lol you have to go back to the 17th and 18th century to find geologists who still believed in the global flood. dont you think we may have learned a little bit more about geology since then?
There was an anarchist movement in Russia before the revolution. They could talk people into doing suicide bombings. Hardly a religious thing is that?
That quote: "First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them" Was made by Martin Luther who if I'm not mistaken might be considered a "Christian believer" and not a communist. Seneca
So by your reasoning nobody should believe in Macro-Evolution since we now live in an age of scientific enlightenment.
To say there is proof that God does not exist is really quite a statement. How do you prove that God, the creator of the universe, who exists outside of time and space, does not exist? That is a tall order and I would truly love to see the proof. If it is indeed proof, I will abandon my Christianity. After all, proof is proof. I have asked atheists for proofs and have not yet seen one offered that has stood the test of cross examination. even though science has answered many issues about life, medicine, mechanics, the universe, etc., it does not invalidate God's existence nor is it in any way a proof or evidence that God does not exist. The only thing science does is explain things using naturalistic principles. But, since Christians define God as being outside of time and space (yet able to interact within it), explaining things naturalistically does not effect the proposed existence of God or not since He is not limited to a naturalistic system. After all, the Bible states that God created the naturalistic principles working in the universe. Since these principles exist, how is it that it means that God does not exist? It doesn't. My proposition that atheists hold their position by faith is based upon the idea that there is no proof for atheism; there is no evidence that God does not exist; and that atheism only succeeds if it can refute all theistic proofs and evidences -- which they can only hope they can do. Therefore, I conclude that there is a large measure of faith that the atheists use to hold to their atheism since there is no proof. I have not yet seen any "proof" offered by an atheist that contradicts the Bible. There may be something out there that does, but I have not yet seen it. So, I really cannot comment beyond that. Science has not shown that there is no God nor is there any logical proof (that I am aware of) that there is no God. Since atheism is the position of "no God" either in belief or "lack of belief," and since there is no proof that God does not exist, then faith must make up the difference. Either atheism is absolutely true or it is possibly true. Since it cannot be proven that atheism is absolutely true (i.e., prove that there is no God in all space and time, etc.), then all that is left is that it is a possibility that it is true -- or, dare I say, that it simply is not true. To believe that because science can explain things that it means there is no God is not logical as I have demonstrated above. As a Christian my belief in God rests on evidence, experience, and decision. I see the biblical evidence, experience the work of God in my life, and I have chosen to continue in belief based upon these factors. What I lack in absolute proof, I complete in faith. I certainly agree that an atheist can conclude that God does not exist. But, it does not mean that his conclusion is correct. I can conclude that screaming blue ants are spying on me, but that doesn't mean I am right. As a Christian, I can accept the possibility that there might not be a God. However, I most definitely believe and affirm that the God of the Bible exists and is the only true God. This does not make me agnostic; that is, it does not mean that I don't know if God exists or not. On the other hand, the atheist states, basically, that there is no God. But if this same person states that God may exist, then doesn't that mean that he isn't sure, that he doesn't know if God does or does not exist? That is not the same position I hold at all. People can believe what they want to believe. I simply question the evidential and logical validity of the atheistic belief system. This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning Godâs existence which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves. Of course, the context is that God is the true sovereign and that atheists want that for themselves. In this, they take the place of God and set themselves up as master of their own lives, future, etc. As for Evolution in Creation: I do not believe in macro evolution, but even if it were true, it is not proof that God does not exist. To assume that all of it occured due to naturalistic principles in the universe without being able to offer any evidence for this is "Faith". - in science.
Macro evolution is a scientific fact as much so as the earth rotates around the Sun. Scientists in the field decide what is fact and what is not and those that study evolution hold evolution as a fact. Of course, there is disagreement among them as to the specific mechanisms, but that does not detract from it being fact. Even the Pope declared evolution a fact. Your use of "faith" in science is an old fundie tricky, tricky; you could do better. Sencea "Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant." H. L. Mencken Creationist science: Take as a given fact all those parts of the Bible we tell you to. Use not the null hypothesis; make no attempt to disprove any creationist hypothesis; report not any negative findings. Quote as authoritative anything a fellow creationist writes, regardless of his qualifications or subsequent discrediting of his methods or results. Misquote or quote out of context famous "evolutionists" so that they appear to admit evolution isn't real.
dude, show me the proof? Macro evolution is a LIE! and YOU know it. Show me one species that evolved into another. Can a bird become a fish? Can a dog become a cat? If so, when did this happen? Why is it not happening now? If so, what happend? I think you know where I'm going with this. Nice try.
Macro evolution is a non-scientific term. Biologists do not partition evolutionary function into different classes. Evolution is nothing more nor less than the change in an allele of an organism. A genetic change that prevents future genetic recombination is the general requirement for speciation. Organism groups that can no longer reproduce inter-group are speciated, even if the groups show no obvious morphological differences. Given sufficient time, once cross breading is no longer viable, mutational differences between branch lines become more pronounced until eventually, the groups look sufficiently different to the ordinary observer so as to deserve an independent taxonomic classification. If macro evolution is the "Achilles heel," by which you measure your faith in Biblical inerrancy, then you may as well throw in the towel right now, because this ship has already set sail.