[snip]
>Let me list some of the more obvious fruits of the tree, Evolution :-
>
>1) Claiming to be a branch of science, it has progressively undermined
>faith in the word of God - specifically, in challenging the literal
>truth of the early chapters of Genesis; it has thereby stripped the
>Gospel of its logical foundations, and provided a plank for biblical
>criticism, liberal theology, and radical ecumenism; man - the 'crown' of
>God's creation - has been relegated to animal status.
Vernon,
I used to be a young-earth creationist. I wrote 20+ items for the Creation
Research Society Quarterly, I ghost wrote the anti-evolution section of
Josh McDowell's Reasons Skeptics should Consider Christianity. I gave the
very first paper at the very first International Conference on Creationism
in 1986. I believe what you said above. But I was continually troubled by
the fact that my fellow Christians didn't really care about the
observational facts. One could go look at overthrusts, which many
christians said didn't exist. One could go look at footprints on layer
after layer of the geologic column yet I had the current editor of the CRSQ
tell me, (even after I sent photos) that there were no duck footprints on
>6 million layers of the Green River Formation in Wyoming. They would not
care that volcanoes that produce lava also produce carbon dioxide and acid
and thus would kill Noah. They didn't care that the sedimentary
distribution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I finally figured that
Creationists didn't care about the data. Evolutionists however, didn't
seem threatened by observational data.
>
>2) It has provided an excuse for atrocious human behaviour - evolution's
>driving principle being 'survival of the fittest'; this has now passed
>into man's hands for its ultimate fulfilment - and we have as prime
>examples, Nazi philosophy and Soviet communism.
Well this is an argument that goes both ways. Christians were the ones who
killed each other in Northern Ireland. Christians were the ones who killed
people for having a slightly different theological view. (both Catholic and
Protestant killed those they viewed as heretics) I would think that a
better way to view the situation is that men, all men, including Christians
and you and I, are capable of very evil sin.
>
>3) It provides essential support for the growing belief in
>reincarnation, and the notion that man's destiny lies in his own hands.
Never heard this one.
>
>4) It has led directly to the expectation that other, and higher, forms
>of life exist elsewhere in the universe, capable of delivering man from
>his increasingly desperate circumstances. This has clouded the Gospel
>message and diverted man's attention from his one true source of
>salvation.
>
>5) It provides an essential 'scientific prop' for secular humanism - the
>religion of the age - with its emphasis on permissiveness and the denial
>of all absolutes; inevitably, this has led to the progressive loosening
>of the fabric of human society and to many of the excesses and evils we
>now witness about us.
>
>6) Its adherents vigorously resist the idea that Earth history - as
>revealed in the succession of rocks and their fossils - are reasonably
>interpretable in any other way than theirs; healthy discussion and
>debate on the key issue of origins is therefore discouraged, or
>suppressed.
I am a geoscientist. Can you tell me specifically and in detail how you
think geology can be interpreted in other ways? It was geology that forced
me to change from a young-earth, global flood advocate, to what I now believe.
>
>The Lord Jesus (Himself the Creator!) came to bring truth to the world
>(Jn.18:37). We demonstrate that we are his followers by our love of
>truth. If we accept a doctrine that is so patently antagonistic to the
>Gospel of Love without rigorously testing its credentials, then it is
>doubtful whether we are numbered among his true followers.
It is only antagonistic to the Gospel because Christians make commit the
sin of adding to the Bible and preaching a different Gospel(Galatians 1:8,
9). Jesus said NOTHING about evolution.
As a man, he
>clearly believed all that Moses had written (Lk.16:29), including the
>universality of the flood, and its outcome (Mt.24:36-39, Lk.17:26,27) -
>truths that are anathema to the evolutionist!
Tell me exactly where you thing the Bible clearly states that the Flood was
universal. I would agree that it holds to an anthropologically universal
flood, but not a physically or globally universal flood.
>
>The current battle between God's people and Baal, and his prophets,
Ridiculous. Like it or not, there are no Baal worshippers today. Can you
give me the address of the First Church of Baal?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm