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.
Seeing God's Breath 
It deeply upsets me, so see such mislead, uneduated understandings of our planet and the universe it resides in. Unfortunately this article stands to show the backwards thinking and blisfull ignorance of the Christian faith and other religions.
I apologise forbeing here and reading this article from a atheistic perspective, but I had to see for my self the true innocence and foolishness of the argument. How else can we know what ‘ticks’ away inside the religious mans colective mind.
LikeLike
Thank you for reading.
LikeLike
After reading so many articles online about evolution vs. creation, I have certainly noticed that creationists try to argue their point in regard for their concern in the eternal fate of people, whereas evolutionists attack and offend creationists to no end to defend a theory they didn’t come up with.
LikeLike
I’m not even getting what you are trying to say there Rob.
Your point (intended that way or not) does seem to be valid; that creationists arguments are not founded on the theories truth value so much as what they believe the consequences might be (known as The Appeal to Consequences fallacy.) But not only, or as far as I have observed even mostly, as ‘concern in the eternal fate of people” as much for their concern that the science challenges the validity of their cherished beliefs.
I have no clue what this “they didn’t come up with” the theory stuff has to do with anything though.
LikeLike
Hi, I should have clarified a little better but when I say “they didn’t come up with” it, I’m referring to everyone who believes in evolution except Darwin. I’m just speaking in general here but it seems unnatural to defend something that you can’t take credit for so much so that you will be very emotional and attack others. As far as the “concern in the eternal fate of people,” I know it’s true that not all Christians/creationists are arguing their point for this reason but it should be the reason. Any other reason (e.g. pride) is not right. I realize both sides are at fault in arguing their sides for the wrong reasons.
That leads to my main point in that I don’t understand why evolutionists care what creationists say or think unless it directly can affect their job/career. Not that that’s a good reason to be so defensive but, from an evolutionist’s point of view, it’s understandable if that person truly believes in evolution and has no belief in God. I can understand that point of view as I haven’t always been a Christian (I’m born-again) and spent my first 26 years (I’m 36 now) on earth learning about and believing in evolution. Even then I never felt the need to argue with Christians about it but I also have never been a biologist.
I never engage myself in a creation/evolution debate as it never leads to agreement, only to offensive remarks. This is certainly one topic where both sides strongly believe what they believe and (usually) will not change their minds. I read these articles (both sides) because I’m fascinated by it but, as a Christian with Christian beliefs, I’m depressed that so many people believe in evolution. I have done a lot of personal research on evolution (pro and anti) and have decided that I don’t believe in it. I’m not here to argue my side, just to explain my observation about the debates. Have a good day.
LikeLike
Rob wrote: “Hi, I should have clarified a little better but when I say “they didn’t come up with” it, I’m referring to everyone who believes in evolution except Darwin.”
That wasn’t the problem I had with it. Just an aside, but; Darwin didn’t “come up with it” out of whole cloth either by the way.
Rob wrote: “I’m just speaking in general here but it seems unnatural to defend something that you can’t take credit for so much so that you will be very emotional and attack others.”
Why does it seem unnatural? Do you find it equally unnatural for those who defend their belief in the existence of some god, that they can’t take credit for? They didn’t come up with it either.
The emotions and attacks I have seen theists accuse atheists of have largely been a matter of projection, certainly in cases when I personally have been accused of such (and I have a number of times), where the only emotional responses are theirs, and they then imagine the same coming from this end. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen of course. Sometimes it’s warranted and sometimes not, it depends on the context.
I have also seen many cases where attacks on the argument have been misinterpreted as attacks on the person. It seems in many such cases that this is due to the theist being so emotionally attached to the claim that they can’t differentiate the subject to their own person.
Rob wrote: “As far as the “concern in the eternal fate of people,” I know it’s true that not all Christians/creationists are arguing their point for this reason but it should be the reason. Any other reason (e.g. pride) is not right. I realize both sides are at fault in arguing their sides for the wrong reasons.”
About caring about the truth? Caring if what we may believe is actually true and/or real or not? Is that “right”, a good reason? That’s my reason; I care about truth and reason, I prefer my beliefs/opinion to reasonable, rational.
And I really care about reason; An enjoy trying to correct flawed arguments, pointing out the flaws, errors and failures in reasoning.
Rob wrote: “That leads to my main point in that I don’t understand why evolutionists care what creationists say or think unless it directly can affect their job/career.”
Interesting. So you only understand selfish motives? That itself highlights one of the reasons I ague over such issues; I’ve seen this kind of selfish outlook from theists quite often, sometimes mixed within claims about their worldview being more moral and caring etc.!
Individually I don’t really care that much. You (directed at any individual) are free to believe whatever you want/do, as far as I am concerned. Believe that the world is flat and lying on the back of a giant space turtle if you want. And go ahead and argue for it if you want. But please afford me the same freedom, to argue against it if and when I consider your arguments to be lacking.
On a wider scale however; such beliefs when widespread (as they are within certain areas) potentially undermine science, and other reasonable and reliable means of getting to the truth. Sacrificing reality for cherished beliefs. Or have you not noticed things like the innumerable attempts to push creationist doctrine into the high school science classroom without going through the same processes that real science has had (and continues) to go through to pass muster as science, let alone well established science, which is what that level of science teaching is about?
More importantly to me is the sloppy, flawed, irrational way of thinking that so often goes into such apologetics. Which offers the very real possibility that such poor reasoning is liable to influence how the people who think like that to spread into other areas of their thinking as well. I actually care enough about people and reasoning that I want to help people to become better at it, as I endeavour to improve myself in the same way.
Rob wrote: “ Not that that’s a good reason to be so defensive but, from an evolutionist’s point of view, it’s understandable if that person truly believes in evolution and has no belief in God. I can understand that point of view as I haven’t always been a Christian (I’m born-again) and spent my first 26 years (I’m 36 now) on earth learning about and believing in evolution. Even then I never felt the need to argue with Christians about it but I also have never been a biologist. “
Um okay.
You might not, but I enjoy arguing (informal debate) with people. It offers an opportunity to improve the understanding and the mental tools of reasoning and expressing oneself, for all parties involved, directly or indirectly. I see value in it.
It can often be important as well. Don’t you think it important to determine if ones beliefs are reasonable, likely to be true, or not? Important to determine as best as one can if any gods exist or not?
A major problem with this “evolution” argument is that the anti-evolution apologists appear to be arguing against it, not because they think there are good reasons to dismiss it, but because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Which they seem to ASSUME to be true, and therefore assume that evolution (and anything that conflicts with that belief.) This being the primary reason why their arguments are so flawed; they are starting from an irrational foundation.
It really doesn’t matter what you, I or anyone BELIEVES (gods/creationism/theory of evolution…) so much as the value (truth/validity/soundness…) of the arguments being made. It would probably surprise you to learn that I, being an atheist who accepts the scientific value of the theory of evolution (it’s not a “truth” claim, but a “best explanation” claim) have argued AGAINST arguments:
for the non-existence of some god(s)
critiquing theistic arguments
trying to support the validity of the theory of evolutionists
…
when I have found those arguments to be flawed.
I’ve even gone to some length in the past to argue that the, claimed by some as “unanswerable” question “Can god create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?” can in fact be answered, without rendering the existence of God to be impossible.
Bottom line: Scott Shifferd’s arguments are flawed. and even if you, like him believe that ‘evolution’ isn’t real, you should still reject those arguments for the failures that they are. At least if you care if your reasons for believing something are any good. If you are happy to believe things for poor/flawed/false reasons then I guess there isn’t much I can do about that.
Rob wrote: “I never engage myself in a creation/evolution debate as it never leads to agreement, only to offensive remarks. This is certainly one topic where both sides strongly believe what they believe and (usually) will not change their minds.’
I’ve changed my mind of many things. Creationists have yet to impress let alone convince me, because their arguments thus far have been horrendously flawed, in all kinds of ways. I would be happy to be change my mind if only a decent argument would be offered.
Have I made any “offensive remarks’?
Rob wrote: “I read these articles (both sides) because I’m fascinated by it but, as a Christian with Christian beliefs, I’m depressed that so many people believe in evolution.”
I bet it depresses you that many Christians accept it as well.
Isn’t it that you describe “depression, a remark on how it affects you EMOTIONALLY, as opposed to REASON?
Also interesting that you appear to IDENTIFY yourself as a Christian, more than the fact that you believe the things claimed in that religion, but as a kind of definition of who and what you are. It suggests that you will reject evolution, and anything else that conflicts with “Christian doctrine”, not because you have assessed both sides of the question and found the Christian one more convincing, but simply because you identify yourself as a Christian.
I’ve even heard people claim that they believe/disbelieve something BECAUSE they are a Christian, and that is what Christians have to believe!
Rob wrote: “ I have done a lot of personal research on evolution (pro and anti) and have decided that I don’t believe in it. I’m not here to argue my side, just to explain my observation about the debates.”
Okay, so you don’t believe in it. If you’re not interested in explaining why, then there’s nothing for me to work with is there? As long as you don’t run around trying to get others to believe its false, without offering any reasons why anyone should believe that, go right ahead; believe whatever you want.
On the basis that you call it “evolution” alone; I suspect that one major part of the reason why you don’t believe it is that you really don’t understand it.
Rob wrote: “Have a good day.”
You too.Rob wrote: “Hi, I should have clarified a little better but when I say “they didn’t come up with” it, I’m referring to everyone who believes in evolution except Darwin.”
That wasn’t the problem I had with it. Just an aside, but; Darwin didn’t “come up with it” out of whole cloth either by the way.
Rob wrote: “I’m just speaking in general here but it seems unnatural to defend something that you can’t take credit for so much so that you will be very emotional and attack others.”
Why does it seem unnatural? Do you find it equally unnatural for those who defend their belief in the existence of some god, that they can’t take credit for? They didn’t come up with it either.
The emotions and attacks I have seen theists accuse atheists of have largely been a matter of projection, certainly in cases when I personally have been accused of such (and I have a number of times), where the only emotional responses are theirs, and they then imagine the same coming from this end. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen of course. Sometimes it’s warranted and sometimes not, it depends on the context.
I have also seen many cases where attacks on the argument have been misinterpreted as attacks on the person. It seems in many such cases that this is due to the theist being so emotionally attached to the claim that they can’t differentiate the subject to their own person.
Rob wrote: “As far as the “concern in the eternal fate of people,” I know it’s true that not all Christians/creationists are arguing their point for this reason but it should be the reason. Any other reason (e.g. pride) is not right. I realize both sides are at fault in arguing their sides for the wrong reasons.”
About caring about the truth? Caring if what we may believe is actually true and/or real or not? Is that “right”, a good reason? That’s my reason; I care about truth and reason, I prefer my beliefs/opinion to reasonable, rational.
And I really care about reason; An enjoy trying to correct flawed arguments, pointing out the flaws, errors and failures in reasoning.
Rob wrote: “That leads to my main point in that I don’t understand why evolutionists care what creationists say or think unless it directly can affect their job/career.”
Interesting. So you only understand selfish motives? That itself highlights one of the reasons I ague over such issues; I’ve seen this kind of selfish outlook from theists quite often, sometimes mixed within claims about their worldview being more moral and caring etc.!
Individually I don’t really care that much. You (directed at any individual) are free to believe whatever you want/do, as far as I am concerned. Believe that the world is flat and lying on the back of a giant space turtle if you want. And go ahead and argue for it if you want. But please afford me the same freedom, to argue against it if and when I consider your arguments to be lacking.
On a wider scale however; such beliefs when widespread (as they are within certain areas) potentially undermine science, and other reasonable and reliable means of getting to the truth. Sacrificing reality for cherished beliefs. Or have you not noticed things like the innumerable attempts to push creationist doctrine into the high school science classroom without going through the same processes that real science has had (and continues) to go through to pass muster as science, let alone well established science, which is what that level of science teaching is about?
More importantly to me is the sloppy, flawed, irrational way of thinking that so often goes into such apologetics. Which offers the very real possibility that such poor reasoning is liable to influence how the people who think like that to spread into other areas of their thinking as well. I actually care enough about people and reasoning that I want to help people to become better at it, as I endeavour to improve myself in the same way.
Rob wrote: “ Not that that’s a good reason to be so defensive but, from an evolutionist’s point of view, it’s understandable if that person truly believes in evolution and has no belief in God. I can understand that point of view as I haven’t always been a Christian (I’m born-again) and spent my first 26 years (I’m 36 now) on earth learning about and believing in evolution. Even then I never felt the need to argue with Christians about it but I also have never been a biologist. “
Um okay.
You might not, but I enjoy arguing (informal debate) with people. It offers an opportunity to improve the understanding and the mental tools of reasoning and expressing oneself, for all parties involved, directly or indirectly. I see value in it.
It can often be important as well. Don’t you think it important to determine if ones beliefs are reasonable, likely to be true, or not? Important to determine as best as one can if any gods exist or not?
A major problem with this “evolution” argument is that the anti-evolution apologists appear to be arguing against it, not because they think there are good reasons to dismiss it, but because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Which they seem to ASSUME to be true, and therefore assume that evolution (and anything that conflicts with that belief.) This being the primary reason why their arguments are so flawed; they are starting from an irrational foundation.
It really doesn’t matter what you, I or anyone BELIEVES (gods/creationism/theory of evolution…) so much as the value (truth/validity/soundness…) of the arguments being made. It would probably surprise you to learn that I, being an atheist who accepts the scientific value of the theory of evolution (it’s not a “truth” claim, but a “best explanation” claim) have argued AGAINST arguments:
for the non-existence of some god(s)
critiquing theistic arguments
trying to support the validity of the theory of evolutionists
…
when I have found those arguments to be flawed.
I’ve even gone to some length in the past to argue that the, claimed by some as “unanswerable” question “Can god create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?” can in fact be answered, without rendering the existence of God to be impossible.
Bottom line: Scott Shifferd’s arguments are flawed. and even if you, like him believe that ‘evolution’ isn’t real, you should still reject those arguments for the failures that they are. At least if you care if your reasons for believing something are any good. If you are happy to believe things for poor/flawed/false reasons then I guess there isn’t much I can do about that.
Rob wrote: “I never engage myself in a creation/evolution debate as it never leads to agreement, only to offensive remarks. This is certainly one topic where both sides strongly believe what they believe and (usually) will not change their minds.’
I’ve changed my mind of many things. Creationists have yet to impress let alone convince me, because their arguments thus far have been horrendously flawed, in all kinds of ways. I would be happy to be change my mind if only a decent argument would be offered.
Have I made any “offensive remarks’?
Rob wrote: “I read these articles (both sides) because I’m fascinated by it but, as a Christian with Christian beliefs, I’m depressed that so many people believe in evolution.”
I bet it depresses you that many Christians accept it as well.
Isn’t it that you describe “depression, a remark on how it affects you EMOTIONALLY, as opposed to REASON?
Also interesting that you appear to IDENTIFY yourself as a Christian, more than the fact that you believe the things claimed in that religion, but as a kind of definition of who and what you are. It suggests that you will reject evolution, and anything else that conflicts with “Christian doctrine”, not because you have assessed both sides of the question and found the Christian one more convincing, but simply because you identify yourself as a Christian.
I’ve even heard people claim that they believe/disbelieve something BECAUSE they are a Christian, and that is what Christians have to believe!
Rob wrote: “ I have done a lot of personal research on evolution (pro and anti) and have decided that I don’t believe in it. I’m not here to argue my side, just to explain my observation about the debates.”
Okay, so you don’t believe in it. If you’re not interested in explaining why, then there’s nothing for me to work with is there? As long as you don’t run around trying to get others to believe its false, without offering any reasons why anyone should believe that, go right ahead; believe whatever you want.
On the basis that you call it “evolution” alone; I suspect that one major part of the reason why you don’t believe it is that you really don’t understand it.
Rob wrote: “Have a good day.”
You too.
LikeLike
What a smart little ‘monkey’ u are ‘fellowprimate’….here…have a banana!
LikeLike
Nice of you to say, Ez.
Mmm Banana. Bananas are good! (At least once man modified them so much to suit our liking of course.)
I’m good with “monkey”, the closest scientific classification is “simian” which includes our species therein.
LikeLike
“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).
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Your sarcasm is amusing. Thank you. Some people would give the same answers without even reading the article as your satire presents. :-)
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
No stop right there with the first statement. We need eyewitnesses.
LikeLike
That is what eyewitnesses are, you silly little man.
I note again that you are dodging the actual issues, coward.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
You are small of mind and character is what I meant. You knew that.
LikeLike
Oh. Thank you for the kind clarity.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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. :-)
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike