Evolution Evangelism

[wretched]

 

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 8:38 PM, JesusLivesInUs said:

First of all, most people would consider such fundamental theories of Evolution to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts.

Well, you are absolutely correct in this one area. Most of the world is dead in trespasses and sins, heading straight to hell, including the lost religious (Christian science, scientologists, theistic evolutionists, etc.). The attempt to regulate God to their natural understanding equals religion, never Bible Christianity. Bible Christianity is being regenerated by the Spirit of God through true heart belief in the Gospel, turning from their natural understanding to the absolute truths of God's Word. Once this true belief occurs, the person is now born again and their eyes and hears are finally opened to the Truth and they can understand it for the first time.

The key attitude to look for when looking for true regenerating belief is the difference between embracing God's Truth (after belief) or attempting to mix His Truth with men's lies to make them more palatable for the natural man to swallow. This is you my friend.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. I Cor 2:14

To each their own belief is your testimony and this testimony shall result in the lake of fire. Only when we follow God's Way, will we see life eternal in Heaven.

Imagine your little child telling you that you are wrong and they and their other little children are right and will see, understand and do things their own way.  Would you reward their failures to succeed? 

Godly sorrow leads us to repentance.... Have you ever felt true sorrow for your sins (realizing that hell awaits you) and true belief in Christ's Gospel? Until you turn from your own understanding and turn to the True God and His Only Truth clearly described in His Word, you cannot Receive Him as your own Savior.

Believe your own understanding or throw away those thoughts (like all true Bible Christians have done) and believe God at His Word before it is too late for you my friend. I am and I am sure others here are praying for you.

Edited December 3, 2017 by wretched

[No Nicolaitans]

1 hour ago, JesusLivesInUs said:

It started with a complex set of chemicals and a process called Abiogenesis which is the creation of inanimate matter into life.

Abiogenesis? Yes...scientists are trying real hard to prove that life sprang from non-life. Funny thing is, there are scientists (life) who are trying to make everything "just so" in order to "prove" that life can spring from non-life...so there's still life involved. Have you created life from non-life? Have you personally performed the experiments? If so, tell us about your experiments instead of just telling us what you've read about it...but wait...that would be cheating, because as someone who lives, that means that you (life) made non-life make life. When "science" has observed abiogenesis happening naturally without their influence, then that would be worth bringing up. So, until then...well...there will be no "then".

God created man, God created the animals, God created the earth, and God created everything...by speaking them into existence...in days...not millions/billions/trillions/polka-dot-dillions of years. His words did it all. Did you know that God's word is more important to him than even his name? Yes, it is. It says so...in his word. So when you say the name God and hold it in reverence...God holds his word in even higher reverence than his name and you should do the same. :)

[No Nicolaitans]

2 hours ago, JesusLivesInUs said:

Sharing our salvation testimony will not help us gain true understanding of our Lord. The only purpose it would serve is to aid in the defilement and descrimination. In other words, our spiritual journeys are our own and between ourselves and God.

God's word records several times; in which, the apostle Paul shared his salvation testimony with others...and by default, his testimony has been shared with the world.  :)

[No Nicolaitans]

2 hours ago, JesusLivesInUs said:

The only purpose it would serve is to aid in the defilement and descrimination.

God's word disagrees with you...

 

Psalms 66:16 - Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul.

Psalms 71:14-15 - But I will hope continually, and will yet praise thee more and more. My mouth shall shew forth thy righteousness and thy salvation all the day; for I know not the numbers thereof.  

Psalms 119:46 - I will speak of thy testimonies also before kings, and will not be ashamed.

Acts 20:24 - But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Luke 8:39 - Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.

2 Timothy 1:8 - Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;

1 Peter 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

[DaveW]

8 hours ago, JesusLivesInUs said:

Sharing our salvation testimony will not help us gain true understanding of our Lord. The only purpose it would serve is to aid in the defilement and descrimination. In other words, our spiritual journeys are our own and between ourselves and God. We should keep our pride in check and never put ourselves over another person. 

God Bless!

Ephesians 4:13 

'until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.'

 

It took you an awefully long time to "change your mind" from being apparently willing to share to an absolute refusal.

If this is your opinion, why did you not simply state it at the outset?

Can I ask you how we can possibly attain to unity of faith when you refuse to share your faith?

Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

All we know about you is that you don't believe the whole Bible is true - how can we know what you believe from the Bible unless you tell us?

I am concerned for your soul - do you believe the parts of the Bible that talk about salvation by grace, or do you believe they are only figurative?

Do you believe the parts that tell us who Jesus really is are literally true, or are they only figurative?

How do you decide which parts are true and which parts are figurative?

These are important things to know, and I really wish you help us out and share your opinion n such matters.

Edited December 2, 2017 by DaveW

[DaveW]

9 hours ago, JesusLivesInUs said:

Sharing our salvation testimony will not help us gain true understanding of our Lord. The only purpose it would serve is to aid in the defilement and descrimination. In other words, our spiritual journeys are our own and between ourselves and God. We should keep our pride in check and never put ourselves over another person. 

God Bless!

Ephesians 4:13 

'until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.'

 

I'm sorry, I have been thinking about this since I first read it, and I simply have to ask, How is talking about the whole purpose and reason for Jesus Christ coming an "aid to defilement and discrimination"?

It is the reason, the whole reason, for the Lord being made manifest in the flesh! If this is a divisive issue for you, then we really do have some big things to deal with - FAR MORE IMPORTANT than whether or not you trust fallible scientists more than the words of an infallible God in the matter of creation.

As to it being "our own between ourselves and God", I am certainly glad that Jesus Christ did not share your sentiment - otherwise we would never have known the reason for His coming.

I am glad that Paul didn't think it a matter to be kept between "ourselves and God"; and Peter; and Philip; and John.........

A testimony of salvation can be a way to bring someone else to Christ; a way to encourage a brother or sister who is struggling; a reminder to a wayward brother of the path that he should be walking.

You belittle a wonderful and potentially powerful spiritual tool, and you do so, because why? because you don't want us to know any truth about who you are and why are really here?

This is the only reason I can glean from your words.

Tell us, please, how you came to be saved, and who you are now learning from in spiritual matters.(Not the specific name if you would rather not, but what group?)

[Ukulelemike]

On 11/27/2017 at 12:42 PM, JesusLivesInUs said:

Isn't it interesting how ppl are so averse to discussing certain topics such as Evolution without being rude and dismissive of the plain facts.  It's the same ignorance that Nazi sympathizers held on to, stating the Holocaust never occurred or the same prejudice of those in Salem in the 1600's who thought the lady who acted just a bit peculiar, needed to be burned. God gave us the ability through millions of years of existence, to rationalize and understand God's creation. Does the notion of evolution understate the beauty of God's creation? Anyway, I think Bill Nye destroyed Hamm's argument. He has yet to make a valid argument against the facts. 

Concerning the portion that I have bolded, the notion of evolution is abhorrent to the beauty of God's creation. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite of God's creation, in that, according to the word of God, and not just Genesis, man, through sin, brought death into the world, while evolution teaches that death brought man into the world.  Theistic evolution of any kind would represent the work of a retarded, ignorant god who had to try again and again, using mass death over billions of years to bring about the central aspect of His creation: Man. Simple scholarship shows that Genesis was written with the intent to be taken as history, not allegory, and those who don't see it as such, only do so because they have an axe to against it.

BIll Nye, by the way, is an idiot who can't see past his own imagined aptitude enough to see how stupid it is to declare that believing in creation makes you unable to make an effective contribution to modern scientific advancement, all the while ignoring people like Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, or even the modern scientist Raymond Damadian, inventor of the MRI machine and believer in a literal six-day creation.  As for Hamm, I have my own issues about him, but in the area of the creation, he is correct: he just isn't a good debater-I watched their first debate and he ignored a slew of arguments against evolution. I would like to see him debate Kent Hovind on the subject, though while the offer has been made by Hovind, Nye is not interested.   

[HappyChristian]

There is no such thing as "empirical"  evidence of evolution. No evolution has ever been observed. By anyone. And that makes evolution a pseudo-science, one based on assumptions made and guessed at (and proven wrong time and time again). Rather, evolution is a system of faith - because there is no empirical evidence, the person who accepts evolution must accept the words of those who propagate the teachings. And that is faith.

Christianity is also faith. But herein lies the difference: Christianity is faith in the Creator God, based on His Word - and He was there at the time of creation, so He would know. Evolution is faith in fallible men who have been proven to be in error over and over.  Let me see, as I reason this out...to which faith will I subscribe? Which is the more reasonable and logical? Hmmm...it would have to be to accept the words of the One Who was actually there.  God is a God of reason and of logic, of order and of truth. He can be completely trusted in all areas, science included (let's never forget that "scientists" used to teach that the earth was the center of the universe, among other things that have been empirically proven incorrect - like spontaneous generation. Empirical observation has proven that life must come from life. And it all began when God said, "Let there be...").

I think Henry Morris, who was not an IFB, put it very well in this article (apologies in advance for the length), The Splendid Faith of the Evolutionist

"Christian faith is essential for salvation (Ephesians 2:8) but in one sense it is not all that difficult to have this kind of faith. After all, the amazing majesty, beauty and complexity of the universe should make it easy to believe in a great Creator God (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20), and the overwhelming body of objective evidence for the historicity of the person and work of Jesus Christ—including His bodily resurrection from the grave makes it easy enough to believe in His saving power. ¹

But the faith of the evolutionist and humanist is of another order altogether. His is a splendid faith indeed, a faith not dependent on anything so mundane as evidence or logic, but rather a faith strong in its childlike trust, relying wholly on omniscient Chance and omnipotent Matter to produce the complex systems and mighty energies of the universe.

The Harvard zoologist, P.D. Darlington, has penned a remarkable statement of this evolutionary faith, in his book Evolution for Naturalists. Acknowledging that the creative abilities of Matter are entirely enigmatic, he nevertheless bravely believes in them:

The outstanding evolutionary mystery now is how matter has originated and evolved, why it has taken its present form in the universe and on the earth, and why it is capable of forming itself into complex living sets of molecules. This capability is inherent in matter as we know it, in its organization and energy. ²

Is not this a fine statement of faith? Even after looking down many avenues of potential evidence, Professor Darlington, more than 200 pages later, is still able to assert there is no evidence and thus his faith is still pure.

It is a fundamental evolutionary generalization that no external agent imposes life or matter. Matter takes the forms it does because it has the inherent capacity to do so.—This is one of the most remarkable and mysterious facts about our universe: that matter exists that has the capacity to form itself into the most complex patterns of life.³

The evolutionist faces a great temptation here, a serious stumblingblock to his faith. It seems utterly impossible that dead Matter could create Life. At this point, surely, he will have to defer to logic and acknowledge that Life must be produced by a Cause which is itself alive. After all, scientists long ago showed experimentally that life comes only from life.

Ah, not so! His faith is strong enough to surmount even this barrier. By this I do not mean to suggest the existence of a vital force or entelechy or universal intelligence, but just to state an attribute of matter as represented by the atoms and molecules we know.—We do not solve the mystery by using our inadequate brains to invent mystic explanations. ⁴

This faith in the life-generating powers of Matter glows even more brightly in light of the confessed bafflement of those scientists most familiar with the nature of life and its inexplicable naturalistic origin. One of these has said:

We do not understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code.—The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress. ⁵

In fact, the author of this confession, Dr. Orgel, seems at first to have wavered somewhat in his own faith. He and Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the remarkably complex DNA molecule, now known to be a basic component of life and of the genetic code which controls the reproduction of all living systems, have acknowledged that life was too complex to have arisen naturalistically in the few billion years of earth history.

In actuality, however, their faith is still strong, perhaps even stronger than that of other evolutionists. They believe in "directed panspermia," the amazing notion that lifeseeds were planted on earth by an unknown civilization from some other world in outer space! The mere statement of this concept is itself adequate testimony to the grand credulity of the faith of these fine evolutionists, since there exists not one iota of scientific evidence for such ethereal civilizations.

Another evolutionist of bold faith is Richard Dawkins, originator and popularizer of the remarkable concept of "selfish genes", an idea which itself bespeaks an unusual type of faith. Dawkins, who is on the faculty in zoology at England's famed Oxford University, maintains an unshakeable faith in Darwinian evolution, even at the molecular level, in spite of all the modern attacks thereon by fellow evolutionists. He acknowledges, of course, that the logical thing is to believe in God.

The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. ⁶

Even though it is, indeed, quite obvious that every complex and purposeful system which man has ever seen produced throughout history has been the product of an intelligent human designer, Professor Dawkins is willing to believe that life itself, far more complex than any man-made contrivance, was not designed. He dismisses God in these patronizing words:

I am afraid I shall give God rather short shrift. He may have many virtues: no doubt he is invaluable as a pricker of the conscience and a comfort to the dying and bereaved, but as an explanation of organized complexity he simply will not do. It is organized complexity we are trying to explain, so it is footling to invoke in explanation a being sufficiently organized and complex to create it. ⁷

He is right, of course. It requires only a very ordinary sort of faith to explain a given effect by a cause adequate to produce the effect. Much more faith is required, an extra-ordinary faith, to believe that effects are produced by causes that are not able to produce them! To believe that non-living matter can create life, that chaotic disorder can evolve itself into organized complexity, that unthinking atoms can sort themselves into thinking human beings,—here is a worthy faith!

Evolutionary faith is not limited to biologists, of course. It can be appropriated by evolutionary humanists in philosophy, in economics, in politics, in all fields. A first-rate example was Adolph Hitler, whose implicit faith in Darwinism ("the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life", as the sub-title of Darwin's Origin of Species put it) gave him the vision and courage to array his assumed "master race" against the world, believing that its triumph would be for the greater good of all mankind in its ongoing evolutionary progress. Although his armies finally went down to defeat, he still retained his great faith!

Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish.—Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger. ⁸

Note the strong and unselfish evolutionary faith of Adolph Hitler, willing even to sacrifice his entire Teutonic "race" and finally to take his own life, to advance the cause of evolution.

Finally, let us consider the remarkable faith of Isaac Asimov, the most prolific science writer of our generation. Asimov believes that our present universe began with the Big Bang of a primeval cosmic egg, whose initial explosion led to the formation of chemical elements, stars, galaxies and finally people. Now note his fine statement of faith.

The cosmic egg may be structureless (as far as we know), but it apparently represented a very orderly conglomeration of matter. Its explosion represented a vast shift in the direction of disorder, and ever since, the amount of disorder in the Universe has been increasing. ⁹

Now explosions commonly produce disorder and disintegration, so this greatest of all explosions must have produced the ultimate in disorder and disintegration. Evolution requires, however, that the great Bang somehow yield great order and complex structures. Dr. Asimov, therefore, believes that the primeval egg possessed an almost infinitely high degree of order, even though it had no structure.

Herein we encounter Asimov's deep faith. In all normal systems with which scientists work, "structure" and "order" are essentially synonymous, equivalent also to "information," "complexity," "organization," "integration" and other such terms. If it did what evolutionists believe it did, the primeval egg certainly must have possessed a tremendous amount of organizing information and it thus seems nonsensical to say it had no structure. Asimov believes not only in run-of-the-mill impossibilities but in the equivalence of opposites ("no structure" = "high order").

However, Dr. Asimov does feel it necessary to attempt some kind of rationalization, knowing that people of lesser faith might otherwise stumble.

The existence of the cosmic egg is, however, itself something of an anomaly. If the general movement of the universe is from order to disorder, how did the order (which presumable existed in the cosmic egg) originate? Where did it come from?¹⁰

At this point, he makes another leap of faith, proposing that the universe—instead of expanding, as he believes it is doing now—was contracting, with everything somehow in reverse and with its order increasing as it contracted. For this to be possible, of course, gravitational attraction has to be invoked to pull it together. The problem with this belief, however, is that the total mass of the matter in the universe is far too small to allow this ever to happen.

Such a problem as this does not overcome the faith of an Asimov. He can handle it merely by another act of faith.

I have a hunch that the 'missing mass' required to raise the density to the proper figure will yet be found and that the universe will yet be discovered to oscillate.¹¹

Asimov's hunch, therefore, solves it all.

We creationists, admittedly, find it difficult to believe all these things that evolutionists manage to believe. But we have always had a high regard for the principle of faith, even though our own faith is rather weak, based as it is on such strong evidence as almost to compel belief in the God of creation and redemption. We must, therefore, at least express admiration for the remarkable faith of the evolutionist."

http://www.icr.org/article/splendid-faith-evolutionist/

 

[BabeinChrist]

    Evolution is so far-fetched I suspect even the "scientists" that cling to the idea have trouble believing it. 
   

It flies in the face of common sense, and you don't need a PhD to see that.
All anyone needs to do is take a look around at Creation and it becomes evident that the earth has a Creator.

To illustrate: Imagine you walk into an art gallery. You see a beautiful gouache on canvas painting of sweet Violets blooming en masse on a patch of woody acreage.  You gaze at the painting, admiring its artistry & likeness, and acknowledge the talent of the artist who painted it.

Is it necessary to actually SEE the artist in order to come to the conclusion that it was, without doubt,  painted by someone?

Of course not----that would be absurd! After all, paint cannot just fly onto the canvas and arrange itself into an accurate rendition of nature. Even a child could confidently declare that SOMEONE intentionally painted it. No further proof is required; the painting itself is proof that there was, indeed, a painter who painted it.

And so it is with our earth, in all its beauty & splendor. The flora & fauna, the diverse animals which do not have to learn to survive...they exhibit natural instincts which compel them to survive, and most importantly, us---humans. When we stop & really think about it, our bodies alone are wonderfully & marvelously made. Just the fact that we breathe involuntarily, our wounds heal on their own, our eyes automatically focus & adjust to the amount of light that enters them, & how our bodies reproduce life with little involvement (relatively speaking) on our part....it is beyond amazing!
Plus, we have emotion, logic, complex thought, a Spirit & soul within ourselves. 

Cosmologists even like to deny our deeply ingrained drive to seek out & know this Creator (perhaps since it cannot be explained apart from recognizing that this drive to search for our Creator must have been instilled by the same omnipotent, omnipresent & omniscient God who created us to begin with).

This "drive" to find God (which some people call "the meaning of life"), reasonably substantiates what we Christians have tried to relay to atheists & humanists all along....that our Creator, God, having fashioned man in His Own likeness, (and woman from man's) deems our lives as human beings to be exceedingly more valuable than all other living creatures He placed upon the earth. 

And since our lives ARE more valuable than four-footed beasts & creeping things, then they must have greater purpose & significantly deeper meaning as well. The be holding of a spirit alone points to a spiritual meaning that God intends for us as human beings.

While this is common sense to the believer, it is something the humanists still reject.

It once baffled me that evolutionists refuse to admit this plain & evident truth. At least, until I began to study WHY they reject the obvious. 

Then, it dawned on me that, BECAUSE God HAS impressed  His existence upon the hearts & minds of all men, it is much more feasible that the cosmologists, professors, atheist/evolutionist/science-worshiping crowd is NOT as ignorant to the existence of the living God as they  would like us to think.
   
They, like Lucifer, are actually SO prideful, arrogant & puffed up, that they wish to exalt their OWN selves ABOVE God, and seek to try (but will surely fail) to usurp for themselves, the glory given to God for His creation.

It kind of brings new meaning to the verse in Romans 1: 

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"

 

[Davidjayjordan]

On 11/15/2015 at 8:16 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

This is a true story from my area...

Recently, a group of college students from a nearby university volunteered to "help" at a nearby elementary school.

Unbeknownst to the school's administration, the college students spent their time preaching evolution to the children. They even had an "altar call" when it was over...asking that if they (the elementary children) believed what they had just heard, to just raise their hands.

Apparently all but one child was "saved" ...

In other words, all but one child raised their hands to acknowledge that they believed in evolution. 

I'm not sure at this point what (if any) repercussions will be brought against the college students. 

 

Unbelieveable but true No Nicolates...Evolution is a religion, and they do preach it and even demand it.... and as you wrote, they try to save people from relgion called creationism, even though creationism is science and scientific... Evolution on the other hand is not scientific and can only be believed by faith, in LUCK and CHANCE.

 

Evolution is a curse to true faith and even a curse to true SCIENCE.

 

As for the the pride and arrogancy of these university students who have been forced to adopt evolution or FAIL (They tried to fail me n University when I balked at their non science but the deam changed my final grade cause I proved I knew the subject matter.

 

Evolution is a dastardly lie forced upon our students at the lowest level... Shocking but true

[Joe Chandler]

On 11/29/2017 at 7:55 AM, JesusLivesInUs said:

Thank you for your response. If I may ask a serious question with the utmost respect to those reading...how do we know...really know that all books/ writers of what makes up the Bible are educated, men of God? How do we know that each writer represents God? Is this a matter of faith on your part?  Book of Genesis really from an allegorical sense is beautiful, however from a practical view, not so much. 

If there is no Adam, there is no Christ, who also quoted from Genesis. Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.