I changed my mind, evolution seems more logical

tomfoolery_79

tomfoolery_79

New Member
JUST KIDDING!! :p

This is a public encouragement to TagTarsis to continue his work on his pro-creation project. Take your research and get a book out to the masses!
 
Yea I have been pressed to work on a project for high school ministry, I am hoping to make it into a full curriculum, for apologetics.

... In fact they never really given us the supposed truths to why they believe it and teach it. They just said it was how it happened.... I was never lead to believe that in true academics there was any room to assume it was not what happened or that there were any proofs for it or against it.

They always seemed much more interested in showing us pictures of primitive man, and dino's not really interested in teaching us why they thought this thing was 100 thousand years old, or why this thing was 4 million years old. It was just said like it was a fact.

I was told stuff like "The Nebraska man was one of the earliest known forms of men, who walked on the hind legs. They were tribal in nature and often were nomadic groups who were constantly moving in search of food sources." Now I was suppose to buy this hook line and sinker off of a picture in a science text book. I have since found out that the popular picture was an artist rendition of what a Nebraska man looked like and he made the picture from a single tooth that was later found to be simply a pigs tooth. For years information like this has flooded our minds. Errors made intentionally to make others believe in evolution and errors made on accident that have in effect been BLUNDERS, that are inked into children’s textbooks and early readers in America. If a Math Textbook had a wrong answer in it the teacher would pen in the correction but they never do this in Science textbooks.

I am concerned about this from a scientific level and a religious one. As a person who is scientifically minded, I am very concerned about these types of teachings. Because they resemble indoctrinations not teaching one to be critical thinkers.
 
“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God” – Letters of Charles Darwin

I was always taught that Darwin was an Atheist.
 
tagtarsis said:
“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God” – Letters of Charles Darwin

I was always taught that Darwin was an Atheist.
Click to expand...

From the wiki it seems like he was originally a Christian but became an agnostic some of which was triggered by his daughter's death.
 
The Mighty Gerbil said:
From the wiki it seems like he was originally a Christian but became an agnostic some of which was triggered by his daughter's death.
Click to expand...

He was at least a nominal Christian. Things happened in his life, and he ended up going on a couple year long nature expedition. That was when he became agnostic.

He still had respect for Christians, however. He postponed the publishing of his book for quite a long time because his Christian wife didn't want it published.
 
Joshinator said:
He was at least a nominal Christian. Things happened in his life, and he ended up going on a couple year long nature expedition. That was when he became agnostic.

He still had respect for Christians, however. He postponed the publishing of his book for quite a long time because his Christian wife didn't want it published.
Click to expand...

He was in the Catholic Seminary, he was as you said Agnostic in the end, and perhaps never a believer, but he was going to school to be a Catholic Priest.

BUT in school in the past I was taught that he was a Atheist not Agnostic.
 
As could be expected, Robert Darwin was not amused with his son's lack of success and decided that, if he had to shoot and play the amateur naturalist, he was suited only for the life of a country parson, a position of privilege in the Church of England for rich sons who proved lackluster in their abilities and hence could not make a living elsewhere. Darwin himself rather liked the idea of having a country parsonage, which asked the minimum of doctrinal rigor and allowed the maximum time and opportunities for a budding naturalist. In early 1828 he arrived at Cambridge, a new undergraduate at Christ's College, the son of a freethinker who had reconciled himself to the necessity of playing according to the current rules of Anglican-dominated society.

At Cambridge, while some passion for theology was aroused, a latent passion for collecting beetles burst into flames, and such collecting immersed Darwin in the stunning varieties of the beetle species. At Cambridge he also studied William Paley's Evidences of Christianity and was quite impressed with Paley's famous arguments that the intricate order of nature necessarily implied a Designer. Yet, in little more than a decade, the stunning varieties of various species, including the beetle, would lead Darwin to reject Paley's arguments for design, for (so he would later reason) certainly God would not have created every slight gradation of beetle variety.

But even though Darwin could not muster much of an interest in theology, he was able to squeak out his B.A. degree in 1831



In fact his remains are still at Westminster Abby.
 
Last edited:
I applaud your effort, I have always had an interest in apologetics, particularly in the more scientific areas rather than historical.

Believe me, I mean no disrespect at all when I ask this... what level of expertise/education/experience do you have in this particular field? The reason I ask is that it is all too easy for good information to be summarily dismissed because of the reputability of its source. There will of course ALWAYS be those that dismiss anything that discusses creationism as an alternative to the theory of evolution despite the authority of the author or the scientific and research rigor that went into producing the material, but we don't want them to have a valid argument!

To create a curriculum that satisfied me would be quite the daunting task :D
New information and new arguments arise frequently enough that I feel the text would need to be able to (pardon the phrase) evolve instead of being a piece of work that is finished up, printed, and left as is.

For example, I love some of the concepts I have read about in Intelligent Design literature about irreducible complexity, and I feel that there is a very compelling argument there. However, some quite intelligent evolutionists have proposed arguments of their own, such as exaptation, to counter irreducible complexity and few of the Christian-based texts I have read mentioned them. I believe that to be seen as being credible, you must acknowledge your current weaknesses and/or counter opponents claims where possible.

I wish you blessings in your pursuit!
 
DannyMeister said:
New information and new arguments arise frequently enough that I feel the text would need to be able to (pardon the phrase) evolve instead of being a piece of work that is finished up, printed, and left as is.
Click to expand...

I don't know as much as Tag on the subject, however I would disagree with this statement. Seems to me that the same old objections come up over and over just with new names attached to it. Once you understand the fundamental base arguments then new critiques usually can be filtered down to stuff that has already been addressed. It's just rehashed.
 
tomfoolery_79 said:
I don't know as much as Tag on the subject, however I would disagree with this statement. Seems to me that the same old objections come up over and over just with new names attached to it. Once you understand the fundamental base arguments then new critiques usually can be filtered down to stuff that has already been addressed. It's just rehashed.
Click to expand...

It's religion vs. science and science is always changing with new information. Sure, a ton of the objections have been stated before, but with new research comes new objections.
 
Odale said:
It's religion vs. science and science is always changing with new information. Sure, a ton of the objections have been stated before, but with new research comes new objections.
Click to expand...

This is a misnomer that science and religion are at odds with one another. I would argue that this is what we have been taught for years but I would also point out allot of scientific finds have also proven evolution to be a house of cards. I would contest that the God who I know made all that we can see and observe and as such he alone is fully aware of all that science can know. We as mortal humans can never fully comprehend all that our God has put in place in the first place.

I could bring up many scientific arguments to counter evolutionary science but they would be scientific arguments none the less, Evolution is not science its a religion in and of itself.

I was not offended by your question of who am I?

I am a person who was directly affected by this lie and as such have spent a large amount of time studying and researching evolution. I fell due to the teachings of my college professor in Anatomy and Physiology.

I am a Nurse, I have had 2 years of Chemistry, 8 hours of A & P, Microbiology, As well as many other scientific classes both in world science and mental health sciences.

I am not a geologist, however my wife was raised by 2 of them. My father in law is a geologist and he and I discuss this all the time.

My wife is a RNA research scientist. She studies RNA in Viruses and I get to pick her brain all the time about this stuff.

Sure my pedigree is not perfect for discussing this and I occasionally find myself when talking to my father in law having to dig really deep.

However I don't think we as Christians should take this position of having to be a X or a Y or a Z in order to give a defense of logic and science. When God taps you on the arm to do something, you just do it. Christians for years have been hated because of what they said not because of who they were. Geologist have been guilty of using circular reasoning for years and they call it science, I as a Nurse can use logic and critical thinking to defend truth, and I can do so with no shame that I am not a geologist.
 
Everyone gets so hung up on pedigree. . .

I'm reminded of a shepherd that became king. Or of a couple fisherman, a tax collector, and an assortment of other fellows who became Disciples. If you are called, you need to go regardless of your background. God will give you what you need.
 
Patriot said:
Everyone gets so hung up on pedigree. . .

I'm reminded of a shepherd that became king. Or of a couple fisherman, a tax collector, and an assortment of other fellows who became Disciples. If you are called, you need to go regardless of your background. God will give you what you need.
Click to expand...

QFT.
 
Patriot said:
Everyone gets so hung up on pedigree. . .

I'm reminded of a shepherd that became king. Or of a couple fisherman, a tax collector, and an assortment of other fellows who became Disciples. If you are called, you need to go regardless of your background. God will give you what you need.
Click to expand...

That touched me very deeply Patriot, thank you, or thank you for that blessing, Im sure it was not you.

I could not help but feel the spirit move when I read this.
 
tagtarsis said:
This is a misnomer that science and religion are at odds with one another. I would argue that this is what we have been taught for years but I would also point out allot of scientific finds have also proven evolution to be a house of cards. I would contest that the God who I know made all that we can see and observe and as such he alone is fully aware of all that science can know. We as mortal humans can never fully comprehend all that our God has put in place in the first place.
Click to expand...

As far as debates go it usually does wind up being religion vs science - that's what I was getting at, despite my own thoughts on how the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
 
Odale said:
As far as debates go it usually does wind up being religion vs science - that's what I was getting at, despite my own thoughts on how the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Just because we have allowed this argument to be framed this way I would agree with you. However I would also ask that we stop giving up this ground and stand firm in defending the truth.

Science is a tool and a seeking of knowledge however it is not evolution and as such I would suggest we dont let the argument be levied without standing our ground for it. Thats my opinion.
 
LOL

Not intending to debate.

I am just standing up for logic in this case, nothing more.

This is a case of being indoctrinated with this slogan that evolution = science and Genesis = religious doctrine only. For too long no one has been willing to take this argument back.

Science is nothing more then a tool, it is the search for knowledge. When someone is honest with him or her self and really uses science for the discovery of truth you find yourself not aligning science with religion or evolution, but rather using science to see if you can find any repeatable outcomes that might shed light on the creation.

Science can not prove "Big Bang" as it cant be observed, and science cant prove 6 day creation as it cant be observed. All that can be proved by science is that some theories might have less validity due to the lack of evidences that are available to defend the hypothesis, and that others might hold more weight due to the evidences that you find there as well.

I know I have not proven or disproved anything in this thread I didn't come here to discuss specifics of arguments as none have even been levied, I am simply pointing out that we do not have to give in and accept that science = evolution.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top