National Geographic slams Christians!

[thomas2004]

National Geographic published by satan.  Well, what a wonderfully simple world this is!  It must be nice to have that sort of automatic response all set to go.  Saves you all that bothersome thinking.

[Allinall]

...there are articles such as the one I quoted, which paint Christians as ignorant backwoods hillbillies

HEY!!!![/i]  I come from a long, extinguished line of ignorant backwoods hillbillies!  An' ah'm proud of'n it!


 

Realistically speaking, I don't subscribe to the mag, but I get the channel on my dish.  It's interesting to watch, but annoying that everything is preceeded by a "1 billion years ago..." kind of statement.  Good post Bro!

[Bronzesnake]

National Geographic published by satan.  

 The fact that I never said anything even close to that doesn't seem to bother you my friend. In your biased and clouded minds eye, you saw what you wanted to see and made a feeble attempt at sarcasm.

 Perhaps you should read it again, or better yet - get someone with a higher IQ to read, and explain it to ya.

The bottom line for me is this...If it doesn't line up with what God says, it's a lie. Where do lies come from? satan. He must love it when people believe his lies, after all, misery loves company and he'll need all the company he can get when he's in between medium-rare and well done.

 

Well, what a wonderfully simple world this is!  It must be nice to have that sort of automatic response all set to go.  Saves you all that bothersome thinking.

 I guess the irony of that statement completely escapes you my friend. Even the most simple minded non-Christians would acknowledge the fact that the Holy Bible describes satan as the father of lies. So either you are mocking me because I am a Bible believing Christian, or you are ignorant of even the most rudimentary Biblical doctrine. You are on a Christian web site...you do know that...don't you?

 Bronzesnake

[Sulfurdolphin]

 Hey Thomas, what you said above reminds me that satan is the first Evolutionist.

Michael

[nChrist]

Right, the appropriate way to voice your displeasure is to stop reading one of the nations most globaly informative magazines.  I have no problem with you being upset at this particular article, but in the end, thats what free-speech is all about.  I think it would be a real tradgedy if you were to stop reading National Geographic because of this incident.

Thomas2004,

It's shocking that even Christians have the right to decide how they will spend their money and whose products they will support by buying that product. They certainly do have free speech, and we have the freedom not to buy it. What little money most of us have is usually spent for necessities and things that honor God. We have the same rights as non-Christians, so we can pick and choose what we buy and what we support.

Did someone tell you these rights were removed from Christians?     OR, are you scolding us for exercising our rights? It's a moot point since we will continue to exercise our rights and buy or not buy whatever we wish. It's all pretty simple - folks can publish just about anything they want, but we don't have to buy it. By the way, Christians also have free speech the last time I checked. Regardless, you are on a Christian Family Forum.

Tom

[Evangelist]

...OR, are you scolding us for exercising our rights?

Nah, BEP....he's just attempting to establish the intellectual superiority shroud that seems to cling to his ilk.....you know, kinda like the scent that lets you know a skunk is near even when he's a half mile away.  

[nChrist]

Evangelist,

     I thought he was confused, so I tried to explain things in a very simple way, just for him.

I think that he told us it was not appropriate for Christians to think. OR, was he telling Christians what to think? Well, I've decided to send him a message by carrier pigeon if I ever need help thinking.    He shouldn't hold his breath since I don't have any carrier pigeons.  

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Evangelist]

Tom:

I think that he told us it was not appropriate for Christians to think. OR, was he telling Christians what to think?

Nah, he was saying that Christians CAN'T think....or won't. Obviously, anyone who doesn't think like him is therefore intellectually challenged...but then he obviously overlooks the mental rigidity of his own position. Seriously doubt if he's a candidate for MENSA.  

[thomas2004]

Easy there boys..  I have to say that I am a little shocked that you have chosen to jump to the attack so quickly and with such malice.  In questioning the motivations of one magazine reader, I was certainly not expecting to have my intelligence or faith questioned in such a harsh and unwelcoming manner.  While I too, my have made some barbed comments, it was certainly not my intention to insult or pull into question the depth of faith of any fellow christians.  I am often remis to learn that there are those in the christian fold that feel as though divergent opinions on key theological questions is something of a sin.  I trully beleive that it is not only our divine right to do so, but our duty as human beings.  Just imagine where we might be if no christians never questioned what they were being told by the seemingly faithful.  On the topic of National Geographic, I am firmily of the opinion that not all of the bible's stories are to be taken literaly.  I feel as though the 7 day creation story falls into this large group.  Regardless of how some may feel about that, I do not think that such beleifs are uncommon or in any way satanic.  Most importantly, they do not make me a non-christian.  Throughout my university career, I was often apauled at what I saw as a disgusting knowledge of international geography.  In fact, most students could not point to Iraq or Afgahnistan on a map.  (one would imagine that these would be two well known nations to America's young)  I simply feel that National Geographic can only serve to help these problems despite their view on evolution.

[nChrist]

thomas2004 said:

Easy there boys..  I have to say that I am a little shocked that you have chosen to jump to the attack so quickly and with such malice.

UM?? - ironic - isn't that exactly how you started out here from word go?

Moderator

[Bronzesnake]

Easy there boys..  I have to say that I am a little shocked that you have chosen to jump to the attack so quickly and with such malice.  

 Maybe you didn't read your own post...

 

National Geographic published by satan.  Well, what a wonderfully simple world this is!  It must be nice to have that sort of automatic response all set to go.  Saves you all that bothersome thinking.

 Here's how I might have responded to that comment...

 I have to say that I am a little shocked that you have chosen to jump to the attack so quickly and with such malice.  

 

 What other parts of God's word do you chose to disregard?
Maybe Jesus isn't really God. Perhaps Moses didn't really part the Red Sea - he probably simply crossed a shallow part right?

 This is classic - many "Christians" pick and chose what to follow or believe in the Bible based on their own inability or desire to conform to it. Homosexual "Christians" are a perfect example. Others simply can't imagine an omnipotent, omniscient God who can, for example, create the entire universe in seven days.

 Sorry my misguided friend, but the Bible must be taken literally, otherwise it really becomes more of a general "guide" book, on how to be a "good person" and at the end, if there really is a god, we'll get to Heaven. If there isn't a god, then we have at least lived a "good" life.

 Hope I didn't hurt any feelings.

Bronzesnake

[Sleeker]

Easy there boys..  I have to say that I am a little shocked that you have chosen to jump to the attack so quickly and with such malice.  In questioning the motivations of one magazine reader, I was certainly not expecting to have my intelligence or faith questioned in such a harsh and unwelcoming manner.  While I too, my have made some barbed comments, it was certainly not my intention to insult or pull into question the depth of faith of any fellow christians.  I am often remis to learn that there are those in the christian fold that feel as though divergent opinions on key theological questions is something of a sin.  I trully beleive that it is not only our divine right to do so, but our duty as human beings.  Just imagine where we might be if no christians never questioned what they were being told by the seemingly faithful.  On the topic of National Geographic, I am firmily of the opinion that not all of the bible's stories are to be taken literaly.  I feel as though the 7 day creation story falls into this large group.  Regardless of how some may feel about that, I do not think that such beleifs are uncommon or in any way satanic.  Most importantly, they do not make me a non-christian.  Throughout my university career, I was often apauled at what I saw as a disgusting knowledge of international geography.  In fact, most students could not point to Iraq or Afgahnistan on a map.  (one would imagine that these would be two well known nations to America's young)  I simply feel that National Geographic can only serve to help these problems despite their view on evolution.

Now here's a person I can relate to.  I don't believe in most of the Genesis.  The idea that people deny evidence for an old-earth is not too short of ludicrous to me, but then again, I'm not a "good" Christian, as others would say.  Say you lived a few thousand years ago when the Genesis was written.  You don't know why it rains, why the sky is blue, or even that Earth is round and revolves around the Sun.  So why would you say that the beginning of Earth and of humans was made by this altogether complex theory of evolution, not to mention abiogenesis, and the Big Bang.  Most people today don't even know the basics of them.  How were such primitive people going to understand that?  It'd be much easier to just say God did it, wouldn't it, because in actuality, God is the first step, whether that be the Big Bang, the step before, or millions of steps before that.  I mean, how many of you even know about continental drift?

Anyways, there are transitional fossils.  It just depends on your definition of "transition" means.  Technically, there are none because every single species between us and the single celled ones was a species unto itself.  If anyone has heard of the race of dwarfs found recently on a remote island, somewhere along the course of evolution, they deviated from the path that we tread.

P.S.  Sorry if I stepped over the "line," if there is one.  

[Bronzesnake]

Sleeker quote...

So why would you say that the beginning of Earth and of humans was made by this altogether complex theory of evolution, not to mention abiogenesis, and the Big Bang.  Most people today don't even know the basics of them.

 Don't forget to include yourself among these people.

How were such primitive people going to understand that?  It'd be much easier to just say God did it, wouldn't it,

 God said He did it, I believe him. He said He did it in seven days, I believe Him.

 

Anyways, there are transitional fossils

 Oh really? Please tell me where I can see them.

 

Technically, there are none because every single species between us and the single celled ones was a species unto itself.

 That statement corroborates creation, not evolution!  

 So, which one is it? are there transitional fossils or not?
By the way - It's graduated transitional fossils that are essential to the THEORY of evolution, and there are exactly ZERO.

 The very same year that Darwin's book came out, another book came out by Pasteur. He proved beyond a shadow of any doubt that life can not spontaneously generate, and that kills evolution dead in it's tracks.

 God says He created each life after it's own kind, He was very specific about this. Why do you think He clarified that fact? remember, when that book (Genesis) was written no one even contemplated this evolution nonsense...so why do you suppose an all knowing - past, present, and future seeing God would bother to be so specific about that, when at that time it would have no meaning to anyone for thousands of years? hmmmm.

 Bronzesnake

[Sleeker]

Don't forget to include yourself among these people.

I'm studying to become an astrophysicist.  I think I have a pretty clear understanding of the basics of the Big Bang (with some detail).  Also, my curiosity into evolution has let me learn a lot too.

God said He did it, I believe him. He said He did it in seven days, I believe Him.

Genesis was made as a story so the primitive humans of the day could understand it.

Oh really? Please tell me where I can see them.

Sure:

Link Removed

That statement corroborates creation, not evolution!  

Yet you are wrong.  Let's say you have a chicken.  The chicken lays an egg.  Out of that egg, a chicken comes out that had a couple of mutations in it.  They are different types of animals now.  There was no "transitional" animal in between.  That's being technical.

So, which one is it? are there transitional fossils or not?
By the way - It's graduated transitional fossils that are essential to the THEORY of evolution, and there are exactly ZERO.

I've always heard creationists say this in a different forum, yet when I gave them the evidence in the links, they ignored it or said it was fake (by offering no proof).  My link talks about different transitional fossils, so there's more than 0.  It it a theory, but then again, so is creationism, and I'm afraid that evolution has much more evidence backing it up.

The very same year that Darwin's book came out, another book came out by Pasteur. He proved beyond a shadow of any doubt that life can not spontaneously generate, and that kills evolution dead in it's tracks.

Again, technically, it doesn't.  Evolution is "the theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors."  It never mentions nonliving matter becoming living matter.  That's abiogenesis.  That shows how much you misunderstand evolution and the such.  By the way, it's always nice to see scientists about 150 years ago proving stuff cannot happen, especially when you don't have all the facts.  

Link Removed

"What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution."

God says He created each life after it's own kind, He was very specific about this. Why do you think He clarified that fact?

Um... What?  He created each "life" after it's own "kind?"  What does that mean?

remember, when that book (Genesis) was written no one even contemplated this evolution nonsense...so why do you suppose an all knowing - past, present, and future seeing God would bother to be so specific about that, when at that time it would have no meaning to anyone for thousands of years? hmmmm.

If he can see the future, why didn't he just wait to write the Genesis?  It's illogical to give it to people who don't understand it, but he wanted to get his Word out quickly, which means he didn't have time to wait a few thousand years for people to understand the Big Bang and evolution.  By the way, I also don't think God's all-powerful and can't see the future.  *Watches as many people here throw garlic at me and make the cross with their fingers*

Wow, I haven't had an EvC debate for a long time.   LINK REMOVED is really tough, and anyways, evolutionists basically have mastered that forum.

[Soldier4Christ]

You need to check out the forum rules. It is forbidden to discuss evolution here in this forum and could get you banned.

Just a little friendly advise.