ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Why To Embrace Evolution

Is there any reason why a Christian should embrace Evolution in order to help explain Creation? If not, why do so many do it?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 3/21/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (9)

Post a New Blog

There is no reason why a Christian should embrace the foolish lie of evolution. If a Christian wants to explain Creation, the Christian should do so from the truth, that the Creator created by speaking things into existence: "the worlds were created by word of God, so that not from things visible the seen have come into being. For by Jesus were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." Heb.11:3+ Col.1:16+ Jn.1:10.
---Eloy on 4/6/12


In the day in 2 Peter 3:8, 24 hours, or 8766000 hours (1000 years)? Was Joshua's long day 24 hours?

If these examples are not 24 hours, the conslusion "all biblical days are 24 hours long" is unsupportable.

Besides, the reason days are 24 hours is NOT because they are defined that way, but because that is merely an observable phenomenon based on the sun. As earth rotation slows, our day length changes too (a small amount, but it still does). This phenomenon did not exist when the sun didn't, on the first few days.
---StrongAxe on 4/6/12

\\ Do you imagine God said He created in 6 days and rested the 7th, \\

Why did God rest on the seventh day, since the Bible elsewhere says He doesn't get tired?

Isaiah 40:28
Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/6/12

Strongaxe, we have been over and over this many times. It is not what Genesis fails to say, but what you are not prepared to believe.

In every language I have investigated, the word for day when accompanied by a number means a 24hr day. Why would English Bible translators translate what in Hebrew means 6 24hr days if it doesn't mean 6 24hr days? That they are 6 24hr days is confirmed by Exodus 20:8-11, and 31:14-17. Do you imagine God said He created in 6 days and rested the 7th, commanding them to do the same but they weren't ordinary 24hr days? What were they 1,000 years each? Or of unknown length! You mean they haven't made it to the day of rest yet?
---Warwick on 4/6/12

Warwich, what I mean is filling in the gap's, and saying this is the way it is, and if you do not believe it is this way, then you are wrong concerning the Pentateuch. Many things were not detailed. God did not detail everything little thing. Every passage has a purpose and reason for been there. Just take the question of creation, no one knows on what day He started creation. It is not mentioned. We do know what was passed down most of it was written, other things had to be filled in by the writers of Scripture to fill the gaps that were not explained. Yet we know the Bible is truth to all believers. You came out with one conclusion, others, with another conclusion what they understood was truth. Nothing is exact, not even the numbers.
---Mark_V. on 4/6/12


Genesis clearly says God created everything in 7 days. What it does NOT do anywhere is specify just how long those days are. Yet you constantly insist that they MUST be 24 hour days, and you use the phrase "24 hours" over and over - even though the bible nowhere ANYWHERE mentions "24 hours" in ANY context. THIS is reading between the lines.
---StrongAxe on 4/5/12

Mark, you wrote " Your (you're)doing what the Pharisees did to define things not defined in Genesis."

I have said Genesis is what God knows we need to know. I have said His description of creation leaves no room for evolution. Where am I definining things not defined in Genesis? Maybe you are referring to something else. Please explain.
---Warwick on 4/5/12

Here are more things that are Biblical:
- Taking showers, because washing is Biblical: whether washing from a shower nozzle, or washing in a river, it is still washing and therefore Biblical.
- Traveling in automobiles, because journeying is Biblical: whether carried by a car's motor, or carried by a horsedrawn chariot, it is still transporting and therefore Biblical.
- Having traffic lights, because signals to direct is Biblical: whether signaling by traffic light, or signaling by hand or blowing a rams horn, it is still signaling and therefore Biblical.
- et cetera.
---Eloy on 4/5/12

Strongax, if you're only squandering time by opposing the truth I post- then I suggest that you find a more productive occupation. Again, "writing" and "communicating" IS Biblical, no matter what mode of doing so. Therefore, communicating by computer is Biblical, as is any mode of writing, speaking, and communicating messages, including mailing messages by carrier, whether by hand or by horse or by motor vehicle or by electronics. The same for electrical lighting, light for seeing in the dark is Biblical, whether by candlestick, or lightbulb. The same for automatic dish washers, for washing cups and bowls is Biblical. Any thing you imagine, it is either Biblical or NonBiblical, and if NonBiblical then don't lend it time.
---Eloy on 4/5/12

Warwick, I agree with Strongaxe. Not everything was detailed in the Pentateuch. Your doing what the Pharisees did to define things not defined in Genesis.
"Rabbinic Judaism (which derives from the Pharisees) has always held that the books of the Torah (called the written law) have always been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition. To justify this viewpoint, Jews point to the text of the Torah, where many words are left undefined, and many procedures mentioned without explanation or instructions, this, they argue, means that the reader is assumed to be familiar with the details from other, i.e., oral, sources. This came to be known as "the oral law"."
The Bible is Truth, but not everything is explained.
---Mark_V. on 4/5/12


Computers and internet are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. By your definition, that makes them untruth. So, if they are so unbiblical, why do you use them?

Also, you said: NonBiblical has ONE meaning

According to whom, exactly? The dictionary gives 3 meanings for "Biblical":
1) Of or in the Bible
2) In accord with the Bible
3) Evocative of or suggesting the Bible or Biblical times, especially in size or extent

So "non-biblical" means at least:
1) Not in the Bible
2) Not in accord with the Bible

Computers are an example of 1. Universal salvation is an example of 2.
---StrongAxe on 4/4/12

Strongaz, NonBiblical has ONE meaning, namely, it is not Biblically based. Also, "altar calls", and "writing" (whether by computer typing or by ink-dipped feather quills or carvings engraved on cave walls and stone tablets), are indeed biblical. And anything nonbiblical is nontruth and is not right and should be avoided. As far as knowing the details of creation, you must read more than just the first few chapters in Genesis. For Psalms and the Prophets and the New Testament give MUCH detail. Merely looking at the first few pages of a book, and then incorrectly concluding, "the book doesn't say much nor gives much detail", is an incorrect judgment.
---Eloy on 4/4/12

StrongAxe science is only that which appears to be correct at the mopment. Maxwell's equations may be correct or may be proven flawed tomorrow.

What does not change is that God created just as He says in Genesis, by His intent through unfathomable supernatural power. In Genesis, in the raising of Lazarus and the feeding of the 5,000, He had given us all He knows we need to know.

Further the creation information He has given us, in Genesis and elsewhere, shows beyond doubt He created in 6 24hr days by His supernatural power not needing the help of any naturalistic processes to achieve His planned ends.

Jesus died naturally upon the cross but was raised supernaturally, not by time multiplied by any naturalistic process.
---Warwick on 4/4/12


What happened is not in question. Only HOW it happened is in question. Since people don't generally worry about how Lazarus was raised, the details are rarely discussed.


There are two common definitions of "unbiblical": 1) it isn't mentioned in the Bible (e.g. altar calls, computers, Christian blogs), or 2) it directly contradicts the Bible (like "unconstitutional"). While we should avoid 2, there is nothing wrong with 1.

Genesis does not go into much detail at all about how God created things. There is barely one verse most things like the sun, animals, trees, etc. Saying "God created animals" does not provide any details at all about how they were created.
---StrongAxe on 4/4/12

Strongax, My definition of what is biblical, is the minute details, principals and teachings written in the the Holy Bible, and all else is nonbiblical. God indeed gave MUCH details on exactly how he created the world and the living things in it, and it was not from any nonrecorded and nondocumented, and an imaginary "Big Bang", nor were humans made from protozoan and amoebic sludge, nor from guppies, nor from apes. All of my ancestors were made by the word of the Lord spoken into the existing shape and form of the Lord God Jesus Christ himself. Put your faith in the Holy Scriptures which is the truth from God, rather than in secular text books from man which contents are changed and adjusted year after year.
---Eloy on 4/4/12

StrongAxe, God has not provided us detail or scientific formulae to explain how Jesus raised Lazarus, or fed the 5,000 thousand. Does this create doubt in your mind that He did these things?

If He was to explain the supernatural process/s by which He achieved these things would it change anything? Would we understand? Would there be a purpose to it other than to satisfy idle curiosity?

Isn't it a test of faith for Christians to accept God did create the earth, in 6-days, as He explains in Genesis? And this without any form of evolution as He says?

---Warwick on 4/4/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


"I don't know" can be a lazy answer - but only to questions for which one actually knows (or can easily know) the answer.


Just what is your definition of the words "biblical" and "non-biblical"?

Genesis says "God created..." but gives very little detail as to just HOW he created those things. Years ago, I saw a physics T-shirt that said "God said ...", three lines of weird mathematical symbols (i.e. Maxwell's Equations), "... and there was light". Maxwell's Equations are the foundations of electrodynamics, which define light. So God must indeed have established those physical laws for light to even have the possibility of existing.
---StrongAxe on 4/4/12

People embrace nonbiblical ideas, like evolution, because they do not have the knowledge of the truth which is written in the Holy Bible. If a person does not know the contents of the Holy Bible, then that one may be subject to embrace any foolish falsehood, like evolution, presented to them. However, once a person knows the truth, as in this case, "In the beginning God CREATED...", then that person will not embrace the lie of evolution.
---Eloy on 4/4/12

MarkAxe: "Unfortunately, all too many people claim definitive knowledge about things they know little to nothing about."

True, as these blogs attest. Most contributors to these blogs have little knowledge of science, but are sure that it proves the Bible wrong. They also have little knowlege of the Bible, but are sure it agrees with them.

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer only for the lazy agnostic. It is a lie for the atheist since he can't know for sure. But for us Christians, it is different. We can KNOW God.

Job 19:25 For I KNOW that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

---jerry6593 on 4/4/12

uncommon ways...i mean.
---aka on 4/3/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture

jennifer, no offense was taken and you made a good point. it is sometimes hard to follow along here, because there is common ways of quotation mainly because we are limited to 125 words.
---aka on 4/3/12


Exactly. This is why it can be foolish to make dogmatic pronouncements about things we don't know. A dogmatic atheist's declaration "There is no god" is just as much an unsubstantiated personal belief as a dogmatic theist's declaration "There is a God".

At best one can honestly say "I don't see any evidence, so I can't say for sure". For example, an abundance of mice may statistically suggest the absence of a cat, but can't categorically prove it. The cat may just be busy elsewhere.
---StrongAxe on 4/3/12


Also try to imagine the perceptions of a bat as it moves through its world. It cannot see, but it can hear in ways that are completely foreign to us.

What other events and phenomena are we unaware of because we lack not only the ability to perceive those things but also process as richly as our brain does with the light that we see?
---atheist on 4/3/12

Aka: My sincere apologies. Yes, my comment should have been made to Shira, not to you!

I just worry that views in disagreements are sometimes much stronger than they should be, more on personal doctrinal views than on real Biblical matters.

But you are right, it was not actually YOUR comment. Sorry again!
---Jennifer on 4/3/12

Send a Free Winter Ecard


"I don't know" is an honest answer. In fact, due to our limited intellect and limited experience, it is the best answer to MOST questions. Unfortunately, all too many people claim definitive knowledge about things they know little to nothing about.

Look at the blind man Jesus healed. The Pharisees grilled him on theology, asking him who Jesus was, that he could heal people. The blind man answered, "I don't know - all I know is, I was blind, and now I see!". He answered humbly and truthfully. He left the burden of drawing conclusions to them.
---StrongAxe on 4/3/12

A theist: "I do not know, is an answer. A good one for most things."

Spoken like a true agnostic!

---jerry6593 on 4/3/12

jennifer, that was my quote of shira's response to atheist.
---aka on 4/1/12

Aka: 'Actually it has made me stronger in the Lord.' (in your reply to Atheist).

That may well be true, but I often see in this blog an alternative reason, which is not Godly. There are times when a disagreement makes a blogger stronger in his/her view, even if the view he/she is disputing (from the other person) is more in keeping with the Bible.

This is something we must ALWAYS be checking ourselves for, because it is all too common

Let us all be checking ourselves for, for our Church members will rarely disagree with us about things that are shared in one church but not in all.
---Jennifer on 4/1/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


To end cognitive dissonance through skepticism.

I do not know, is an answer. A good one for most things.
---atheist on 3/31/12

Jerry, first, God is outside of time, there is no time with God. What He designed from the foundation of the world is complete before Him in one perfect plan. What we see happening is what the writers are unfolding through our time. Not God's. Second, (2 Peter 3:9) the writer of Scripture is speaking and he is speaking concerning believers, the "us" or "we" or the "any" all of this concerns the Elect. The writer, not God, is writing that the Lord is not slack concerning His promise, (the promises are only for the elect, the saved or the ones that will be saved) as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward "us" and not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance"
---Mark_V. on 3/31/12

A theist: "then why?"

Good question! Why do you exist? Random chance? A freak accident of nature?

Why are you on this website? To cause trouble? To promote disharmony?

---jerry6593 on 3/31/12

Thank you AKA.

Shira, if I was made by god and he sent me to this blog, then why?
---atheist on 3/30/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer

MarkA (aka Axey): "It is pure conjecture to assume that creation must NECESSARILY be fast while salvation must NECESSARILY be now [slow?]."

The reverse is pure conjecture. God wrote with His own finger that He took six days to do all the creation and then rested the seventh day. The Bible also says:

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

You act as if your opinions are the only standard of truth and the Bible means nothing.

---jerry6593 on 3/30/12

Well, athiest, I am not discouraged by your rants. Actually it has made me stronger in the Lord. The bible says God created everything and He did create everything...even you athiest ---shira4368 on 3/29/12

then just why does he have to leave?

atheist, if you want the working definition of a rant, just read shira4368 on 3/29/12.
---aka on 3/29/12


How very on-"Christian" of you...What would Jesus do?

How do you define a rant? And can you give me example?

Sorry, but this website is part of the universe, and I am not planning on leaving.
---atheist on 3/29/12


My point was that God seems to take his good time with many things. We don't know why, but he doesn't seem to particularly care whether or not we know why. It's his business, and not ours.

It is pure conjecture to assume that creation must NECESSARILY be fast while salvation must NECESSARILY be now.

In fact, one could argue the reverse - since there was nobody else around, God had no reason to rush creation.
---StrongAxe on 3/29/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


No I just think we all have problems. I have arthritis, others are senile and you, you are probably afflicted with creationitis. Not related to cretinism, although both conditions begin with"cre".

Got to feed my fly eating barking catdog/rabbitfrog "Hop-A-Long".
---atheist on 3/29/12

jerry asks the same question every two week about evolution, keeping the pot stirred up and generating more heat and smoke than light, but atheist should leave the site.

Do I understand you right, shira?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/29/12

athiest needs to leave this site. You are a trouble maker and your goal is to discourage christians. Well, athiest, I am not discouraged by your rants. Actually it has made me stronger in the Lord. The bible says God created everything and He did create everything...even you athiest
---shira4368 on 3/29/12

A theist: "Your arguments make no sense, you are clearly confused and possibly senile."

So, you imagine that I have a dog in a show that is actually a cat, and I'm the one who is senile?

---jerry6593 on 3/29/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing

MarkAxe: "Also, everyone is human, and makes mistakes"

You're absolutely correct. We all make trivial mistakes, and I apologize to the atheist for pointing his out. I usually reserve that for sentences in which the author brags about his intellegence.

As for your comparison of the slowness of the plan of salvation to the Creation Week, I find it shallow at best. Both events are motivated by God's love toward us. The former, by His haste to make and rest with His crowning created beings, and the latter, by His unwillingness that any should perish. To deny the difference in these rates is to deny His love for us.

---jerry6593 on 3/29/12

Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 2000, ''We should... not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!''

In 1997 embryologist Michael K. Richardson wrote in the journal Anatomy and Embyology ''Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckels famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.''
---Marc on 3/28/12

Textbook list part 2

VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003)

VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999)

VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)

IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)

X. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998)
---Marc on 3/28/12


1) You claimed ORP was in textbooks being used today. I just asked you to prove this, by naming at least one.

2) You nitpicked atheist's spelling. Minor spelling and grammar errors are usually not issues, unless someone deliberately goes out of his way to make them one (for example, by claiming his incorrect grammar is, in fact correct, because it is divinely inspired, as at least one person on these blogs does)

3) Was there anything else I said that seemed unclear? If so, please point out which, so I can know what to clarify.
---StrongAxe on 3/28/12

Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


Yes your dog won first prize in the dog show. But despite all those fancy judges, I still claim that your dog is really a disguised cat, and my pet, which the judges claimed to be a frog should have won. Both dog and frog end in "og" and that should be enough proof for anyone. And they are of the same kind, house pets that have young, that children's parents have to get rid of.

Your arguments make no sense, you are clearly confused and possibly senile.

---atheist on 3/28/12

A theist and Axey: I think you guys are beginning to implode. Your posts make no sense at all, and seem to lack any purpose. Can you be clarify your arguments a bit?

---jerry6593 on 3/28/12


If "ORP is still in U.S. textbooks", it should be easy to specifically name at least one that teaches it, shouldn't it?

Also, everyone is human, and makes mistakes - including spelling errors, grammar errors, and trivial errors in fact. These should not normally be major points of discussion, unless the mistakes are crucial to the discussion, or the ones making the mistakes make them an issue (e.g. by claiming they are correct anyway).
---StrongAxe on 3/27/12

"Ontogeny and Phylogeny explores the relationship between embryonic development (ontogeny) and biological evolution (phylogeny). The book also discusses the role recapitulation----the discredited idea that embryonic developmental stages replay the evolutionary transitions of adult forms of an organism's past descendantshad on biology, theology, and psychology. The second half of the book details how modern concepts such as heterochrony (changes in developmental timing) and neoteny (the retardation of developmental expression or growth rates) have in influencing macroevolution (major evolutionary transitions)."

Founded and red the wurd "had", Jerry. Me speling stil beta than ur tinkng.
---atheist on 3/27/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements

A theist: "Are you even able, to separated [sic] out your emotions"

Tell me, big A, does that grammar make sense to you? You need to go back to school. It was YOU who defended Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny (ORP) via Gould. It is also YOU whose sense of right and wrong is based on his emotions - not mine.

MarkAxe: Tell that to the atheist - your fellow evolutionist. And yes, ORP still is in US textbooks.

---jerry6593 on 3/27/12


The whole "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" theory is widely known to be discredited. Do you know of any seriously credible evolutionary textbooks in use today that still claim that?
---StrongAxe on 3/26/12

"....your ontogeny myth was also invented long before you were born. It is based on the fraudulent embryo drawings of Ernst Haeckel, and although peer review showed them to be fake, they still are printed in textbooks today as "evidence" of Evolution."


Are you even able, to separated out your emotions to see the false implications in the above statement....?
---atheist on 3/26/12

Atheist: "questions ...Dishonest at the core"????

There you go again, judging others based on your emotions. Can you give an example of a single dishonest question I've asked? I didn't know that questions could even be dishonest - just statements can.

---jerry6593 on 3/26/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services

And Baptists,.Methodist, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, and SDA are all the same, too: Westerners infected with the heresy of filioquism, jerry.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/25/12

But yet, Eastern Fathers also believe in the filioque:

St. Athanasius
St. Epiphanius
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Maximus the Confessor
Gregory of Nyssa
John of Damascus
Fifth Holy Ecumenical Council

[I]t is extremely important to note that the West professed the Filioque, through its Fathers and its councils, at a time when it was in communion with the East and the East was in communion with the West.

(Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (Eng. trans. 1983), vol. 3, p. 50)
---Ruben on 3/26/12


What does filioquism have to do with evolution? And why is filoquism so horrendously wrong anyway? That's something I was never able to understand. All the arguments about it seemed to be about as esoteric as counting how many camels could jump though the eye of a needle.


You said: ... you HAVE to believe that really truly intelligent beings, as a matter of choice, decide to do things realy, really slowly...

God created the earth knowing in advance that man would fall. Yet it took him thousands of years to send a savior, and thousands more (and counting) after that before evil is eliminated. If God could take his sweet time in this, why not in other things?
---StrongAxe on 3/26/12


Why should I even attempt to answer questions that involve dodging, obfuscation, circumlocution and are dishonest at the core?
---atheist on 3/26/12

Well said, Marc! It seems that Cluny and the atheist are on the same page, and rather than engaging in open and honest debate, prefer the old standbys of question dodging, obfuscation and circumlocution.

---jerry6593 on 3/26/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores

\\Oh, but they ARE all the same in that they ALL posit creation by natural, rather than supernatural means!\\

And Baptists,.Methodist, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, and SDA are all the same, too: Westerners infected with the heresy of filioquism, jerry.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/25/12

Now, Cluny, which stands up to reason: a quick creation without any evolution or theistic evolution?---Marc
A quick poorly thought out creation, by a powerful, but now lazy and indifferent god. Yep that would explain all the disease, pain and suffering in the world today.

So Jerry, Piltdown was not proved to be a hoax until 50 years ago,---so what?
So Ernst Haeckel, dead almost a century, fudged his drawings and was discredited,---so what? Science trashed a bad theory. It works...
So, text book producers are lazy and focus on profit,--- so what?
I have no sons that I would call little, and none named Stevie. Where do you get this stuff? That is truly the wonder.
---atheist on 3/25/12


If you believe God did it by evolution then you HAVE to believe that really truly intelligent beings, as a matter of choice, decide to do things realy, really slowly and, again, as a matter of choice, do it really really ham-fistedly i.e. make an infinite number of mistakes ON PURPOSE. You must also believe that God purposely as part of his plan, put a creative process in place that brings disease, pain and suffering through mutations because mutations are an integral part of evolutionary processes.

Now, Cluny, which stands up to reason: a quick creation without any evolution or theistic evolution?
---Marc on 3/25/12

Cluny: "They are not all the same."

Oh, but they ARE all the same in that they ALL posit creation by natural, rather than supernatural means!

Glory to the Creator Jesus Christ!

---jerry6593 on 3/24/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training

MarkV: "covenant of obedience" I suppose then that you are under a covenant of disobedience.

It is YOU who make my point! I keep the seventh-day Sabbath and believe in a six-day Creation because that's what the Bible teaches. You believe in man-made counterfeits for both.

---jerry6593 on 3/24/12

A theist: "this was before you were born I hope."

Sorry, but this peer reviewed fetid lump (Piltdown Man) wasn't disproved until 1953. I was alive at that time. But for 41 years it was regarded as "true science".

BTW, your ontogeny myth was also invented long before you were born. It is based on the fraudulent embryo drawings of Ernst Haeckel, and although peer review showed them to be fake, they still are printed in textbooks today as "evidence" of Evolution.

As for your boy Little Stevie Gould, his claim to fame was his renaming of Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters" as "punctuated equilibrium" - or the "poof, there it is" conjecture.

---jerry6593 on 3/24/12

What kind of evolution is being discussed here? There are several different versions:



Punctuated equilibrium

among others.

They are not all the same.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/23/12

Piltdown man?

How far are you going to reach back,---this was before you were born I hope.

"Stephen Jay Gould's hope was to show that the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny is fundamental to evolution, and at its heart is a simple premise that variations in the timing and rate of development provide the raw material upon which natural selection can operate."

Again, a misinterpretation of an idea to suit your goal.
---atheist on 3/23/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Software

Jerry, you made my point. For the same reason you believe Saturday Sabbath is for today, they embrace evolution, because they also think they are right, just like you.

And of course both of you are wrong. The Saturday Sabbath was for Israel under a covenant of obedience. We are under the New Covenant, The Rest has arrived, for we are in Christ, we don't worship Christ on a perticular day, we worship Him everyday.
---Mark_V. on 3/23/12

A theist: "How is a peer review methodolgy the equivalent of a "fetid lump of silly conjecture?"

Can you name a single thing about Darwin's hypothesis that isn't unprovable conjecture? When I studied Historical Geology at University, three "proofs" of Evolution were given: (1) Comparative Anatomy, (2) Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, and (3) Vestigial Structures. Since that time, all three have been repudiated as proofs of Evolution.

By the way, wasn't Piltdown Man peer reviewed?

How many violations of peer reviewed, accepted scientific principles are required to render a theory invalid???

---jerry6593 on 3/23/12

How is a peer review methodolgy the equivalent of a "fetid lump of silly conjecture?"

To say that it is, is nothing more than a steaming hot pile of male bovine fecal boli.

Let the schoolyard stupidities begin...?
---atheist on 3/22/12

"Jerry, Surely there are other topics,this merry-go-round is making me dizzy!"
---1st_cliff on 3/21/12

Dizzy? I think I've tossed my cookies! :/
---Leon on 3/22/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising

It would seem the evolution is a topic here so often because people enjoy arguing about it. They find it simply fun.
---Pat.pat on 3/22/12

For those who don't want this subject continued, here's why I do it - the 75-post limit! It leaves questions like this one from Atheist unanswered:

"The theory of evolution is accepted as fact by most civilized and educated people throughout the world. To not accept it, is evidence to many of an irrational person who puts mythology before science."

The scientific facts are on the side of Creation, not Evolution. I can understand the atheist's adherance to this fetid lump of silly conjecture - it's all he has. What I can't understand is a Christian's enthusiastic concurrance that God would use this contradictory method as a part of His Creation.

---jerry6593 on 3/22/12

MarkV: "Why do you believe in Saturday Sabbath when the new believer rest [sic] in Christ?"

That is not the subject of this blog, but since you seem obsessed with it, I'll answer it, even though it's a stupid question. I believe in the Seventh-day Sabbath because Jesus (whom you claim to follow) commanded me to when He wrote the Ten Commandments, and that's the only Commandment He ordered us to "remember". He also gave us the example to keep it by His life on earth, and He never mentioned a change in the day of holiness. He gave us baptism - not Sunday - as a memorial of the resurrection.

---jerry6593 on 3/22/12

Jerry, Surely there are other topics,this merry-go-round is making me dizzy!
---1st_cliff on 3/21/12

Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders

I am not aware that there are 'so many do it' i.e. believe in evolution. Most Christians I know hold the Bible to be without error and a sufficient guide for our faith.

However when it come to the scientific world, every model that involves evolution has its critics even among the scientific community. But these models serve the purpose upon which to do further scientific investigations.

Science should not be viewed as a religion.
---lee1538 on 3/21/12

Jerry, I really don't know why you would ask such question. Here is what you said,

"Is there any reason why a Christian should embrace Evolution in order to help explain Creation?"

Now ask youself the same question only on another subject. Why do you believe in Saturday Sabbath when the new believer rest in Christ? Answer: Because you believe you have the truth. But you don't.
The evolutionist also believe they have the truth. But they don't. So why do you believe in something that was given to Israel and not to those in Christ? And you will have your answer. Last part of your question: If not, why do so many do it?
---Mark_V. on 3/21/12

Is there any reason why a Christian should embrace Evolution in order to help explain Creation? If not, why do so many do it?
---jerry6593 on 3/21/12

The one word that bothers me here is the word " EMBRACE."

I think a christians shold understand the evolution theory not embrace it.

1 Corinthians 9:22 I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

The christian who can speak the evolutionary language, and " embrace" the evolutionary theory, can save some
---francis on 3/21/12

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.