In my 20's, I experienced much confusion when "professors of the theory of evolution" produced arguments that seemed to "prove" the theory. At that time, the big debate between evolution and creation was beginning to pick up more steam. But once Creation Scientists began to confront the validity of evolution's self proclaimed "proofs", the heavy fog of my confusion dissipated. It was refreshing to see the logic of truth expose the inherent foolishness of speculative philosophy on which the premises of evolution are based. It was enlightening to learn evolution is not based on science. I learned to distinguish the difference between scientific claims based on empirical observation and philosophic assertions based on conjecture and speculation. I also learned to test the validity of philosophical statements, to discern error from truth. It was fascinating to watch the triumph truth!!
From a strictly scientific nether make a much since. Evolution is full of gaps and holes in the theory. To many cases of proof for evolution is just a bone fragment or two. remember the Nebraska Man? All they had was a pigs tooth. And just because two animals are alike does not mean one descended from the other.
But creationism from a scientific stand point is not any better, infact its worse. Little to nothing is proven about creationism from a scientific standpoint, likely because little to no scientists will try to prove it. To many scientists are sinful and worldly. However with creationism we have the word of the lord and our faith.
But at the end of the day does it really matter? That was eons ago, Do we really need proof of how the world was made to live our lives?
Well, I’m glad you reject the false theory of general evolution, in fact, your thinking at this point is more advanced than many theistic evolutionists with doctoral degrees who teach theology at certain seminaries and Bible schools.
But even though you deny believing in evolution outright, your statements indicate how your overall outlook has been effected or evolutionized. For example, when you accept the belief that there are “eons ago”, you indicate how evolution, not Genesis, has influenced your thinking about origins. The “eons of time” assumption is an anti-biblical evolutionary concept. Contradicting God’s truth represents just one of the many dangers associated with any false teaching especially those posing falsely as “science”. I realize you’re not purposely trying to contradict God’s Word but when you say “it really doesn’t matter” you inadvertently introduce yourself as a prime example of why it does matter.
You say creationism is worse than evolution because “no little or no scientists will try to prove it”. This is entirely inaccurate. There are many scientists who believe in creation. They write about it, teach it and debate it on college campuses and in churches. Their purpose refuting false philosophies amounts to obedience to their Creator. Christians are commanded to expose false teachings that contradict God’s truth. You will serve yourself well by acquainting yourself with this Bible teaching.
I am having a hard time reading your post. Its has a lot of funky ascii text and symbols. Are you using a custom font?
From what I did get you seem to be calming that I believe in evolution and not creationism. That is not true at all. I don't believe in Evolution and certainly believe in creationism.
I was simple pointing out that nether have real hard poof from a scientific standpoint and make little since from a scientific standpoint.
I have no idea about all the confusing figures you saw. My screen displays a perfect draft.
I wasn’t saying you believe evolution, obviously you do not intend to. But your thinking has been contaminated by evolution thought because you credulously accept the concept of “eons ago” as if the earth and universe have been proven to be extremely ancient. Geologists and astrophysicists use the term “eon” to denote a unit of time that is equivalent to a billion years. But neither science nor Genesis affirm such an exaggerated age of the earth or universe. Eons of time or billions of years of age is a not a scientific concept but rather a uniformitarian one. Uniformitarism is a philosophy not a science. However, some scientists embrace the philosophy of uniformitarism while other scientists embrace catastrophism. Scientists often use philosophical terminology to explain theory. But all too often “scientific bias” colors scientific theory and some scientists are not honest enough to clearly differentiate scientistific observation from philosophical interpretation.
“I was simple pointing out that nether have real hard poof from a scientific standpoint and make little since from a scientific standpoint.“
Your statement clearly indicates a want of understanding concerning the topic and of science. I’m not trying to be disrespectful or insulting because all of us must begin our search for knowledge from a point of lack.
LittleDavid & aham3 (despite the current small disagreement... >ahem<.)
It's great to read of others who hold a similar view.
Evolution is fantasy with little possible "science". And Creationism is pure belief with little possible "science".
I agree with LittleDavid that "science" can be a wishy-washy thing; if not an outright scam by academics at times.
However, just as "psychology" and "philosophy" are both term-filled junk vanity (still fascinating though, IMO)... within the Holy Bible, there is plenty of evidence for concepts that are instantly within the realms of "psychology" and "philosophy" not fitting in anywhere else.
(This is not an argument for the "subjective" as reigning supreme.) Much of this may just be because of faulty "systematic" labeling as human beings. It is not a perfect at to call one thing anything after Adam was finished naming and sin rules. We can only try our best... and produce a multitude of garbage thought. (Perhaps even my own explantion is simply a categorization that is utterly garbage? To better understand everything I personally say and think... just read the first chapter of Ecclesiastes.)
aham said the same thing about creation science but wouldn’t tell me how the creation account in Genesis is unscientific. You’re welcome to weigh in if you want. I’m looking for any **scientific** evidence that counters the Genesis account. When l ask humanist that question, they immediately refer me to **philosophical** “evidences”. Obviously some humanists, and some Christians, don’t know the difference between the various scientific disciplines and general philosophy. It’s true that certain features of the two schools intertwine because science after all is the quest for knowledge and philosophy is the study of knowledge. The trouble with some scientists, especially among the diverse humanist subspecies, is the unwillingness to **objectively** study ALL knowledge
