Churches celebrate Darwin`s birthday

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Rainbow Church has its administrative body, that plays its role within a particular society, group, ect. One of its (read : church, as an adminitrative body) managing objectives is to direct people onto a particular way, path, ect. Since a society, group reacts as one body, then it controls, shapes, ect. that origanizm much easier. In this case, Christian Church decision, was to protect that body, as a relief to growing pressure.

is God somehow unable to protect His children?
John 10:29
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Job 1:10
Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
Psalm 20:1
The LORD hear thee in the day of trouble; the name of the God of Jacob defend thee;
Isaiah 31:5
As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it.
Isaiah 37:35
For I will defend this city to save it for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.
Zechariah 12:8
In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: dthmstr254 is God somehow unable to protect His children?

God has equipped us all with a brain. It is powerful-enough tool to use it, in order to protect ourselves. God is not going to perform a job that we are in charge of.
However, God may help us on our journey, though I have no formula that applies to it.

Action <---> Reaction.
There is no coincidence. We simply have no asnwer to it.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Rainbow God has equipped us all with a brain. It is powerful-enough tool to use it, in order to protect ourselves. God is not going to perform a job that we are in charge of. However, God may help us on our journey, though I have no formula that applies to it. Action <---> Reaction. There is no coincidence. We simply have no asnwer to it.

God has promised protection. did He then lie?

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 well, your scientists are either lying on the part about science being observable, or they are lying about evolution being science. which one is it, because evolution is not observable, and every other scientific law can be observed in some way.

Your concept of scientific observation seems to limited to Galileo rolling balls of various sizes down ramps. You dismiss the fossil record and yet the fossil record is indeed scientific evidence regardless of whether or not it fits your personal requirements. Most of astronomy wouldn't fit your silly requirements either. Nor would most geology, nor for that matter genetics. And so what? Your understanding, such as it is, of science is shaped by religion and your particularly literalist interpretation of the bible. If you want to believe that the world is only 10,000 years old and that there really was an ark, fine. That is your choice but it has nothing to do with science.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp Your concept of scientific observation seems to limited to Galileo rolling balls of various sizes down ramps. You dismiss the fossil record and yet the fossil record is indeed scientific evidence regardless of whether or not it fits your personal requirements. Most of astronomy wouldn't fit your silly requirements either. Nor would most geology, nor for that matter genetics. And so what? Your understanding, such as it is, of science is shaped by religion and your particularly literalist interpretation of the bible. If you want to believe that the world is only 10,000 years old and that there really was an ark, fine. That is your choice but it has nothing to do with science.

can you observe the movements of the stars? can you observe the movements of the earth? can you create new medicines through genetics? yes you can, on all counts. you can't observe evolution and the only thing that the fossil record lends is a massive failure. the protoarchaeopteryx, which is still held as part of the evolutionary chain (at least as of 2005), is actually tested by your lovely dating mechanisms to be 100 million years younger than its descendant. :eek: how do you give birth to something that is older than you? and there is evidence that the earth is 10000 years old. Dr Melvin Cook proved that if the earth were as old as geologists claim (80000000 years), its pressure would have dissipated long before this--the present pressure of oil indicates not over 10000 years. (Chapters 12-13 of Prehistory and Earth Models by Melvin A Cook, Max Parrish, and Company, 1966) we have been taught that it takes millions of years to produce oil. the fact is, it took scientists 20 minutes and 1 ton of garbage to produce oil. (Machine Design 14 May 1970) we have been taught that mutation due to rearrangement od DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid) expressed in light and dark moths in England, proves evolution. the fact is, they are two color phases of the same moths. because of the smog in England, the trees have darkened and the camoflage that once protected the light moths, now protects the dark moths. the moths haven't changed, just the ratio of their population. (Scientific American, Vol. 200, March 1959, Dr HBD Kettlewell)
so far, I have debunked three theories related to evolution, would you like me to turn the wrecking ball off or not?

[Matt W]

*sighs* And once more, a mere mention of Darwin turns into a debate on Evolution. Hardly on-topic, is it? There's an Evolution/Creation thread either in Philosophy or Science....take it elsewhere.

[icurhuman2]

Quote by: dthmstr254 evolution lists natural selection as one of its main motors, but I have read many posts where evolutionists say that they don't care if God put the life on earth. the contradiction here is, if God could create life, then he could tamper with the rules of life, or the reactions, and make sure that only the right combinations and processes occurred. this phenomenon destroys natural selection, because it would then not be natural, but deity, that was doing the selecting. secondly, I would like you to explain laws through instinct. laws and morals require lucid, critical thought to create, something not derived by instinct. thirdly, if it were instinct, you could easily identify what processes allowed critical thought, and people wouldn't change their mind about anything, which is easily illustrated through the shifting sands that our emotions are, and the decisions we make from them. instinct is like a programmed action, no human has ever gone by a programmed action.

Natural selection applies to pre-human history. Humans have been busy with there own version for millennia. I call that human selection. Where did all those species of cattle, sheep, goats, dogs and cats come from? On a daily basis humans (the one’s who believe in natural selection; ie epidemiologists, bacteriologists, virologists etc ) are modifying virus’s and bacteria for many industries using evolutionary spurs.
Your “contradiction” is not a contradiction at all; your entire premise relies on there being a God (Because there’s a God he must’ve had dinosaurs running around in the garden of Eden to sow the seeds of doubt to test his minions, so he made it look like they were last walking the earth around 65 million years ago) GIVE ME A BREAK!
Laws? Through instinct? What laws are you talking about? No-one obeys laws they don’t have to, or even laws they should. Right-to-lifers nearly universally disagree with abortion yet support the death penalty, so much for religious edicts meaning jack-shit; Jesus and Mohammed were both supposed to be peace-loving guys as well. Catholic and Protestant priests sexually abuse children, proving that even the religious don’t mind a bit of rutting around, and they don’t have any qualms about who they do it to either… Laws? You must be joking!
Animals are as “individual” as humans; ask anyone who works with animals… Animals have emotions the same as humans; they feel pain, they feel pleasure. They know fear. Have you ever heard a rabbit scream in terror? Animals can become so distressed they die. Ever heard a dog whimper? How about devotion? Humans will cleave to a single partner for life, sometimes. Cranes mate for life with the one partner and will refuse another mate if their partner dies. Have you ever seen a cat fret when its dog companion has died? The only thing animals don’t have that we have is the rabid nature of the supreme predator, which is what we are… just another animal. Humans don’t have morals! Except when it suits their purposes… Lucid thought comes from having an evolved brain that can handle multiple tasks… end story. Critical thought is what you need to apply to an argument… so far you’ve failed…

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 so far, I have debunked three theories related to evolution, would you like me to turn the wrecking ball off or not?

You have demonstrated your lack of understanding. Nothing more. I still like your Java man routine. Pretty funny. You really want to continue that demonstration?

And to return to the topic at hand, only a minority of Christians accept the literalist young-earth perspective. Most accept Darwin as any other scientist. And as the thread topic demonstrates some even celebrate his birthday.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp You have demonstrated your lack of understanding. Nothing more. I still like your Java man routine. Pretty funny. You really want to continue that demonstration?

well, I could refer to the Java Man, or I could refer to any number of problems that evolution has. but I think I will call Matthew 7:6 on this.

And to return to the topic at hand, only a minority of Christians accept the literalist young-earth perspective. Most accept Darwin as any other scientist. And as the thread topic demonstrates some even celebrate his birthday.

and would you like to name a protestant sola scriptura branch that does that?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: icurhuman2 Natural selection applies to pre-human history. Humans have been busy with there own version for millennia. I call that human selection. Where did all those species of cattle, sheep, goats, dogs and cats come from? On a daily basis humans (the one’s who believe in natural selection; ie epidemiologists, bacteriologists, virologists etc ) are modifying virus’s and bacteria for many industries using evolutionary spurs. Your “contradiction” is not a contradiction at all; your entire premise relies on there being a God (Because there’s a God he must’ve had dinosaurs running around in the garden of Eden to sow the seeds of doubt to test his minions, so he made it look like they were last walking the earth around 65 million years ago) GIVE ME A BREAK! Laws? Through instinct? What laws are you talking about? No-one obeys laws they don’t have to, or even laws they should. Right-to-lifers nearly universally disagree with abortion yet support the death penalty, so much for religious edicts meaning jack-shit; Jesus and Mohammed were both supposed to be peace-loving guys as well. Catholic and Protestant priests sexually abuse children, proving that even the religious don’t mind a bit of rutting around, and they don’t have any qualms about who they do it to either… Laws? You must be joking! Animals are as “individual” as humans; ask anyone who works with animals… Animals have emotions the same as humans; they feel pain, they feel pleasure. They know fear. Have you ever heard a rabbit scream in terror? Animals can become so distressed they die. Ever heard a dog whimper? How about devotion? Humans will cleave to a single partner for life, sometimes. Cranes mate for life with the one partner and will refuse another mate if their partner dies. Have you ever seen a cat fret when its dog companion has died? The only thing animals don’t have that we have is the rabid nature of the supreme predator, which is what we are… just another animal. Humans don’t have morals! Except when it suits their purposes… Lucid thought comes from having an evolved brain that can handle multiple tasks… end story. Critical thought is what you need to apply to an argument… so far you’ve failed…

you totally missed the entire point of what I posted. I sent this to the head of a writers' magazine, and the response I got was completely different. more of a response through sources that still didn't refute this. I was simply stating that evolution leaves no room for God. if God existed to create life (something the evolutionists of today want to say is not in their jurisdiction), then He could certainly meddle with the processes to make sure that the proper reactions occurred. this would, like I said, make it deity selection, not natural selection.

[Matt W]

Shall I make my point clearer? Has anyone got anything more to say on the specific topic of Churches celebrating Darwins' birthday, or are we going through the old Creation/Evolution arguments ad nauseam?

As I said before - for those willing to read - take it elsewhere.

[Jack]

Happy Birthday, Charlie!

[Matt W]

Hehehehe.

[RickSp]

Quote by: RickSp And to return to the topic at hand, only a minority of Christians accept the literalist young-earth perspective. Most accept Darwin as any other scientist. And as the thread topic demonstrates some even celebrate his birthday.

Quote by: dthmstr254 and would you like to name a protestant sola scriptura branch that does that?

See, there you go proving my point. Only a narrow swath of Christianity supports your young earth creationism.

A belated happy birthday Chuck.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp See, there you go proving my point. Only a narrow swath of Christianity supports your young earth creationism. A belated happy birthday Chuck.

actually Rick, most protestant branches are Sola Scriptura. this philosophy was the one held by the apostles in Acts, and this was revived during the reformation by Martin Luther at the posting of his Ninety-Five Thesis. as do Catholics and Orthodox members. as can be seen from a history of the church, nearly 85% of Christian denominations believe in a young earth.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 actually Rick, most protestant branches are Sola Scriptura. this philosophy was the one held by the apostles in Acts, and this was revived during the reformation by Martin Luther at the posting of his Ninety-Five Thesis. as do Catholics and Orthodox members. as can be seen from a history of the church, nearly 85% of Christian denominations believe in a young earth.

Pure unmitigated nonsense. Simply untrue. And if you were being honest you would admit that while many Protestant denominations might acknowledge the heritage of Sola Scriptura via the Reformation, very few share the literalist young earth perspective of your sect. Lumping Catholics and Orthodox believers into Sola Scriptura is doubly dishonest for obvious reasons.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp Pure unmitigated nonsense. Simply untrue. And if you were being honest you would admit that while many Protestant denominations might acknowledge the heritage of Sola Scriptura via the Reformation, very few share the literalist young earth perspective of your sect. Lumping Catholics and Orthodox believers into Sola Scriptura is doubly dishonest for obvious reasons.

sorry I was unclear. I meant that Catholics and orthodox believers believe in a young earth. as for the young earth belief, when was the last time you took a census of every denomination? protestantism derived from sola scriptura. the scriptures teach of a young earth. if they are truly sola scriptura, they believe the young earth theory. anyways, where are your sources. I get mine from a teacher with a masters in history and church history.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 sorry I was unclear. I meant that Catholics and orthodox believers believe in a young earth. as for the young earth belief, when was the last time you took a census of every denomination? protestantism derived from sola scriptura. the scriptures teach of a young earth. if they are truly sola scriptura, they believe the young earth theory. anyways, where are your sources. I get mine from a teacher with a masters in history and church history.

No, the Catholics do not believe in the "young earth". I guess you don't keep up with current events. The church supports evolution. Claiming that support for sola scriptura, a doctrine of the 16th century Reformation implies a support for "young earth creationism" which in its modern form only was revived in the 1920s is laughable.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp No, the Catholics do not believe in the "young earth". I guess you don't keep up with current events. The church supports evolution. Claiming that support for sola scriptura, a doctrine of the 16th century Reformation implies a support for "young earth creationism" which in its modern form only was revived in the 1920s is laughable.

no, I don't check out the catholic news. it is biased. it is probably the same reason you don't read Agape Press. I was saying a true Sola Scriptura belief. please learn what sola scriptura means, cause to me it means "only scripture."

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 no, I don't check out the catholic news. it is biased. it is probably the same reason you don't read Agape Press. I was saying a true Sola Scriptura belief. please learn what sola scriptura means, cause to me it means "only scripture."

Give me a break. The story of the Catholic Church affirming its view that it supports science, including evolution was printed in the New York Times and newspapers all over the country. I linked to a Catholic source because it was convenient. They reported the story, yet you claim they are "biased". LOL.

And you should learn the meaning of terms before you use them. Sola Scriptura has a specific meaning dating back to the Reformation of the 16th Century.

So to get back to your previous point, your claim that 85% of all Christians are "young earthers" is simply wrong, wholly unsupported by facts and otherwise ridiculous. There is a reason many churches celebrated Darwin's birthday.