Tags:
Replies are closed for this discussion.
My husband and I visited a church today. It was so cool, in the back they had a really nice display of creation material. Very nice! I heard people talking on the news yesterday, they were talking about creation. And one person, rather ill informed said, "Well all of the scientists believe in evolution." So NOT true!
Juanita said:My husband and I visited a church today. It was so cool, in the back they had a really nice display of creation material. Very nice! I heard people talking on the news yesterday, they were talking about creation. And one person, rather ill informed said, "Well all of the scientists believe in evolution." So NOT true!
My grandma used to say "ya can't make folks un-believe somethin'. It's like sewin' buttons on ice-cream".
I've found this statement to be true over and over in life, especially when it comes to debating topics such as creation vs evolution.
Human brains are wired to readily recall those things we hear frequently. The faster we can recall information, the more likely we are to accept it as a truth. This is natural. Being in Christ, however, is a supernatural experience where the Spirit speaks to us and through us and gives us discernment for truth.
We can argue until we are blue in the face regarding creation vs evolution, but until we invite the Holy Spirit into the conversation, we will have more luck sewing buttons on ice-cream than to cause someone to "un-believe" what they believe by use of our own words.
My husband and I visited a church today. It was so cool, in the back they had a really nice display of creation material. Very nice! I heard people talking on the news yesterday, they were talking about creation. And one person, rather ill informed said, "Well all of the scientists believe in evolution." So NOT true!
Juanita, It's a common misconception that all scientists believe in evolution. So much of the scientific naming pattern is based on evolutionary concepts that scientists can appear to agree even when they do not. I worked and volunteered a few summers at a local federal water quality and fish research lab. Mostly there was professional courtesy regarding views on evolution. There was enough gentle probing by others to reveal that not agreeing with evolution makes one a bit odd or misunderstood. There is peer pressure for scientists to agree with evolution and not look into creation science. I don't think that all the team leaders (PHD's) at the facility agreed with evolution but they did not openly discuss their beliefs.
There is sound science available to back up creation. Unfortunately, we do a poor job of making the material available. Many of us view science as that difficult subject we don't understand anyway and never take the time to discover what is available. I believe Ken Ham teaches creation science. My local radio station uses radio drama to teach creation science (I'v forgotten the title.) I borrowed a book from a sceince teacher a the church I attend before I was able to let go of my undestanding of evolution. Unfortunatly, I have as usual forgotten the title of the book. It explained the difference between natural selection/survival of the most fit. (which I find believable) and evolution. Evolution takes survival of the fitest to extremes and states that fit beings of one group (fish for example) can evolve or change into something new (say a lizard). If this was true there should be transitional fossils showing characters of both. There are no transitional fossils. Also, it can be sucessfully argued that fossil deposits fit a sudden death incident such as the Noahic flood.
There are structural similarities among many of Gods creatures. For example the skeletal structure of riptiles, birds and mammals is similar. I was recently amazed to discover how much a skinned chukar, a small chicken like bird, resembled a skinned squirrel. (Sorry if that's a bit gross.) Could it be that this similarity is just another way for the Lord to put his mark on creation?
Paige thank you for the Biblical references.
Science is not about making assumptions, it is about establishing what can be proven to be true; removing uncertainties until only working hypothesises remain. In other words science is about establishing the exact opposite of an assumption. Text books which explain evolution do not do so on the assumption it is true, they do so on the evidence that it is highly likely to be true.
The mathematical probability of life having evolved by means of natural selection is a number with an almost infinite number of decimal places—because it grows exponentially each time new evidence in support of evolution is exposed to what scientific philosopher Karl Popper called falsification—the stronger of the logical processes between irrefutability and probability.
There may well be arguments between individual scientists over certain areas upon which evolution touches, such as in palaeontology where the age of certain fossils are incredibly difficult to gauge with a degree of accuracy any lower than a few million years. But these are not arguments about the validity of Darwinian evolution itself. They are about the way in which certain data sets are best located in the taxonomic table.
Remember, there is nothing within the theory of evolution which proposes origins. That is covered in the study of abiogenesis. Evolution theory is about what happened after the first spontaneous production of RNA and DNA as Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's famous experiment shows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
© 2022 Created by Juanita.
Powered by