Michael said: …then I know that if I honestly do the best I can, you will be proud of me.

And I said: Too bad that kind of faith won’t save you.

By making that statement, I’m not judging anyone. Only God can do that. I’m basing my assertion on Scripture. Believers are commanded to declare the word of God; in that sense, I am qualified.

Man’s oldest and biggest problem is he thinks he can bring about his own salvation. Before I read the Bible, I used to believe I’d go to heaven if the good I did outweighed the bad in the end. But I knew how much sin I’d committed and how much more I wanted to commit. If one sin is enough to send me to hell, then nothing I do that’s “good” will ever be enough. It’s too late!

This is what God says about us, our own”righteousness” and what we need:

“For since the beginning of the world men have not heard nor perceived by the ear, nor has the eye seen any God besides You, who acts for the one who waits for Him. You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness, who remembers You in Your ways. You are indeed angry, for we have sinned– In these ways we continue; And we need to be saved.

But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags…” (Isaiah 64:4-6)

And:

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.” (Romans 8:7-9)

Many people in this world think they’re going to heaven because they are “good people,” but God says:

“Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)

And what’s the will of the Father? To repent of our sins and call on the name of Jesus Christ!

Despite the warnings of pending judgment against the world, God tells us how we can be pardoned for our sins and redeemed. It has nothing to do with “honestly doing the best you can.” He says that if we believe on him, his righteousness will be added to us. The heart of man is desperately wicked, Scripture tells and shows us. Anyone familiar with the Bible could never make a statement like …then I know that if I honestly do the best I can, you will be proud of me.

The Bible is clear about our condition and clear about how we can avoid God’s wrath, which we all deserve. How? I recommend this link:

http://www.carm.org/index/whatisthegospel.htm

I can’t judge a man’s heart, but that doesn’t disqualify me from telling you or anyone else what Scripture says about YOU. If you are unrepentant and seek or desire no forgiveness in the name of Christ, I can say, with the authority of Scripture behind me, that you are still in your sins. I can say with authority that if you remain unrepentent, you will die in your sins. If you go through life thinking God will be “proud” of your pitiful “good works”, think again.

What the verses you cited have to do with Michael’s comment or my reply is a mystery to me.

I really don’t believe you have the qualifications to make that statement:

Romans 12:19, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”

Jeremiah 51:11, “Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.”
Psalm 37:10-11, “For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the humble shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.”

Best to leave that judgement to G-d.

First of all, the idea that dinosaurs were wiped out millions of years before the first modern humans lived on the planet is ridiculous. Human footprints have been found next to dinosaur fossils in the same strata…same time period. Stories of dinosaurs (dragons and “sea monsters”) are in human legends all over the world. There’s only ONE reason to believe dinosaurs and humans never co-existed: the false idea of an old earth and a Darwinian timescale.

Second of all, it’s pretty outrageous to make the claim that, because we’re here, evolution must have happened. That’s a non-argument, because there isn’t just one set of overwhelming odds that evolution overcame, there are a zillion sets of overwhelming odds. First, you have to prove that inert matter somehow “arranged itself” into highly-complex proteins (made out of only left-handed amino acids). Then you have to prove that incredibly complicated DNA information somehow arose on its own. Then you have to show how all those different components came together to form primitive cells that could properly reproduce. Then you have to prove that zillions of beneficial mutations occurred in cells over millions of years to grow amazing structures which are *irreducibly* complex — i. e., they don’t function AT ALL without all of the parts in place and working at once.

Then there’s the problem of the transitional fossils — oh wait, there aren’t any. Funny thing, that. Then there’s the problem of timeframes: “primitive” organisms that evolved “millions” of years ago are still here, alive and well. Interesting that they somehow didn’t “evolve”. Plus there are fossils of “recent” species being discovered next to “ancient” ones. Weird.

Let’s face it: when you actually look at empirical *evidence*, evolution starts looking pretty sketchy, if not downright absurd. Evolution isn’t fact, it’s barely a theory, it’s not even that good of an hypothesis anymore. I find it quite amusing that the final nail in the coffin for evolution won’t be religion or faith, it will be science.

Regards,

Jared

May I add my two cents’ worth?

You don’t have to be a “creationist” to believe in creation and to have trouble accepting Darwinism. Let me explain.

Creationism assumes a certain “take” on Gen 1-2: these chapters of the Bible, creationists say, offer a straightforward play-by-play account of origins.

Now, I believe that Gen 1-2 truly describe real events that actually took place. I am not a creationist, however, because the events Gen 1-2 describe aren’t quite like ordinary historical events—not because they didn’t happen, but because they FOUND history in the first place. In short, the problem I have with creationism isn’t that it takes the Bible seriously as a historical account, but that it doesn’t have antennae for the special kind of history (the pre-history) that’s being recounted. Creationism isn’t so to say imaginatively up to the Biblical account of origins. (I have a similar problem with dispensationalism, which tries to imagine the unimaginable—the end of the world [which is gonna happen and which the Bible tells us true things about]—with an unspiritual imagination that reduces everything to cartoonish and trivial details).

I don’t see, then, why some sense of evolution couldn’t be compatible with the Biblical account.

If you look at the natural world, you see a certain hierarchy, where the lower level prepares the ground for, but without fully explaining, the higher. All the great theologians of the Christian tradition have a version of this picture, and it’s not too much of a stretch to “historicize it.”

Note, though, that this kind of evolution doesn’t reduce the higher to the lower, but preserves the essential irreducibility of the higher to the lower. By doing that, it does not foreclose the idea of a purpose working itself out through nature historically. And so it is open to the idea of an all-guiding providence.

The problem with evolution, from this point of view, isn’t evolution, but Darwinism, and the problem with Darwinism is that it DOES reduce the higher to the lower, thus eliminating purpose and providence from nature.

But this isn’t reasonable. The question Darwinians need to face, and which they don’t usually do, is this: setting creationism aside for a moment, and just looking at nature itself, how do you justify your reductionism? Aren’t you all saying, in effect, that chance is prior to order? But isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

Now, let me be clear. If there’s a problem with Darwinism, in other words, it isn’t that it tries to account for the operation of natural causes in natural terms, but that it does so through the filter of a reductionist philosophy that precisely can’t account for nature even on its own terms. Even a pagan like Aristotle would have had big problems with Darwinism, and his reasons still hold up to scrutiny, in my opinion.

One final point: as Thomas Aquinas says, the operation of “secondary causes” is a participation in the operation of the “first cause.” All the reality the secondary causes have as causes flows to them minute by minute from the first cause. God, then, is intimately involved in the workings of nature—but without having to “replace” those workings. God isn’t forced to choose one side of the either-or between “interfering” or being a passive spectator. He’s beyond the either-or altogether—and that’s one of the things it means to call him Creator.
Thanks.

Adrian

Oh we of little faith — if we had the faith of a mustard seed, we could move mountains. I must admit I don’t have enough faith to move a mountain, perhaps I am even afraid to find out by actually trying to do so.

Nevertheless, my faith is rather simplistic, like that of a child. When I look at God’s handiwork all around me, my faith is re-enforced everyday at His majesty. I also know I’ve been privileged to experience His power and that fills me with awe, I don’t know if I could literally stand a mountain actually moving. Like Ray said, it is enough for me to believe that when God said it, He meant it.

On the other hand, I am naturally inquisitive and so when I look at what science & technology has in hand, my approach is to see if S&T reaffirms God or not. If it doesn’t then obviously, there is a flaw in the science. It’s really simple.

Believers already know this much:
–Satan/Lucifer is a fallen angel along with 1/3 of the heavenly hosts.
–In the beginning…
–When God said let there be light, there was
–1 day=1 eon? Possible for the formation phase, but that negates the fact that when God finished creating, He said it was good and rested.
–For evolution of animals to have occured, death must have been present. If all of creation was good, then that means the genetic code was perfect. Houston we have a problem.
–If Adam came into being fully formed and a ‘grown’ man, why couldn’t the mountains, Afterall, the Bible knows the difference beteen baby, child & man, If a baby, wouldn’t God have said, it is not good for a babe to be alone, so let us create a mother?
–Adam and Eve lived in harmony with the creatures and could eat the fruit of any tree.
–when Adam & Eve sinned, evil took over. And for the first time, death occured when GOD killed a sheep to make clothes for Adam & Eve. Now we have wild animals that kill or be killed, plants that prick or poison us etc.
–God told Noah to build an ark then sent the animals, males with their mate(s) to repopulate after the flood
–People built the Tower of Babel, thinking if they could build it high enough, they could be equals to God. God smacked them down. Enquiring minds want to know; how high did they get? Did God feel threatened (of course not) or did He smack them for the sheer folly of it all, after allowing them to expend enough effort for Him to tire of their rebellion.

Now to make sense of the scientific record.
–carbon dating, until someone has been there at the other end, it is only a supposition that what holds true over 10 years could be extrapolated to millions. How do we know for sure that after a certain point that the numbers don’t fall off OR compound?
–speed of light. Is it constant? Perhaps, altho Hawkins now says E=MC2 needs a slight but significant adjustment. Was it always constant? Maybe not. Warp Speed or Hyper Drive anyone? Afterall, God is light, yet he can be, and is everywhere at once. Nothing about light lag.
–Geological record, sci-fi buffs seem to have no issue with Space 20xx series or Star trek genesis project, rationalizing as who knows what technology we may yet discover that can accelerate planet building.
–Big bang started with nothing and Genesis says God started with a void. Void=nothing.

So science is only getting a glimpse of how, but God told us why. Satan would use any lie, evidence and what have you to distort God’s truth. Satan also has dominion over this earth. God has no need to “trick” us by planting fossils, etc. Why wouldn’t Satan be beyond that if it suited him and had the power to do so?

As for your issue, sure teach it all in schools. Tell the kids that this is an exercise in critical thinking. “We report the theories, you decide”.

Interesting comment. I too believe that the grandstanding scientists who keep outdoing each other by claiming they’ve found the missing link have cultivated an extremely tired act.

I swear, every week I hear something in the news about a new set of bones found in the Himalayas or the Andes Mountains that are The Missing Link! to us homosapiens. It’s almost gotten to the point of parody.

But, you are quick to call us “evolutionists” a “bunch of liars and frauds.” I know I may offend many of you, but consider this. I don’t believe everything evolutionists day. Evolutionists tend to work on premises called THEORIES and HYPOTHOSES. So, of course, there are bound to be mistakes.

However, those who strictly adhere to creationism are also fooling themselves. If it’s a matter of faith, then I totally respect your views. But, don’t bash evolution–which has shown several glimmers of rationale–and then endorse what is basically a diatribe that starts with the snapping fingers of an otherworldly power. Genesis makes for great reading, however, it’s rather hard to take it seriously, much like the loon scientists who are off looking for their own “Lucy.”

Evolution and creationism both have their faults. I don’t believe either party of thought is right or wrong. I just enjoy the dialogue.

A very respectful and honest question: how important is this issue to you, to anyone here, with respect to your personal relationship with God?

Finally, thank you for allowing me to participate in this discussion even though we all may not see eye to eye. I do ask my questions with an open mind, not merely to tout my own opinions. My own perspective is a grows as I do. I simply trust that my faith and effort will take me to where I need to be.

And it doesn’t matter what people claim. The question is what is true. It’s a crying shame that coherent argument and commitment to truth-seeking have been eroded. If we can’t even start with basic truths and work our way up-down-back-forward, the whole discussion is POINTLESS!

I don’t see science as mankind trying to prove that God does not exist. Now and then science forces us to stop clinging to our preconceptions, but that does not mean that we have to stop having faith, or allow us to pretend that we understand God any worse or any better.

Perhaps the evolution that makes so much sense to so many people now will be replaced by yet another theory that makes even more sense decades from now. As long as faith is the foundation of your lives, what is truly lost? Your faith should not be based on science, anyway.

Some of these details are just another aspect of the Golden Calf to me, focusing on the word and not the meaning behind the word… focusing on form and ritual over substance.

Some people say that Jesus was probably black, based on what we know of the region at the time. Some say that we sprung up from His breath, others that we evolved slowly over time. Some kill in His name because they don’t follow the same set of rules for worship. Some call Jesus the son of God, some a simple prophet. Some call the Holy Bible a literal document, some an allegory.

Is any of this more important than what was actually said? The message of love and hope and compassion?

Arguments like these (and the rampant hypocrisy of man) are why I do not prescribe to the organized ritual of religion.

When I was in Desert Storm, I took the time to make a pilgrimage to the Wailing Wall. I prayed to God there, and confessed how much mankind has shaken my faith. “If you are truly my Father, and I your son, then I know that if I honestly do the best I can, you will be proud of me”.

Such is my own faith.

Yes..They are very big and scary looking. Ray..

You are absolutely right. We do not have much common ground.

I do not share your view of the Bible as a historical document. I do not exactly share your precise faith. But then, if you look at the sites LB suggested, many creationists do not share precisely share your faith either.

Now I ask you, now that I answered your question, will you answer one I asked in earlier posts?

PS: It is a *fact* that the fossil record seperates dinosaurs and men by millions of years. Again, this was determined by the same science used to solve crimes and dig for oil.

I stand corrected, instead of “facts” I should have said “verses”.

In other words, I was asking if you can show me sound Scriptural basis for your beliefs. When you do that, then we can either agree or agree to disagree. At least we will have established common ground. Simply saying ‘I am a christian’, or ‘I believe in God’ is not enough to meet the criteria for common ground.

However, if you can’t defend your faith, then that just knocks the legs out from the rest of your beliefs regarding the God of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David and Father of Jesus’ view on man. You can’t have it both ways, like sKerry on abortion.

Evolution, more specifically, natural selection is the theory that explains the above facts.

Compre to gravity. The fact is that objects with mass are attracted to each other. The the theory includes the equations first proposed by Newton, refined by Einstein, etc.

To say that evolution is ‘just’ a theory is to misuse the term. A theory is NOT equivalent to a wild guess. It’s also not something that scientists hope wil one day ‘grow up’ into a fact.

Trevor

My question about the creation stories of other religions is this: If the creationist arguement is that physical evidence can be interpreted any which way, then would creationists allow the creation story of the Hindu equal time in their local schools, in science and biology classes, with equal emphasis on plausability as Christian creation? If not, why not?

And yes, “theories” are not “laws”, which means they are not proven. But, as noted in earlier postings, based on the sites LB provided, Creationism seems to consist of “evolution doesn’t have all the answers, therefore we are right”. Or “if you don’t believe in Genesis you will go to Hell, which means you are wrong.”

And, lastly, who’s creationist theory would we teach? The Creationism that says relativity and evolution are correct, and God made all; the creationism that says the Universe started at the time of the Bible, but God used known science methods not mentioned in the Bible; or a straight reading of Genesis, KJV?

I gave my suggestion a few postings ago.