• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Creationism vs. Evolution - Thoughts?

The Scribe

New Member
Gold Dragon said:
You may be right, but what qualifications do you have to differentiate between good science and junk science?

BobRyan is correct. God created the Earth and evolution is junk science.
His qualification is he reads the truth, the Bible.

Junk Science


Darron Steele said:
I think secular science needs something more credible than a theory that human beings are heavily-mutated apes.

It would be better for them to just turn to Christ.

We don't need another false theory from the pit of hell.
 

Darron Steele

New Member
Darron Steele said:
...
Secular science needs something more credible than a theory that human beings are heavily-mutated apes. It has long been time for secular scientists to `go back to the drawing board' for a genuinely credible theory of human origins.
The Scribe said:
...
It would be better for them to just turn to Christ.

We don't need another false theory from the pit of hell.
Agreed -- but for most of them, I doubt that is likely.

My point is that even if they are hard-set against believing the Bible, they still need to `go back to the drawing board.' A theory that humans are heavily-mutated apes is not realistic. That theory is long past its time to be discarded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
The Scribe said:
BobRyan is correct. God created the Earth and evolution is junk science.
His qualification is he reads the truth, the Bible.

Junk Science

It would be better for them to just turn to Christ.

We don't need another false theory from the pit of hell.

From Scribe's link --

Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, analyses as spurious. The term generally conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, and other unscientific motives.

As I already noted - even atheist darwinist's themselves admit to the fraudulent practices of Heckle and the contrived "horse series" touted as "the best example of evolutionary transitional sequence" as "complete" and perfect. They themselves "lament" these fraudulent practices so flagrant and volumous in evolutionism.

Note that the rock quary artifacts from Neander Quarry are well known among atheists - primarily for their fraudulent practices in hawking so called "discoveries" -
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Darron Steele said:
My point is that even if they are hard-set against believing the Bible, they still need to `go back to the drawing board.' A theory that humans are heavily-mutated apes is not realistic. That theory is long past its time to be discarded.

Have you seen the news reports of Presidential candidates questioned on evolutionism?

Democrats questioned on this? Even once?

Republicans?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

Huckabee CNN Debate format -
http://youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA&feature=related

What did you think of the responses?

O'Reilly says "you are a nut" if you do not believe humans are the descendants of primitive primates and challenges Huckabee to back off that or risk being called "a nut".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmb3TleQHJw&feature=related

There 'seems to be' a perception among those in the Media and political elete that either Christians have abandoned basic Christianity OR Christians that actually believe Christianity are no longer "acceptable" in Government office or public venues.

Why are there NO democratic candidates being asked to stand up and be counted?

Seems like some Christian denominations need to stand up and hold a press conference saying "turns out we DO accept the bible account of Creation".

in Christ,

Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
On CNN back in May 2007, Democratic operative James Carville claimed, "Every Democratic candidate believes in evolution." And that appears to be so, although Democratic candidates seem to be asked about their views of evolutionary biology far less than do Republicans.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/124271.htmlhttp://www.reason.cpeaom/news/show/124271.html

It would appear that Democratic candidates have a firm position that they are more than happy to promote.

They stand up to be counted -- even though nobody is really asking them to do this regarding evolution.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
America’s great champion of evolution, the late Stephen Jay Gould, similarly announced that “efore Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us,”2 but because of Darwin’s ideas, “biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God.”3

Richard Dawkins is Oxford University’s Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and is probably the most famous evolutionist in the world. Yet Dawkins believes that God is a “delusion” and that "Darwin made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”6

Gould's and Dawkins's views are by no means uncommon among leading scientists. A 2007 editorial by the editors of the world's top scientific journal, Nature, stated that "the idea that human minds are the product of evolution" is an "unassailable fact," and thus concluded, "the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”4
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_5.html


The promotion of evolutionisms in schools - before the court and now in the Presidential campaigns is a thinly veiled attack on Christians in America by the extreme social left groups.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
I just can't believe that it is now "politically correct" to claim that America's position is that Christians that believe the bible on Creation -- can no longer be elected to public office or hold job's in science. (No matter how untrue the claim is -- the fact that the claim is politically and socially acceptable to make is amazing)
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
A great "debunking evolutionism" site dealing with the PBS document attacking Intelligent Design.

http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-slide3.html

I like the part where they list 700 PHD level scientists and engineers world wide who are in dissent from Darwinism.

I also know of some scientists and Engineers at NASA who dissent as well - but are not in that list - it is not an exhuastive list.

Hint - given a choice in a debate between ID and Atheist Darwinism -- I pick the ID evolutionists arguments.

Given a choice in a debate between ID Evolutionists vs Creation Science -- I pick Creation Science.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Anti-evolution, theistic-evolution handbook: Book of Genesis. No charge, the Gideons will gladly give a copy.

Selah,

Bro. James
 

antiaging

New Member
bound said:
I'm interested in your views on Creationism vs. Evolution...

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10 million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]
Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all that is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes; also fish in caves.] But natural selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into another new species. Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
They've also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US.

Noah's flood mixed up all the layers under it. So any fossils from beneath the sedimentary layer cannot be dated to the rock they are found in.
They've also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cowboymatt

New Member
All I know is that I don't know how God did what he did, only that he did what he did.

I come to this conclusion because Genesis 1 and the first part of 2 do not tell us much at all about the specifics of how God created the world, only that he did. Thus, I'm happy leaving it at that!
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
I agree that we should accept the details God gives us in HIS Word - without concesions for atheist-darwinist-motivation and admit that we don't know the details that He has not given us.

Here is what "God" said -

In Gen 1-2:3 we have the 7 "Evenings and mornings" and what happened on each one as each were given their ordinal "Day" value. "First day..second day.. third day...". From sound principles of exegesis it is easy to tell what message Moses was trying to convey to the reader.

"FOR in SIX Days the LORD MADE the heavens

Ex 20
9 "" Six days[/b] you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Heavens, Earth and Sea are "at a minimum" a reference to this earth all life on earth, the sun and the moon (two great lights made on day 4, one day AFTER plants were made).

Basically by sticking to "just the explicit details" of scripture and saying "I don't know" to all the rest we STILL have atheist-darwinism totally excluded for Christians who accept good solid science AND the Word of God.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
It is easily agreed that we "read what the Bible says and accept it and leave it at that".

but when the Bible says "FOR in SIX days the LORD MADE" and when it says "Thus EVENING and Morning were the SIXTH day" and we respond "not really sure I believe it was six days" -- we are not "accepting what the bible says and leaving it at that".

in Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
It is often the case that the agenda for atheist darwinism can be seen more clearly in it's advanced stages in Europe than in "sleepy America".

Here is an article showing how the Christian church in Sweden may be waking up "too late" to do anything about it -

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/10/gods_honest_truth.html

For now it appears that private schools are exempt -
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7oph07uGUVJhxg1JYVL5ET8zdhw

Under communism they would not be exempt. kinda curious to watch the socialist states getting close to the communist - atheist-darwinist "ideal"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top