Title: "Best Critique of Evolution You Will Ever Hear" Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Sep 1, 2017 Author:PNN Post Date:2017-09-01 17:33:27 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:10213 Comments:71
I have been saying this for decade or more. Evolution only works with in species and there has never been a species to species change.
Faith is faith. They claim science when in fact it is no different than religious faith. Creationism should be taught right along with evolutionism because both are just as plausible as the other.
The problem with creationism is that it pretty much cannot be proven. I've considered it a "default" theory, which can be embraced when no other theory, such as evolution, is found to be satisfactory.
If one is to embrace creationism because of lack of satisfactory proof of evolution, then a logical question is, if proof is a requirement to believe, then where is the proof of creationism?
The narrator asks if evolution observable, demonstratable, repeatable and quantifiable, but those requirements are completely lacking in creationism. To be fair, one must judge both by the same measure, and creationism most certainly fails on all 4 points.
So far as I know, evolution theory does have more to explain than has been explained thus far, namely how a new species can arise that has more genetic coding than the species it supposedly evolved from. On the other hand, science is claiming that much unused genetic material exists in plants and animals. For example, chicken DNA supposedly has coding for growing teeth. I would consider DNA coding for teeth in chickens to be evidence in support of evolution. I also read that Bananas, have about 50% more DNA material than us humans do, in spite of being a far simpler form of life.
I do understand why it is important for bible-believing Christians that creationism be the explanation for the origin of life, and it's because it's the only way man (us) can have an immortal soul existence. If all life is simply a complex biochemical reaction, and man evolved from animals, then we are the same as animals and face the same fate as animals. We live and die, gone forever. A very bleak thing indeed.
My personal understanding and outlook on the matter allows both for evolution and an immortal soul existence, without any conflict whatsoever. The human race may well have evolved from apes and lower life forms, including bacteria without compromising us as immortal soul entities. And frankly it makes a huge amount of sense. And, Ironically, it does allow for both evolution and intelligent design. I consider it possible that it is a combination of the two.
The problem with creationism is that it pretty much cannot be proven.
I do understand why it is important for bible-believing Christians that creationism be the explanation for the origin of life, and it's because it's the only way
If there were any conflicts with science and creationism then people would abandon it.
But there aren't.
Evolution is a theory that has been disproved and for which there is zero zilch nada no evidence.
I understand why it is important for atheists to cling to evolution and other wacky fantasies. They don't want to be accountable and they reject the truth.
I understand why it is important for atheists to cling to evolution and other wacky fantasies.
Really? Can you tell me exactly how their atheist lives are richer or fuller or detail how their lives are better (or worse) because of evolution?
How about Christians? Can you tell me exactly how their Christian lives are richer or fuller or detail how their lives are better (or worse) because of creationism?
The truth is that creationism and evolution may line the pockets of some loudmouths and scammers in both evolutionist and creationist camps but the vast vast majority of mankind neither cares nor needs to have an opinion about creation or evolution. Creationism and evolution will not make one iota of difference in their lives in the short term or the long term.
Dont6 be a lamer. While you are correct about evolution. You are grossly wrong about creationism. If it wasn't for creationism many more people would be tricked by evolutionists. It would short circuit their faith. Evolution is a clever attack on the foundation of the Bible. If people can be tricked into believing the lie of evolution. They will say there was no Adam and Eve therefore what is the purpose of Jesus. There would be no point without original sin.
So creationism is just explaining our world to people so they can have some information that will counter the lie of evolution. Then if they believe they are accountable instead of unaccountable for their actions. They will generally be better people.
While you are correct about evolution. You are grossly wrong about creationism.
I think it is something people yak about. Not something that actually matters in their daily lives.
I think the majority of the public doesn't care much where we came from. There are small factions of creationists and evolutionists who make money from or rise in their hierarchy as a result of holding a strident position.
The majority may not be thinking about it all the time. But when they fall for the lie of evolution subconsciously for the rest of their lives constantly it causes them to reject gods word. You could also look at vpcreationism as just answering questions of skeptical and showing the people that they can believe in gods word and that it is reliable and not a fable.
So most of us aren't talking about it all the time but once we come to a conclusion it is affecting us all the time.
The majority may not be thinking about it all the time. But when they fall for the lie of evolution subconsciously for the rest of their lives constantly it causes them to reject gods word. You could also look at vpcreationism as just answering questions of skeptical and showing the people that they can believe in gods word and that it is reliable and not a fable.
So most of us aren't talking about it all the time but once we come to a conclusion it is affecting us all the time.
For me, it's not a question of falling for a "lie" or being deceived, it's a question of whether to be honest or not honest about what I observe about life, the universe, and everything.
There are no doubt many Christians who call themselves such out of "I fear for my [eternal] life" reasons. That is, they don't want to burn in hell for all eternity, so they are Christian. Have they applied critical thought to the validity of the faith? I know many have, I'm sure many have not.
And if someone, after full consideration, honestly concludes that they do not believe the bible could be the literal "Word of God", is it reasonable to believe that God would punish this person in a lake of fire for all eternity, while eternally rewarding someone who simply buried the issue out of their head and pretended to believe it was?
I'm not at that point. There is no doubt in my mind that honesty is a virtue, even if that honesty is one that expresses doubt, and if there is one thing for which we will be judged, it will be on whether we lived honestly with real doubts or if we instead pretended to believe something we really don't because we were afraid.
For me, the former is more virtuous, and I cannot for a moment believe that God would judge me for the worse for taking that path. And in my opinion, anyone who subscribes to any faith out of fear instead of sincerity is not being honest. And if they are not being honest, then that is something for which they may be judged as lacking.
So why doesn't God make everyone into perfect beings and allow them all into heaven? It would actually be more cruel if God were to do this, since many people prefer hell to the alternative (complete submission to God). All the people who end up going to hell will have done so because they actually prefer hell to being forced into the presence of God for all eternity. People like to live in their favorite sins and answer to no one else. They know that if they accept Jesus as Lord and Savior that God will want them to change their lives and they might have to give up some of their autonomy. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/hell.html
So why doesn't God make everyone into perfect beings and allow them all into heaven? It would actually be more cruel if God were to do this, since many people prefer hell to the alternative (complete submission to God). All the people who end up going to hell will have done so because they actually prefer hell to being forced into the presence of God for all eternity. People like to live in their favorite sins and answer to no one else. They know that if they accept Jesus as Lord and Savior that God will want them to change their lives and they might have to give up some of their autonomy. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/hell.html
There is, in my opinion, a much better theological model than the one that says we live once and be judged to enter heaven or hell for all eternity, and the qualities of this model are objectively superior to the standard Christian model (though such analysis of objective superiority is not proof it is correct). The model that includes reincarnation has the following benefits/advantages:
1) We are not limited to a single lifetime that determines our eternal fate.
2) An untimely murder or death does not deprive a victim of opportunities to continue to grow spiritually.
3) We have complete free will in the lives we live, including the choice to live at all.
4) Tragic circumstances, such as the loss of a loved one or being born handicapped serves a deeper, positive & pragmatic good.
5) Our life on earth serves a very real, pragmatic and understandable purpose that is for our direct benefit, and not for an obtuse purpose of "glorifying God" or what ever other descriptive terms Christianity would deem.
6) We all grow at our own pace according to our own desire. Those that grow are rewarded with that growth.
7) We are not penalized for growing up and living full lives in alternate cultures that do not teach what happens to be a "correct" theology.
8) Under this model, it's much easier to forgive others, as we see in a different light that all are on their own paths, and how wrongdoers will eventually voluntarily choose to suffer the same harm they have caused others so they can understand and grow into better souls.
Under Christianity, death is a door we pass through only once, after which free will is gone forever and we get either eternal damnation or bliss. The decision to die is often left to other people, whether murderers or normal people that make mistakes. The length of time we have to decide about God can be limited to less than a few years, in the case of children dying. Those born severely handicapped had no choice in the matter. Spiritual growth is not particularly important. It's far easier to take on the mindset that there is "a special place in hell" for those who have caused great harm and hate them.
Under the model I subscribe to, we have an eternity to grow which reflects the virtues of great love and patience that Christianity itself correctly teaches about God. It works sooooooo much better in just about every way, and is much more consistent with a God that is eternally wise, loving & patient, which are all qualities that even Christianity teaches that God possesses.
And one might ask: If God, being God and being all powerful, wise and loving had a choice on how to design the entire spiritual relationship between him and man, would he not choose a design that is more virtuous over another that is less so? Would he not choose a design that does NOT require him to condemn most of his children to hell for all eternity? If it is true that, "With God, all things are possible" is it then possible for God to allow reincarnation?
For me, the well considered answer to these questions is "Yes", and it is consistent with those cases of people who have past life recall.
I will say though that Christianity is not a bad faith at all. While I do see the doctrinal points about sin and judgment to be in error, it is nonetheless a great faith in all it teaches about virtuous living, of loving, forgiving and helping others.
