SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : Bill Nye 'The Science Guy' Hits Evolution Deniers

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: TMK

RE:TMK wrote ///I do not think God is trying to trick us. He has revealed Himself in the heavens, if we are willing to look.///

The ones looking to Science and the fossile record for answers are often, and of course I know not always (their are Many Christian Scientist but they are the minority) are many times trying to disprove the Christian concept of God and as Dawkins and many others trying to disprove God altogether by their Science and puting the voice of their conscience to silence by their natural wisdom their SARX mind.
Did God not predetermine this by His infinite Wisdom??


For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
That no flesh should glory in his presence.


For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's;

 2012/8/27 20:34Profile
DEADn
Member



Joined: 2011/1/12
Posts: 1357
Lakeland FL

 Re:

I wrestle with the theory of evolution and wonder about its chance within the creation model. I don't agree in evolution that we can go from a whale to a wolf as I was taught in biology but we see alot of instances of mutations when going from a wolf to a dog. Mutations are really the big thing taught in evolution and it is one of the things that we see causing some of the ailments we see in the modern society like downs and so forth. I tend to believe in the mutation example that evolution puts forth but I don't agree that it ends up causing the whale to go to the wolf or even vice versa.

Age of the Earth? Have no idea because it seems as if it is the bible vs carbon dating and it is used to show the age or so many things. I think we tend to agree with carbon dating on many things but when it tries to say things such as the Earth being millions of years old vs. what we think the bible saying of 6,000 years old we all have a cow over it. It is a very touchy subject but these are the things that flow through my mind when thinking of these ideas.


_________________
John

 2012/8/27 21:07Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: DEADn

Hi DEADn! I think you bring a good point up, Microevolution is a reality.

 2012/8/27 21:21Profile









 Re:

All creationists,

Physics:Newton,Faraday,Maxwell,Kelvin

Chemistry:Boyle,Dalton,Ramsey

Biology:Ray,Linnaeus,Mendal,Pasteur

Geology:Steno,Woodward,Brewster,Agassiz

Astronomy: Kepler,Galileo,Herschel,Maunder

Didn't seem to hold them back!!

 2012/8/28 5:27









 Re:

You may like seeing the rich information about creationism from this free online book. its called "Refuting Evolution" by John Sarfati

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index

Creation.com hold a view that the Bible is the authority being God inspired but are also scientists.

Here's an excerpt Chapter 3 pp 49-51:

//"Teaching about Evolution [book] avoids discussing the vast gulf between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man evolution is without foundation.

There are many other examples of different organisms appearing abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. For example, the first bats, pterosaurs, and birds were fully fledged flyers. The photograph to the right shows that bats have always been bats.6

Turtles are a well designed and specialized group of reptiles, with a distinctive shell protecting the body’s vital organs. However, evolutionists admit ‘Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.’ They can’t plead an incomplete fossil record because ‘turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates.’7 The ‘oldest known sea turtle’ was a fully formed turtle, not at all transitional. It had a fully developed system for excreting salt, without which a marine reptile would quickly dehydrate. This is shown by skull cavities which would have held large salt-excreting glands around the eyes.8

All 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in 1944:

The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.10

There is little to overturn that today.11"//


I have a paper copy and I am reading it slowly to really understand the ins and outs... before I move onto another "refutation" book.


edit: also, Creation.com and other biblical creation sites don't deny natural selection in the microevolutionary sense. But they argue that virtually all these mutations/selections don't give rise to more information in the genome, thus secular scientists don't have a mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution. see also the first two sections of Chapter 3 http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-3-the-links-are-missing

 2012/8/28 6:58









 Re:

Think Maybe the "Gap theory" might answer the "gap" between the Bible detailing 6,000 years of human history, & carbon dating spitting out numbers in the millions. Gap theory says there is an unspecified gap between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2. This might help explain dinosaurs, why Satan was in the garden of eve, some carbon dating, etc., etc. Also, Carbon dating is somewhat flawed anyways and has been proven to be inaccurate, at least at times. This may be partially attributed to God's Power to create something new in an already developed state like its been there for some time developing. Like Adam. Adam was created in an instant as a man, not a Baby. After Adam, men always started out as babies, but God has creative power to birth something already "old" though brand new. Could be the Same with the earth.

 2012/8/28 9:02
SkepticGuy
Member



Joined: 2012/8/8
Posts: 259


 Re:

this is a great conversation! i like to make people think and not just accept everything blindly. there is obviously someone who designed everything. it would be crazy to think we need people to design even the simplest products we buy at walmart and yet the earth and all of its complicated features just happened. but yet there are some questions concerning time and mutations that we can ponder and think about. i like to be around thinking christians. christians that just accept everything they are told are gullible to be deceived. God gave us a brain!

 2012/8/28 9:17Profile
EverestoSama
Member



Joined: 2010/5/17
Posts: 1175


 Re:

Quote:
i like to be around thinking christians. christians that just accept everything they are told are gullible to be deceived. God gave us a brain!



And He encourages us to reason with Him.

 2012/8/28 11:35Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

A couple of points:

It is interesting to note that Bill Nye's education and work experience is quite limited. He earned a BS (four year) degree in Mechanical Engineering about 35 years ago. While it is commendable to earn a degree in engineering, it does NOT make a person an expert in the fields of biology, physics, geology, anthropology, ethics and, most importantly, theology. In fact, an engineer is not a scientist at all.

Many people in this world are very skeptical (and perhaps [at times] rightfully so) at the claims made by many of the holistic and alternative medical practitioners that often don't pass the scrutiny of scientific inquiry or verification. Yet, those same individuals who are so critical about such things will accept the results from individuals from fields of which they are not experts or who cannot validate their claims either.

The media will embrace the claims of a politician (Al Gore) with a bachelor's degree in Broadcast Journalism when he makes bold claims on Global Warming. They will publicize the statements from a celebrity (Bill Nye) with a bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering if he takes a shot at the Biblical idea of Creation. Yet, they will ignore individuals with higher and more specific levels of education who don't embrace the "New Morality" of the Far Left.

There is something incredibly hypocritical about this. The story has been posted on many websites and a couple of local newspapers. With so much coverage, it is almost as if the media is trying to use a celebrity's thoughts to influence others. Now, I am not saying that a degree is necessary to pass scrutiny with such things; however, the media often uses the education and vocational background of a person to validate someone with "expert" status UNLESS they say something that the media largely agrees with.

That said...

When I was a young child, I used play with toys. I had Transformers, Voltron, Star Wars figures, spaceships, robots, legos and other things that a child of the 1980s enjoyed. I would lay out all of my toys on my bedroom floor and build my own little kingdoms with them. I would allow my young imagination to create all sorts of things. One thing that I noticed is that I would always build something complete with imaginary scenarios that I would jump in with my imagination. As "unspiritual" as that may have been, it makes me think about the Creation of this world.

Is it possible that God -- in His infinite wisdom -- created a world that was set in motion from the moment that he created it?

When God created this world, He was not confined to science (or earthly understanding of science). God did not have to "play by the rules" because God wrote the rules. After all, He is the Author of what men call "science."

I had a Physics professor who was a Christian. He was educated at a top university and his specialty was in General Relativity. I would spend quite a bit of time sitting in his office and engaging in conversation with him. Once, I asked him what he thought about Creation. While he admitted that he didn't have all of the answers, he theorized that it is possible that God could have created a "mature Earth."

In other words, this professor thought that it was possible that God created a "mature" universe in which it would only seem like things were older than they were. This would be akin to what Jeffmar said about God creating Adam as a man and not a baby...or...how, as a child, I would create my little toy kingdoms and scenarios from my childlike imagination. By His word, God could have made it so that light was able to instantly travel from stars many millions of light years away.

On a personal level, I understand the hesitations that scientists often hold when it comes to faith. They see apparent examples of microevolution and theorize possibilities to explain where we came from. Yet, "evolution" is not the reason that many scientists don't believe in a "young Earth."

The age of the universe as determined by the measurement of the speed of light is one of the main reasons that many scientists give for believing in a very old universe. You can measure the speed of light by observation. It takes nearly five minutes for light from the sun to reach the Earth. It takes nearly 15 minutes for a broadcast from a rover on the planet Mars to reach the Earth (and vice versa). The Voyager probes launched in the 1970s are traveling at enormously high speeds and still have not yet breached the outer edge of the heliosphere of our own solar system.

Even at such a high speed, the Voyager spacecraft would not reach the nearest star for over a million years. So, the age of the universe appears to be much older than what we cite from Scriptures. Yet, like this professor pointed out, God is not confined to the speed of light or having to wait for light to reach Earth before creating life on it.

Scientists are merely observers. Well, at least, they are supposed to merely observe and then record and theorize what it is that they have observed. Unfortunately, many scientists have become activists.

Many approach their science and research as avowed atheists (rather than agnostics or with open-mindedness). It is as if they are looking for reasons to not believe in God or validate their views of atheism. I even had another professor tell me that He would reject God even if all evidence pointed to His existence. Yet, I know many scientists who do believe in God. When I worked at NASA, I knew scientists and engineers who were quite vocal about their faith in God. After earning advanced degrees in their fields and through years of practice, they held firm to their faith and relationship with God.

Personally, I tend to embrace the idea of a young Earth. I believe that Earth is unique in this universe and that God designed it because of His plan for man. I will admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to know the certainty of this. There may very well have been a "gap theory" as mentioned by Jeffmar. Regardless, I do know the God in whom I believe. I have a relationship with Him. My approach to science will always be influenced by the God that I know and have given my heart to.


_________________
Christopher

 2012/8/28 13:34Profile
SkepticGuy
Member



Joined: 2012/8/8
Posts: 259


 Re:

that was very thought provoking chris.

 2012/8/28 13:38Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy