Creation or Evolution

[beeliner]

1. It’s ever so evident, that there is creation plus evolution…
2. …with one very overwhelming exeption: Human beings, mankind – the Adam – neither [evolved] nor developed from other (apelike) forms, but was created by God in Gods own image – as the humans we are today and had been in the first place.
3. Isn’t this evident and proven in the fact, that if that wouldn’t be so, many animals would have emerged into some creature like humans in their way of acting and thinking. They’d look very much different, but still would be like we in everything. But they are not.
4. Remember how complicated a whales brain is? They had been millions of years on this earth before us, but in spite of such a long time of evolution, they never spend an idea of who they are, nor what they could do to change things to the better.
   No, it’s not a matter of complexity or volume of brain, but merely of our relationship to our roots, to our creator, to God.
5. OK, this sounds at first sight rather homespun, but don’t you think it’s all the same very logical (even if we naturally don’t like he idea).
6. Yes, we are singular. But – is there any other explanation for this fact, than Gods creation of human being? There is non in sight that would own even a tiny bit of logic.

1. I agree, but that is ‘evident’ to me because of my religious faith. I see no scientific proof of that.
2. Disagree. That all primates evolved from earlier forms is beyond serious dispute. Also, humans continue to evolve. When I was a kid, a lot of physical achievements that have now been accomplished were considered impossible.

Man’s INTELLECT, which does indeed separate him from the lower forms, is a different thing entirely, yet even here there is room for doubt, even among believers. God’s intellect is perfect, man has been doing, and no doubt will continue to do, outrageously stupid things for more than a million years.

1. Don’t see it. I think you’re on the wrong track here.
2. One cannot remember what one never knew, but I will take your word for whale brain complexity, and who knows what whaledom will be like in millions of years?

5 & 6. Homespun yes, logical no. The logic is entirely on the side of science. Everything works according to universal principles. Were those principles set down by a supreme intelligence? I have no problem with that.

Your post is thought-provoking and sincere, but I will ask you the same question I asked the poster whose claims were much less so: Can you name any biologists or anthropologists, without overriding religious agendae, who agree with you that humans and other primates do not share common ancestry? If not, why should one believe that they are all wrong and you are right?

 

[anthony022071]

You are incorrect, there is evidence for macroevolution.

 

[anthony022071]

Straight out of the ‘Creationism’ textbook, and every word complete nonsense.

 

[Brian_Millar]

I like the concept along realizing the singular nature of man’s intellect. If evolution has proven having a higher intellect proves benificial for survival, wouldn’t there be more species that evolved with a similar one. Afterall, if you are thinking natural selection, of which evolution is strongly supporting that traits that are benificial for survival always will dominate the scene, why is there only one instance of man? How on earth did it just happen that only we have this huge advantage over the rest of the animal kingdom? Why is it that our species managed to evolve so far ahead of the rest?

In nature there tends to be balanced features and trends in the ecosystem, for without it, it turns into chaos and in the end, to the detrement of the entire ecosystem. Yet man is not held accountable to these rules, we clearly are not in harmony with it by any means, this is due entirely to our huge advantages simply by having the intellect we have. Take note when a foriegn species is introduced into a new ecosystem, how much of the time it devastates them, take note when we have hunted the predators into extinction that another rarely fills that gap. Wouldn’t you think nature would naturally fill that void?

I then take into account really strange occurences observed in nature, one example being; A parasite was found to infect a certain species of ant. The ant’s abdomen swells and turns red, looking very similar to a berry, the ant is then eaten by a specific species of bird and it too becomes infected with it. How does this parasite know to evolve in this manner? It has to know the interaction of two seperate species in order to survive, that’s alot to ask about a simple parasite, yet it managed to exist within this utterly logical state of being.

I then look to Mount Saint Helens, after it erupted, it devestated everything around it, completely wiping out all life. Our bioligists told us it would take hundreds, if not thousands of years for it to be restored to it’s former state, take a look at the area now, it’s far ahead of that time line.

I then also look to the size of people during the middle ages compared to today, clearly their stature was much smaller then it is today. Visit some of those old castles and cities, you’ll see what I mean, according to evolution, changes do not take place that quickly, or are not supposed to, yet we can clearly see it in our own history.

Now, if a divine creator knew well ahead of time to program our dna to change based upon conditions, this would mean that there is something more to what we observe, that it’s not all random, that it was already forseen from the beginning and pre-planned into existance. Only something that knew about how those outside species interact could program that parasite to know how to exist for example.

Again, we still are not looking at the entire picture, we’d rather debate over the matter and not do any all inclusive research, we’d rather just focus upon what we can speculate through observation and not even take a look at the possibility that there is a new science which is not even being remotely explored.

So, we fill in that gap with the 2% of dna the chimp is lacking, we come out with a human like form, what if we took it further, adding yet another 2%, do we come up with a superior being intellect wise, superior to even man himself? Is this what we are afraid of, is this the very reason we are remaining stagnated in our thinking, out of fear that we have made ourselves obsolete? This can also be taken even farther forward, for there eventually likely will be a time when man himself is fooling around with his own DNA to create a mroe advanced form of human being, one that is smarter, stronger, more disease resistant, one that has an even stronger ability to dominate the planet then we currently do. I shudder to think this could be the case, but with the path we are going, they will at least attempt it, it’s only a matter of time.

 

[rossum]

It’s ever so evident, that there is creation plus evolution – with one very overwhelming exeption: Human beings, mankind – the Adam – neither evoluted nor developed from other (apelike) forms, but was created by God in Gods own image – as the humans we are today and had been in the first place.

There is overwhelming evidence that our physical bodies have evolved from ape-like ancestors. We are tailless, like apes; we have an ape-like structure to our teeth; we have an ape-like shoulder joint; we have the same fault in our GULO (Vitamin-C) gene that the other apes have. Physically we are apes.

As to being in the image of God, I do not think that this “image” is physical. Are women made in the image of God? Does God have a uterus? Surely our resemblance to God is not in our physical bodies. Evolution only deals with our physical bodies - evolution says nothing of souls. There are no fossil souls and a soul cannot be found in our DNA.

Isn’t this evident and proven in the fact, that if that wouldn’t be so, many animals would have emerged into some creature like humans in their way of acting and thinking. They’d look very much different, but still would be like we in everything. But they are not.

No, there are many ecological slots, and there is only one slot for large-brained upright-walking apees. Not all slots require a large brain or intelligence.

Remember how complicated a whales brain is? They had been millions of years on this earth before us, but in spite of such a long time of evolution, they never spend an idea of who they are, nor what they could do to change things to the better.

IIRC Dolphins have passed the “mirror test”, they can recognise themselves in a mirror. Chimpanzees and elephants can also do this.

No, it’s not a matter of complexity or volume of brain, but merely of our relationship to our roots, to our creator, to God.

And God did not create whales? Do whales have their own separate creator, different from our creator?

rossum

 

[beeliner]

Since biology is founded upon false assumptions, many of the things that biologists say about the history of life on earth are illegitimate.

Ah, well, now we are - finally - down to the nitty-what-you-call-yo-gritty. Why didn’t you sat that in the first place?

Now all you have to do is publish your own claims and findings, along with, of course, the documented research that led you to arrive at them, and let the world of knowledge take its choice - you or the science that you claim is ‘founded on false assumptions’.

Just for the record and the sake of discussion, what exactly are your credentials as a biologist, and if you have none, what are your qualifications for claiming that their science is false? Please be specific.

As I said, anybody can ‘claim’ anything. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[reggieM]

Just for the record and the sake of discussion, what exactly are your credentials …

I’m sure you will accept that people with “credentials” can be quite wrong. History supports this, as does the continual “revising” of the theory of evolution.

Additionally, I think the demand for authoritatve commentary is evidence that evolutionary theory is more a philosophical viewpoint (an interpretation) than empirical science.

I think you’re too-easily sweeping away the controversy surrounding evolution.

 

[beeliner]

1. I’m sure you will accept that people with “credentials” can be quite wrong.
2. History supports this, as does the continual “revising” of the theory of evolution.
3. Additionally, I think the demand for authoritatve commentary is evidence that evolutionary theory is more a philosophical viewpoint (an interpretation) than empirical science.
4. I think you’re too-easily sweeping away the controversy surrounding evolution.

1. Individuals with ‘credentials’ are sometimes wrong - Edison thought that alternating current wasn’t feasible - entire sciences rarely are, especially today. Know any alchemists, other than crackpots? How about flat-earthers?
2. See 1. Human ‘history’ extends back over a million years, modern science only a few hundred. Revision is an integral part of science as it advances. Ignorance, stupidity and superstition remain the same always, or in some cases are even regressive.

There is a clear choice here. Science must be provable and disprovable. Crackpots make wild claims which are neither, and refuse to support them, raving instead that we should believe them simply because…well, for no reason at all. Which is the more valid approach to knowledge?

Once again, let’s be clear here. The evolution of species by natural selection and other means is the central FACT of modern biology. THEORIES explain FACTS. Without an underlying FACT, THEORY is a misnomer.

There are various THEORIES of exactly how certain aspects of evolution operate, but the FACT remains, if the Biology textbook has, say, fifty chapters, evolution is there in one form or another in every chapter.

Those who claim that the science of Biology is fundamentally flawed should be challenged to provide their own version, their own Biology textbook. The ‘Creationists’ have done this, and the results are so ridiculous that they require their own ad hoc publishing houses, as no reputable publisher will touch their drivel. It is not science and it is not even religion, it is mainly politics, separating ‘us’ from ‘them’.

1. Why not apply the same standards to, say, mathematics? Is the claim that 2 plus 2 equals four philosophical or empirical? How about history? Did the Roman empire fall or is it still in operation?
2. There isn’t anything to sweep away. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, the evidence against it nil. That is not controversy, that is knowledge versus ignorance, science versus crackpottery.

There is much in modern science, especially in areas such as quantum physcis, that is currently controversial and has been for a century or so. Some of those controversies might be said to have a philosopical aspect, but in any case, such controversies will eventually be resolved, and other controversies will follow. That is the essence of science.

Theology is entirely philosophical. I have no objection whatever to the teaching of both of the contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis, or for that matter any other theological account of creation, as religion.

Teaching such accounts as science, and especially demanding that they be taught as science in public schools, is really quite shameful and quite outrageous.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

point 1 to 6

1. You say: I agree, but that is ‘evident’ to me because of my religious faith. I see no scientific proof of that.

Believe in God neither does nor ever would or could be scientifically proofed. It’s like the love you not simply have, but also owe to your wife, your parents, your child. You believe in this love, and it never could be proved scientifically. Now; the huge difference in our believe in God, our love in God, is that proof, (if a proof would exist), would make the world useless, unneeded for our probation for living with God in His kingdom. Precondition for this is, according to Jesus word, our believe in God. If Gods existence and creation of the all there is would be detectable to science, everybody would believe at once and love God as our creator, consequently we’d be like the angels. What would be need an earth for probation for!?

1. Yes, all primates evolved from earlier forms. We tough, neither are primates, nor originate from them. Even (religious) scientists are bound to agree, that God doesn’t have to create models or prototypes to finally see what’s good (“would sell” ;-). I disagree, that humans continue to evolve. Neither in outlook nor in brain. If we read the fine language of the originate texts of the Gospel written in the first century, it’s intellect and spirit strikes us down. Physical achievements accomplished lately and considered impossible in those days, don’t make any difference to that fact, nor would do so scientific achievements. We are, as we where in the first place.

Yes, man’s INTELLECT, which does indeed separate him from not only “the lower forms of creature”, but separate from he entire Creation, is a different thing entirely, because the created human being altogether is “an entirely different thing”. Man has only been doing outrageously stupid things, when he didn’t believe in God and therefore did not love his neighbour. And NO; not for more than a million years, but for say 15,ooo years or less. Science said, we have language since 12,ooo years. That’s when man was man (human being – Adam). But its of no importance really when exactly that was. God created Adam, He also gave Adam (the humans God created) language. Not before now, there was language instead of signals, together with Adam who by no means originates in the ape. In the beginning was the word, and word was with God and God was the word.

3.+4. No scientist has an answer to the fact, why not a single animal too emerged to try to get to the bottom of things and change them, though they existed millions of years before Adam.
“whaledom” will be in millions of years just as is was many millions of years before.

5 & 6. Homespun yes, logical no.
Precisely! But what lse but risible is our “logic” compared to Gods omnipotence?!
Of course logic is entirely on the side of science. Yes, everything works according to universal principles. But who created those principles at a time where there was NOTHING, not even an empty Universe? God did, so w got along with and risks, could calculate them.

The question, if any biologists or anthropologists, without overriding religious agendae, would agree that humans and other primates do not share common ancestry, must be answered clearly YES. Take Hawkins, or the US brain-scientist John Carew Eccles, or the German physician Max Planck, both of them said, that with all our science and all our knowledge we keep ending in an impasse, where we must look for another leader who guides us further than human intelligence ever could. Our trust in God. Without this trust in God, we are nothing and will never understand.

And last but not least: It’s not a question why anybody should believe that they are all wrong and I’m right? But a question, why science should be right and Jesus be wrong.

Thank’s for listening (reading the long posting)
yours
Bruno-Maria Schulz
Bruno-Maria-Schulz at Krippenfiguren.com

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

Sorry friends and neighbours
upstairs I dropped several mistakes like this one

But what lse but risible is our “logic” compared to Gods omnipotence?!

I had send it off without proper reading before, because our guests for dinner arrived.
I hope to do better next time.
The sentence should be
“what else but risible is our “logic” compared to Gods omnipotence”
and further up it ought to be we instead of be:
“What would WE need an earth for probation for!?”

 

[beeliner]

1. You say: I agree, but that is ‘evident’ to me because of my religious faith. I see no scientific proof of that.

Believe in God neither does nor ever would or could be scientifically proofed. It’s like the love you not simply have, but also owe to your wife, your parents, your child. You believe in this love, and it never could be proved scientifically. Now; the huge difference in our believe in God, our love in God, is that proof, (if a proof would exist), would make the world useless, unneeded for our probation for living with God in His kingdom. Precondition for this is, according to Jesus word, our believe in God. If Gods existence and creation of the all there is would be detectable to science, everybody would believe at once and love God as our creator, consequently we’d be like the angels. What would be need an earth for probation for!?

1. Yes, all primates evolved from earlier forms. We tough, neither are primates, nor originate from them. Even (religious) scientists are bound to agree, that God doesn’t have to create models or prototypes to finally see what’s good (“would sell” ;-). I disagree, that humans continue to evolve. Neither in outlook nor in brain. If we read the fine language of the originate texts of the Gospel written in the first century, it’s intellect and spirit strikes us down. Physical achievements accomplished lately and considered impossible in those days, don’t make any difference to that fact, nor would do so scientific achievements. We are, as we where in the first place.

Yes, man’s INTELLECT, which does indeed separate him from not only “the lower forms of creature”, but separate from he entire Creation, is a different thing entirely, because the created human being altogether is “an entirely different thing”. Man has only been doing outrageously stupid things, when he didn’t believe in God and therefore did not love his neighbour. And NO; not for more than a million years, but for say 15,ooo years or less. Science said, we have language since 12,ooo years. That’s when man was man (human being – Adam). But its of no importance really when exactly that was. God created Adam, He also gave Adam (the humans God created) language. Not before now, there was language instead of signals, together with Adam who by no means originates in the ape. In the beginning was the word, and word was with God and God was the word.

3.+4. No scientist has an answer to the fact, why not a single animal too emerged to try to get to the bottom of things and change them, though they existed millions of years before Adam.
“whaledom” will be in millions of years just as is was many millions of years before.

5 & 6. Homespun yes, logical no.
Precisely! But what lse but risible is our “logic” compared to Gods omnipotence?!
Of course logic is entirely on the side of science. Yes, everything works according to universal principles. But who created those principles at a time where there was NOTHING, not even an empty Universe? God did, so w got along with and risks, could calculate them.

The question, if any biologists or anthropologists, without overriding religious agendae, would agree that humans and other primates do not share common ancestry, must be answered clearly YES. Take Hawkins, or the US brain-scientist John Carew Eccles, or the German physician Max Planck, both of them said, that with all our science and all our knowledge we keep ending in an impasse, where we must look for another leader who guides us further than human intelligence ever could. Our trust in God. Without this trust in God, we are nothing and will never understand.

And last but not least: It’s not a question why anybody should believe that they are all wrong and I’m right? But a question, why science should be right and Jesus be wrong.

Thank’s for listening (reading the long posting)
yours
Bruno-Maria Schulz
Bruno-Maria-Schulz at Krippenfiguren.com

Well, Bruno, I have no serious argument with you because you are talking about religion and clearly labeling it as such.

But I certainly have a few quibbles:

A. Humans are primates. If you don’t wish to consider them as such for religious reasons, that is certainly your prerogative. They are primates just the same.

B. Human history goes back at least one million years, with pre-human history going back several million further. Humans and other primates had a common ancestor. Denying that on religious grounds makes it no less factual. It has nothing to do with one’s belief in God.

C. I will research the writings of Hawkins (which one?), Eccles, and Planck on this subject; there is no question, however, that many scientists are devoutly religious. That in no way compromises their scientific work. If it did, they would not be true scientists.

I don’t consider myself a scientist, but I see God’s hand more clearly in one page of Darwin (who was also religious, though perhaps less so later in life) than in all the volumes of nonsense that the so-called "Creationists’ have produced.

 

[reggieM]

1. Why not apply the same standards to, say, mathematics? Is the claim that 2 plus 2 equals four philosophical or empirical? How about history? Did the Roman empire fall or is it still in operation?

Regarding 2+2, I notice that you don’t preface your remark by pointing out that you don’t have “credentials” as a mathematician. Perhaps you believe the question can only be answered by a credentialed authority in mathematics, but if not – this illustrates the point I was making. For evolutionary claims, you ask for authorities and you survey scientists to find a consensus. For this math problem, you present it as being obvious to even a non-math scholar as myself. Clearly, evolutionary theory is not “factual” in the same way that 2+2 is. But beyond that, mathematics are based on a philosohpical structure. It’s a far simpler philosophical concept than the philosphy of evolution is – as evidenced in your question on history.

Very much like evolution, historical interpretations can be right or wrong. Is the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection empirical, philosophical, scientific or theological? Has the Enlightenment era ended or is it still with us? When did post-modernism begin and modernism end? Is modern Chinese economy a Marxist-socialist system or is is capitalistic?

Those are only a very few examples – I’m not a historian but there are many questions of history which are philosophical conjectures.

In fact, much of what is taken for granted in history is artificial constructs. What is the “Middle Ages”? Can it be proven scientifically that there was a Middle Ages and that it started at a certain time and ended at another time?

If you’re saying that evolution can be compared to that example, then it’s difficult to understand how that can be called science at all.

There isn’t anything to sweep away. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, the evidence against it nil. That is not controversy, that is knowledge versus ignorance, science versus crackpottery.

I find that to be quite an extreme pro-Darwinist position, myself. I wouldn’t say it’s unusual – here on CAF there are many who believe the same.

But to say that there is “nil” evidence against evolution is to assert an extremely high degree of certainty. It’s also a very precarious opinion to defend. All one merely has to do is show some evidence against “evolution” (a term itself which has little meaning outside of one’s philosophical view). The Holy See has condemned “several theories of evolution” already. You’re, apparently, claiming that all theories of evolution are absolutely correct and there is no evidence against any of them – including the theories that contradict each other.

 

[beeliner]

1. But to say that there is “nil” evidence against evolution is to assert an extremely high degree of certainty. It’s also a very precarious opinion to defend. All one merely has to do is show some evidence against “evolution” (a term itself which has little meaning outside of one’s philosophical view).
2. The Holy See has condemned “several theories of evolution” already.
3. You’re, apparently, claiming that all theories of evolution are absolutely correct and there is no evidence against any of them – including the theories that contradict each other.

1. That may be ‘all one has to do’, but no one has done it. If such evidence is found, there is no question that the scientific community will assess it. Unfounded and unsupportable claims are not evidence.
2. You are taking that out of context. Firstly, the Holy See has no authority, God-given or otherwise, to rule on matters outside the realm of faith and morals, though, like anyone else, it can certainly state its opinions - on anything at all.

Secondly, the condemnation referred specifically to claims couched in the language of atheism. The principles of modern biology, of which the evolution of species is the cornerstone, make no such assertion.

1. You know that I have made no such claim, and your dishonesty in implying that I have simply denegrates your own position further.

I keep coming back to this: If you are so convinced that your position has merit, submit your assertions to the scientific community for review. If you are unwilling to do so, then give solid reasons, not empty rhetoric, why you are right and science is wrong, and let the reader make his/her choice.

Seems fair to me.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

Thanks for the early answer before breakfast, when it was teatime here (which is beer time to me on our weekend-house in www.Oberkirch.de

Yes, I named it as specific religious talk/thinking/living/convincement. But I assure you, as I do to any of my friends in clubs, friends or customers, that background and basis of our life, thinking and talk or posting in many forums, is religion, and really seldom it occurs, that people say “what a nonsense this religion-biz of yours”.
In fact, religion is the base not just of my or your life, but the lives of anybody, if they believe it or not, as they will see after they died.
Now, before I go on, I have to look up what’s “quibbles” – didn’t find it on my dict, so it might be peculiars?!

A: I refuse to accept this primate supposition, as God didn’t create primates, but the human being after His alikeness. Far off a primate animal or non-animal-creature.

B: There is a race taking place for many generations, far back into the past, trying to descover „the first human bing“. Humanoides (surely I spelled that one wrongly) however, are no humans. Yes, I, and with me Millions, consider humanoides not as human for religious reasons, and I don’t think that’s my „prerogative“ (I can only guess what that is for I’m sure that anyone who thinks in religious dimensions would agree, that a human is a human, when he’s got a soul, given to him by God. As long as humanoids didn’t have a godgiven soul (neither language or abstract thinking), they where not humans. (No matter that there are “humans” who handed their souls over to the devil in lifetime). When science says those are humans, they are simply wrong. Looking like humans isn’t enough.

C. Oh blyme, I never remember which book of the Hawkins, Eccles or Planck – I just red them ages ago. Pope J.P.2 however said when he visted CERN in Geneva 1985, God wrote 2 books of creation; the one of nature and the one of the Holy Bible. If there however we presumably think we find antagonisms, we at the most, would have to change the church’s interpretation of nature.

Remembering this, I’d agree to your conclusion at the end, that God’s hand was rather on pages of Darwin, than some Creationists. We however should beware of the idea, that humans so to speak „accidentally occurred by mutation“. If we’d think so, we deny Gods will to create us. There is no “God” who tinkers something and is surprised then, how great and beautiful it came out. There is the one and only almighty God in His Trinity the Father, the Son and the Holy Spitit.

 

[beeliner]

Thanks for the early answer before breakfast, when it was teatime here (which is beer time to me on our weekend-house in www.Oberkirch.de.

Thank you for the link. That is a beautiful part of Germany, one that I hope to visit in the future. I have lived in Ratingen (NRW) for eight years, am now on a brief sabbatical in my native USA and expect to return to Germany later this year.

 

[anthony022071]

Ah, well, now we are - finally - down to the nitty-what-you-call-yo-gritty. Why didn’t you sat that in the first place?

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

beautiful part of Germany, one that I hope to visit in the future. I have lived in Ratingen (NRW) for eight years, am now on a brief sabbatical in my native USA and expect to return to Germany later this year.

Lets hear when you’re here old chum, and we’ll meet in Oberkirch or Karlsruhe for a convincing little chat about the nonsense of evolution as far as mankind (Adam) is concerned
Obviously we might speak German then - which I speak slightly better than this funny language called “English”: My English is the result of 1 year Birmingham/England 1958, when I was 18, which is nothing to match with 8 years Ratingen. So you must speak wonderfully German - might be better than I do.

 

[beeliner]

This is nonsense:

Natural selection is a false assumption because it implies that nature “selects”,which is a process of thought.

The rest of the post is equally ridiculous.

This is science:

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes.

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes.

The phenotype’s genetic basis, genotype associated with the favorable phenotype, will increase in frequency over the following generations.

Over time, this process may result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.

Anybody see anything about ‘a process of thought’ in nature there?

A detailed treatment of NS, in layman’s language, may be found here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

The choice is clear: scientific fact or anti-intellectual nonsense. The anti-intellectuals are either (1) fully aware that they are lying or (2) incredibly stupid.

 

[edwest2]

“anti-intellectuals”? What a strange word. There is no anti-intellectualism in believing in Jesus Christ? There is no anti-intellectualism in believing the host turns into Christ’s body and the wine into His blood during the mass?

What you call “anti-intellectualism” and what you call “science” is simply atheism.

It is simply atheism that calls upon all Christians to abandon their anti-intellectualism and to replace God with science. That is what this is about. Always has been.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Brian_Millar]

“anti-intellectuals”? What a strange word. There is no anti-intellectualism in believing in Jesus Christ? There is no anti-intellectualism in believing the host turns into Christ’s body and the wine into His blood during the mass?

What you call “anti-intellectualism” and what you call “science” is simply atheism.

It is simply atheism that calls upon all Christians to abandon their anti-intellectualism and to replace God with science. That is what this is about. Always has been.

God bless,
Ed

This is the very reason I asked that athiests not to take part on this thread, for I knew the topic was going to be hot enough without them making it worse, knowing full well they have a personal agenda against those of faith. If you are athiest and choose to participate, at least make it clear that you are one, just so we know who we are dealing with to avoid confusion.