point? They have unverified claims that are contrary to the Bible and yet trying to stand on the Bible. That is a contradiction that we witness.
Oh, I’m not that little. Thanks though.
You are small of mind and character is what I meant. You knew that.
Oh. Thank you for the kind clarity.
All I wanted to do was pose a different perspective for you to consider, I didn’t attack you or expect to be attacked. I was just hoping for an intellectual conversation that might help me with my struggle I’m having with my faith. I’m sorry I even asked, because I feel worse now.
Be very careful and reconsider my words. Do not consider my words an attack? No one would consider such when I speak. I do not know, who you think is attacking you. I will give a defense of my faith, and you have no need to feel attacked. You did not express a struggle of your faith. If you feel worse feeling guilty, consider 2 Corinthians 7:9-10. Sorrow is good for changing our minds. If we do not believe in who Jesus says He is, then we will die in our sins (John 8:24). This is a very critical matter, because Jesus is the Creator (Col. 1:15-18). God bless. :-)
This article seems pointed at atheists. You seem to have forgotten that there are Christians who believe in evolution, that God created the world in that way, and Adam and Eve is simply the story the Jews made for the creation of the Earth. I follow religion with my heart, and science with my mind, and there is room for both in my life, and they work harmoniously. Is that such a bad thing?
Oh and stop using bio-genesis as a scientific law, it is not. It is common sense, ancient greeks used to believe that dung created insects, the “law” is just realizing that life can come from life, not that life can only come from life, since abiogenesis states that life can come from non-living things, they’re not laws at all you fool.
Are you saying that life has been proven to have come from non-living life or one kind of life has come from another kind? If we speculated a way that spontaneous generation could be true on any level, would that make it fact?
Why is the Law of Biogenesis a Law if it is not? Can we the evolutionists disregard gravity for conjecture and worldview too and it would no longer be a law, because there could be somewhere in our Universe where there is no measurable gravity?
“Law of Biogenesis” is a misnomer, it is not a scientific law because it can be broken and life can be created by means other than from other life.
I don’t understand why you’re using science either, you try to use your pseudo-science conjectures to attack sound scientific evidence, when your Jesus turned water into wine which is literally impossible, or god turning a woman into salt, it is completely impossible.
Okay stand against science. Close your eyes.
The Creator can create the Universe, so why He not be able to turn water into wine and a woman into salt?
Makes total sense to me. Evolution Bases itself on science yet it has never been proven by science. Christianity never stood on science. Yet certain scientific facts can be used to defend it. Many events in the bible have in fact been witness and recorded by historians not even mentioned in the bible. Also, give me an example of the “law
Of biogenesis” being broken.
Thank you.
Hi Jonathan Mokolo.:D
“Evolution Bases itself on science yet it has never been proven by science.”
You do understand that science isn’t about “proof” aren’t you?
A little cliché I like to bring out is:
If you want proof; try formal logic, mathematics or alcohol.
The kind of science under discussion here (as opposed to applied science) is about description (best codified as laws) and explanation (exemplified by theories.)
Evolution however is a term (in science) that refers to a number of observed facts. You are perhaps confusing that with ‘the theory of evolution’ (essentially meaning ‘the best current explanation for the known facts of evolution.’
” Christianity never stood on science.”
No it didn’t. It was (all evidence suggests) based on Judaism which itself was largely based on the Canaanite religion that preceded it.
“Yet certain scientific facts can be used to defend it.”
Then why are there so many false dishonest distortions of scientific work from religious apologists, instead of these claimed ‘certain scientific facts’?
Can you name any of these scientific facts that actually support the validity if Christianity? Or do you mean ‘use’ in the more dishonest sense?
“Many events in the bible have in fact been witness and recorded by historians not even mentioned in the bible.”
Not sure what you are trying to say there. It reads like you are saying that there are events in the bible that aren’t mentioned in the bible. Which makes no sense.
There have been a couple of cases of things mentioned in the Tanakh (old testament) texts, only latter discovered by archeology. For example the Hittites. None supporting any ‘mystical’ elements though. That is readily explained by the authors being closer to the sources. Eg. the Hittites were still known when that story was written.
“Also, give me an example of the “law Of biogenesis” being broken.”
He said it ‘could’ be broken. A claimed scientific law isn’t a law if it is known that it can be broken. It is now known that life can arise through (bio)chemical means. Even if it hasn’t happened, it is possible. It is also possible (but not yet that practical) to bioengineer life.
In science laws don’t operate in that manner. As I said here long ago; ‘Law’ is just the wrong word for Louis Pasteur’s work, far better to call it a refutation of a claimed hypothesis.
And if the ‘Law of biogenesis’ was, as claimed by apologists, an absolute “life only comes from life” then what about the very first life? Was it always there (eternal in the past)? Even if one of the claimed creator gods created it; then unless that god too was a living organism, that first life did NOT come from life, therefore breaking the so-called law of biogenesis.
So: god-did-it or natural biochemical abiogenesis, or anything besides eternally existing first life, breaks the so-called law of biogenesis.
There are many verses mentioning the lord is in fact living. The trinity (father,son,holy spirit) says that Jesus is also the lord and Jesus is in fact what you would call a living organism. I suggest you reading the bible before attacking it.
I’ve read it a number of times thanks. And I wasn’t ‘attacking’ it anyway… at all. Please quote one place where you think I did.
Interesting that you chose to take it that I was though; it implies an excessively emotional attachment.
Verses that mention “the lord” is living in the biological sense of that word? Because that is what the so called “law of biogenesis” is about.
As you ignored everything I actually wrote perhaps this time you could answer; if “Life only comes from life” and ‘the lord’ is life, then it follows that ‘the lord’ also came from life, or the ‘law of biogenesis’ is broken.
You are doing nothing but trying to muddy the waters with this Jesus and ‘the trinity’ stuff anyway. I can only guess that you can find no honest way out and are as a result flailing about desperately. (As if there is any implication in the bible that Jesus/the lord/the trinity was an biological organism at the ‘beginning.’)
Can I take it from your silence that you accept everything else I said in that previous post of mine (but are not open enough to admit it)?
Are you aware that “law” is not actually a scientific term? It is shorthand for a theory that has been tested very thoroughly and never found wanting. Your ignorance of this is unsurprising when you are also ignorant (and arrogant about it) enough to discuss biogenesis the way you do.
1) Why does it matter if “Pagans” were the first to come up with evolution? Intolerance is not a virtue, friend.
2) The earth is not unique, there are trillions of stars, it’s only logical that given enough rolls of the dice you’ll throw a ‘1’ several hundred times, considering you have a trillion tries.
3) I have no idea what this one is about, but we are in fact animals, we have primal instincts of rage and we all have an urge to reproduce, we kill each other over trivial things like land, we’re pretty much less than animals.
4) Life is not ordered, it constantly screws up, such as cancer, down’s syndrome, mental retardation. The second part is in reference to symbiosis, when an organism survives on the life of another it tends to outlive its peers. Such as humans using cattle and horses to survive, the horses lived longer and the humans had an advantage over their peers and continued the tradition of domesticating horses and continued to dominate for a period of time.
5) This is worded terribly, I think you misunderstand the concept of “genetic code.” The genetic code isn’t a “code,” it’s a long strain of molecules that change over time to one that benefits its host organism the most. There is no evidence for it being “designed” as they are known to have mutations that kill the host. (see 4).
6) Carbon-14 is created in the atmosphere by thermal neutrons being absorbed by nitrogen in the atmosphere. Why does it matter if something that was recently created is in something old?
7) You have no background in science, the big bang never ever asserts that it was the cause of creation of matter or energy, the big bang is based on the premise that the energy has always been there, which does not violate any laws. No one that has studied anything in science says that the before the big bang there was nothing, you’re a human that evolved on a rock orbiting a planet, you have no literal way to quantify that. Black holes are in the same realm of understanding, they have the mass of thousands of stars yet they have no volume, yet they can spin, pretty hard to wrap your brain around huh? Solidity is an illusion. This is something known as calculus and differential equations.
8) Once again, evolution has no regards to the origin of life. You’re trying to debunk something that is a scientific theory(evolution) with a variety of hypotheses in an entirely different realm from evolution. Evolution occurs after life has started or has been placed, there are theories that have no plausible possibility such as divine interference, or ones that could possible happen(meteors). Of course scientist can’t recreate the exact conditions, since no one was around at the time people have to make hypotheses on possible conditions and some things are not possible to recreate, such as a meteor flying very fast with unknown chemicals into a pool with unknown chemicals. Once life starts once, or maybe even twice, evolution takes place.
9) Hahahahahaha, now you’re trying to appeal to emotion. Please dude, stop, this is embarrassing. So you’re trying to say that our “morals” are derived from some deity? No, they’re from social stigmas that we evolved to favor, you know, such as not murdering your fellow kin, or that raping a woman can invoke the wrath of her mate because you’re in his territory? Or even better, that stealing from people gets you stricken from the tribe and your chances of survival are gone? The bible definitely treats women like absolute s#!$, “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9)
10) Man you’re hilarious. The story of Jesus is literally a copy paste from older religious figures such as Horus, Buddha, and Vishnu.
1) Why does it matter that evolution emerged from pagan mythology? Unlike theology, mythology is based on speculation, conjecture, and imaginations of people from which came evolution. Intolerance is not a virtue and neither is tolerance. Tolerating a lie is evil.
10) These myths did not exist until Christ and the prophecies concerning Him. Add to this that Jesus lived and was seen by people. No one saw Vishnu or Horus. These are romantic inventions. Buddha deity has not originated in myth until within the last millennium or less.
2, 4-8) The article is a complete rebuttal of your assertions.
3) Wow! You’ve made my point.
9) No wonder you consider yourself an animal to justify your behavior, because you consider virtues to be emotions. You consider love to be the result of endorphins. Tell that to everyone that you love. “I just evolved this way. I only love people who please me and trigger my endorphins.”
You would have women be whores while living in their father’s house! This is how we should treat women! You would have society overlook the treachery of cheating and sexually promiscuous spouses! Adultery and fornication was worthy of death for both men and women in the ancient republic of Israel under their civil law and constitution. This is not a moral law from the virtues of Christianity. Yet, it may be used in our civil law if the people choose. If you knew the Mosaical Law, the witnesses against the woman would have to stand before her in court. She would have to be found guilty by two or more witnesses when their reports agree on 2 or more points without even 2 contradictions. Otherwise, the witnesses would be put to death for perjury. Now, concerning the Law of Christ, let him who has not sinned cast the first stone. Is that what Jesus did in John 4 with the adulterous woman at the well or did He not show her compassion?
See, you don’t even know why you reject the Bible. You do not know the Bible. You can’t distinguish between civil laws and ethics. You don’t understand the difference in the very meaning of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Children know that these testaments are different from the beginning of Sunday school, but you don’t. You are uneducated about the most influential piece of literature in the history of humankind, so that you do not even understand point #1. You refuse to understand the difference between science and conjecture.
Remember that Darwin was the sexist – https://godsbreath.net/2012/08/17/darwin-or-jesus/
The Bible teaches that women are to be love, honored, nourished, cherished, and died for (Eph. 5:22ff). The Bible teaches that God saw that man was alone and needed help, so He made Eve (Gen. 2:18-23). God made both man and woman in His image (Gen. 1:27), but He only made women in the glory of man (1 Cor. 11:7).
Remember that the qualities of the man Darwin are completely irrelevant to the modern science of biology and it inescapable foundation, evolution.
Except that his racism is based on his theory of evolution.
“Except that his racism is based on his theory of evolution.” Incorrect. He was a racist, as was virtually everyone in his culture. That has no bearing on the fact that the theory started has been developed further by other men and repeatable shown to be true.
No not everyone was racist. The real Christians opposed racism and slavery. For example, there is the anti-slavery party of Lincoln. This is not to mention the heritage of the churches of Christ to oppose such as seen of Alexander Campbell and Barton W Stone. Darwin found a way to justify racism, and Hitler was clearly thankful as have been others.
“Except that his racism is based on his theory of evolution.”
Not it wasn’t. You have no idea what you are talking about do you? Charles Darwin was probably less racist than was the norm at the time, being a member of the family most directly responsible for the abolition of slavery in his country for a start.
Anyway; s great deal of this talk from the anti-Darwin crowd stems from a pathetic misunderstanding (deliberate or otherwise) of his use of the term “race” in works of his such as The Origin of Species. To the point that some even think that “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” is actually promoting racist ideas! Laughable!
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “No not everyone was racist.”
True.
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “The real Christians opposed racism and slavery.”
Ah, the good old No True Scotsman Fallacy. How easy, you can just pretend that all the Christians that were in favor of slavery (like those in the American South that used the bible to justify it) weren’t “real” Christians/
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “For example, there is the anti-slavery party of Lincoln.”
Lincoln who owned slaves. I’m not dismissing his part there, but that was an issue.
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “This is not to mention the heritage of the churches of Christ to oppose such as seen of Alexander Campbell and Barton W Stone.Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: ”
Two major proponents of the abolition of slavery in the UK (Darwin;s home turf) being The Darwins and Wedgwoods, primarily starting with the grandparents of Charles Darwin and Emma Wedgwood (Darwin’s wife…and cousin.)
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “Darwin found a way to justify racism,”
Any evidence of this claim, or is it just empty assertions. (Not that it would make a lick of difference to the theory of evolution if Charles Darwin had been a sexist racist pedophile canabilistic sociopath.)
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “and Hitler was clearly thankful as have been others.’
Oh goody; Godwin’s law rears it’s ugly head.
The Hitler that wrote (translated of course) this: ‘Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They’ve occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place.”
Hitler was a SOCIAL Darwinist, as originated by Herbert Spencer, not a believer in the theory of evolution, which is descriptive not prescriptive.
How is theology any different than mythology? People used gods to describe natural phenomenon of the Earth such as the sun or death. Once we learned how things worked by science, such as nuclear fusion of the sun and the natural degradation of chromosomes in the cell. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have an easy excuse of “God works in mysterious ways” or “God cannot be seen” because we don’t know how certain things in the universe work, it’s just simple childish invention.
Horus was around in 4,000 B.C.E. That’s 3800 years before the Old Testament was written down and 4300 years before the New Testament was around, and Buddha lived in 500 BC in a different part of the world.
We are animals, and our endorphins and hormones are triggered by things we are evolved to like. In the case of hormones, big breasts mean a healthy woman and a large waist means they can give birth easily. In the case of “love” things such as loyalty and respect are things that positively affect the outcome of raising a child, and are things we look for in a mate.
You skipped 4-8 because you have no idea what I’m saying and you’re just asserting that you have some sort of understanding of the topics you are commenting on. You have no background in science and scientists around the world have tested these processes and validated them through scientific research, unlike your book of contradictions.
I would have adults choose how to live their lives because its theirs to dictate, whether it is with one partner or many, or of the same sex, as long as they are consenting there is no need to tell them what to do. You’re attacking me because I actually know what I’m talking about and you’re drawing conclusions that can be dismissed by a simple google search, and when you do see that you’re wrong you start saying I’d have women live as whores, haha, you’re entertaining.
I have no idea why you’re attacking Darwin, he wrote down, tested, and observed a scientific theory that has been proven for hundreds of years by thousands of scientists. Your bible was written down by IMPERFECT men, from an Aramaic language over a thousand years ago. Then from that Aramaic Hebrew it was translated into Greek, which had no literal translation and was impossible for scholars to write down, and THEN, they split off into 3 huge sects of christianity each with their different Bibles, with King James being written by a maniac king.
On your basis of us being animals, why should anyone have to consent? Do animals always ask for consent? Survival of the fittest, right? Should we imprison animals who rape and murder? Are you saying that we are animals? “Let them be whores as long as they consent.” Again, you reject virtue and that is exactly why you reject God. You do evil, say that God does not exist, and fulfill the Scripture (Psa. 14:1, 53:1, Rom. 1:18ff, John 3:17ff). Again, you don’t know what you reject.
You really are deluded if you think you that the Bible was translated into Greek just one thousand years ago. Every scholar in the world is aware of the numerous early church writers in the first 4 centuries, who wrote in Greek quoting from the Christian Scriptures. You are ignorant of the manuscripts Sinaiticus (4th c.), Vaticanus (4th c.), and Alexandrinus (5th c.), and many more and all in Greek. Without mentioning the mass of hundreds of the Scripture manuscripts from the GREEK Orthodox churches in the 7th-10th centuries. You are not even aware of the 60+ manuscripts found from the 1st c. to the 4th. You are delusional, deceived, or a liar.
Mythology 101: Today, people imagine superheroes and somewhat worship them as much as pagan poets worshiped the myths that they invented. Even now, people leave cake and flowers for elves in trees around the country, and people imagine that animals emerged from primordial slime. Why? Imagination and the desire for the fantastic. Every desire that people have from food to sex has an actually fulfillment. Why then do they desire the supernatural and what is the actual satisfaction?
You assert that the writers of the Christian scriptures were deluded, deceived and, or deceptive and thus invented a system to teach a morality centered on a concept love. That love is centered on what they considered the greatest act of love, which for one to give one’s life for another (John 15:13, 1 John 3:16). They taught that God is love, and that He came in the flesh died for everyone to appease their lack of love and hatred in sin (1 John 4:8, John 1:1, 1:14). It is no wonder that even unbelievers today still go to 1 Corinthians 13 and 1 John to understand the virtue of love. Yet, you reject virtue and trivialize your love for everyone you care about in this world.
As for the Christian scriptures being myths, the writers addressed this in contrast to that myths are written by poets, but the Christians scriptures were written by eyewitnesses.
“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,’ we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.” (2 Pet. 1:16-20).
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete” (1 John 1:1-4, cf. John 19:35, 21:24).
“On your basis of us being animals,”
We are. It’s a simple matter of classification; humans are animals, mammals, primates etc.
“why should anyone have to consent?”
It is an aspect of the nature of our species of animal. Do you honestly believe that consent would be unnecessary if our species not the direct creation of a mystical super being? Can you not figure out even basic ethics by yourself?
“Do animals always ask for consent?”
No. Not even all humans do that. But some members of a number of species do appear to ‘ask for consent’ in some ways. Notably social species, and most notably our primate cousins.
“Survival of the fittest, right?”
No. That was a descriptive term, not a prescriptive one. Initially coined by a philosopher in order to compare aspects of economics with the then new work of Charles Darwin. Darwin initially disliked it but eventually took it on board as a rough indication of what natural selection is about. The “fittest” in this case are those organisms more ‘fit’ to produce offspring than others. Sometimes the “fittest” is the one better at hiding away, and thus not being eaten.
“Should we imprison animals who rape and murder?”
We do. ‘On your basis of us being animals’ of course we imprison our fellow animals that violate the codes/laws and zeitgeists of the societies in which they live. ‘We’ tend to act more brutally to members of other animal species though, and usually only when they act against members of our species. Speciest creatures that we are.
Technically other species can’t murder or rape as those terms are legal ones; murder for example is illegal/’wrongful’ killing.
“Are you say that we are animals?”
Again; yes.
You seem to be under the odd impression that if we label all animals under a single label that we should then treat them all EXACTLY the same way! Why?
” “Let them be whores as long as they consent.” Again, you reject virtue and that is exactly why you reject God.”
Where did you get that from? But actually sure; if someone wants to be a “whore” (depending on how you define that of course) then unless it does actual harm then what’s the problem?
You seem to be conflating virtue with the rules of your religion. This is an all too common trend in religions; abandoning moral reasoning for obedience, while claiming they are the same thing.
” (Psa. 14:1, 53:1,”
My favorite bible verse.
Both of those being the exact same little ‘poisoning the well’ poem of course, only different translations of the original. I guess your imaginary friend missed that in proof reading the book.
” Rom. 1:18ff, John 3:17ff).”
All four of these are nothing but ‘appeal to consequences’ manipulation. I guess that is all you have left when you don’t have actual reasons to support your claims.
Thank you for your comment affirms the Truth of the Christian faith.
“Thank you for your comment affirms the Truth of the Christian faith.”
And how does it do that exactly?!
You should probably have some of your friends read this and tell you.
“You should probably have some of your friends read this and tell you.”
Ah; as I thought, a worthless brush off, so that you can pretend to yourself that you addressed the comment, when you did nothing of the sort.
I’ll just take this as you realizing that you feel unable to challenge anything I said, but are not honest enough to admit it, then shall I?
You really know very little about pagan mythology. According to Diodorus Siculus, who is cited in the article above, and from whom we get our history of the origins of pagan gods, King Ninus was the son of Bel or “Baal”. Ninus and his family were first deified by his wife Semiramis when he died, and so was his son Tammuz. Nineveh is the city of Ninus. The Bible mentions Ninus as Nimrod, whose father was called Cush, his grandfather Ham, and great grandfather Noah. Both Diodorus and the Bible agree that Ninus lived in the 22nd c. BC and no pagan mythology could exist as you claim in the 39th c. BC. Diodorus said this is where Baal was invented as accepted by the Egyptians as Ra, by the Greeks as Zeus, and the Romans as Jupiter. Read Diodorus and learn about the origin of pagan mythology.
As time passed gods increased, this shows that as one works backwards there would be less gods and the ancient belief of one God would be at the beginning of these beliefs. The stark difference of worship between monotheism and polytheism is apparent by its focus alone. How would man invent one God, Yahweh, and why in such a great contrast from the appealing desires fulfilled in paganism?
Your foolish dismissal of archaic religions (that you incorrectly call ‘pagan’) is simplistic and ignores the fact that your beliefs are exactly the same.
5 words: This Page Is 100% True (maybe 6 words, but oh well.)
Anyone that disagrees with the above words is not a christian, thus is not saved, and will be in hell for all eternity and suffer every gruesome second of their (after)lives. So please read the Bible and be saved!
:D
Thank you and God bless.
Scott, I think you may be failing to recognize a sarcastic comment on your stunning arrogance and ignorance.
That’s funny.
Sorry, but it isn’t, at least not in the way you think. To anyone other then a supreme egotist like yourself, it is plain that Mr. Awesome is mocking you. He is mocking your foolish certitude and your arrogance. It is ironic that the very foolishness being mocked is what keeps you from seeing the mockery.
Don’t pretend to be so dense Mike. You know I know that.
I don’t think you did know. I think you are dishonest and very dim and are now trying to lie about what you thought and didn’t.
Mr. Awesome, why do you feel it’s Ok to disqualify one from Christianity if they don’t agree with the opinion of Scott’s words? Do you really think that an outsider would ever listen to someone who takes it upon their self to be the one who makes judgements such as yours? Your post is riddled with fear of what will happen to the one who does not conform to what they read in the bible, as if the the flesh can conform to rules and regs and earn it worthiness from such. When will you grow away from this elementary level of Christianity?
It is absolutely wrong for you or anyone else to state that one is not a Christian. It’s not your call. Please remember that!!!!
No, we cannot possess all knowledge.
As far the Christian faith, God is alive (Rom.14:11, 1 Pet. 4:6), and Christ is the life (John 11:25, 14:6).
As far as the personality of God and virtue, God must be alive because He is virtue and He is love, and the virtue of love cannot live without a person to possess. Philosophically, God is eternal life.
The parable of the watchmaker implies a designer, but as human, his body is intelligently designed. Because the watchmaker’s body is alive does not make him a watch but only an intelligent designer. The watchmaker does not compare in complexity with the simple watch.
Scientifically, life only comes from life according to the Law of Biogenesis.
Take care. Thank you for the thoughts. I hope you get other comments.
I am no scientist, but I do read as much as I can. Can any one man truly possess all the knowledge available in his time?
I read the article, then all the responses. Love to hear other people’s views, because I don’t want to fallow blindly. Here is my question. Has it ever occurred to anyone that God in neither alive nor dead? That science, life, time, and other facts we know only apply to our existence? Saying life only comes from life could be false for the simple fact that God create life, or at least what we know as life. A watch maker is not a watch himself.
Just an idea that popped in my head and thought I would share.