ChristianForums.net

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

[__ Science __ ] Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution.

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,754
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
You are aware that his science is flawed by the opinions of people who do not believe in God right?
That's a common misconception, but it's false. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. Many of the great biologists from Darwin to Francis Collins, have been theists or deists.
It was to show that most of mainstream scientists refuse to accept what they dont agree with despite the overwhelming evidence.
As you know, many creationists openly admit that there is very good evidence for evolution. They just have religious beliefs that they prefer to the evidence.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
 

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,754
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Gap theory. Anyone who teaches a theory as doctrine is making a huge mistake even if it turns out that their theory was correct.
A theory is an idea or a group of ideas that has been repeatedly confirmed by testing predictions of that theory. Gap "theory" is a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory.
 

wondering

Supporter
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
16,391
Gender
Female
You are aware that his science is flawed by the opinions of people who do not believe in God right? I mean that is why I included that quote. It was to show that most of mainstream scientists refuse to accept what they dont agree with despite the overwhelming evidence. You said that you liked and agreed with dr tour. But you can't agree with dr tour if you agree with barbarian on the subject of evolution because they both have opposing theories.
I happen to agree with Tour and believe it to be impossible that life just started.
But macroevolution and the beginning of life are two different subjects.
Also, I respect what others believe if they have an intelligent viewpoint.
I'm not going to convince Barbarian to change his views.
It's interesting to discuss them...who knows; he might turn out to be right when we know more!
 

wondering

Supporter
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
16,391
Gender
Female
The gap theory is simple
1. God created the world just as he wanted it.
2. Satan rebelled.
3. God judged the earth for its rebellion flooding it.
4. God recreated the world.

The 36 objections posed within that link are redundant and easily refuted. Though none of it really matters. You could believe that the earth is young, or that there is a gap, or that macro-evolution occurs. None of these theories bar you from having a relationship with God. Though this is a thread arguing about evolution so even though I'm cool with christians also believing in evolution, I'm going to argue about it. Lol
LOL
I think I just said the above to you in the post just before this one!
I know that scientists seem to be getting a little desperate after it was proven that the universe did not always exist.
So since it came into existence, one of the questions becomes: Has there been enough time for this macroevolution
to happen?

Guess we'll have to wait and see.
I also think it's interesting that we can't seem to get beyond the BB...
why?
Because time didn't exist !
God created even time.
 

wondering

Supporter
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
16,391
Gender
Female
Then you agree with Darwin and most biologists. Darwin thought God created the first living things.
Yes Barb....but you know the situation.
Christians are supposed to dislike Darwin and not agree with macroevolution.
Atheists love Darwin and do agree with macroevolution.
Why?
Because the atheists look to Darwin because, just at the time of post-modernism, he gave them
a reason to credit life to natural forces instead of to God --- which post modernism has most probably
succeeded in doing; removing God from our lives, I mean.
 

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,754
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Yes Barb....but you know the situation.
Christians are supposed to dislike Darwin and not agree with macroevolution.
That's man's revision of Christianity. Nothing in scripture denies it.
Atheists love Darwin and do agree with macroevolution.
Postmodernists seem to think Darwin is kinda icky. And Marxists detested him to the point that the Soviets outlawed his theory.
Two stereotypes that don't fit reality very well
Because the atheists look to Darwin because, just at the time of post-modernism, he gave them
a reason to credit life to natural forces instead of to God --- which post modernism has most probably
succeeded in doing; removing God from our lives, I mean.
Darwin wouldn't have approved.
 

Moseme

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
133
Gender
Male
Just what it says. He created them after their kind. The issue is that you don't approve of the way He does it.


No, it's what some modern men believe. Paul never said anything like that.


Same thing. He didn't know about either of them. But that doesn't affect their reality.

No. You're just trying to restrict the ways that God can create to ways that you like.

First, Darwin was interested in the issue, and Paul was not. That's a huge advantage. Then, a huge amount of anatomical and breeding data had been assembled by Darwin's time, that showed evolution. And the findings of Malthus and Adam Smith in economics showed how complex systems could appear with no one designing them. That's what the "hidden hand" of capitalism is. Darwin realized that economics was just one example, and showed that it applied to biology as well. This is why the Soviets banned Darwin; his theory was too close to capitalism to suit them. They thought that no system could form without a designer. It's a key concept in Marxism.

Probably a bad idea to bring up Dr. Tour, then.

Nor creationism as it exists today. Nor electrons or viruses. That's not what it's for. It's about God and man and our relationship. There are many, many things that are true that are not in the Bible.
you are aware that your theory is just a theory right? I mean you just sound arrogant and full of it when you say that your way is God's way when there is absolutely no evidence in the word of God that God used evolution.

And Paul did believe that God created all of life from nothing just like he created all of the complex galaxies from nothing. You can obviously see that from his writings. And it takes a very willfully stubborn person to not accept that an apostle of God wouldn't have agreed with your theory when he has made himself clear when he says creation reflects God's character and nature. Paul did endorse creationism and also Moses believed in creationism.

So let me get this straight you are saying that economics enabled Darwin to create the theory of evolution but actual chemistry is useless? Youre quick to use something outside of biology when it might support your theory but completely discredity a major branch of science because it disproves macro-evolution. Also you dont know what Paul's interests were. But it can be safe to say that if sports were an interest then the creation of his God would probably be an interest as well. Especially since it reflects God. Anyways I asked for major scientific breakthroughs in the field of biology since you said that is the only field that qualifies.

And let's be clear. God has NEVER endorsed your theory. So I'm going to say you're just trying to restrict ways that god can create to only way that you like

And I said that it was a logical fallacy when I brought dr tour up and that I was only humoring you because you brought up what must be over 20 people.

If you are going to say anything about God whether it has to do with how he saves or how he creates or ANYTHING you need to support it with scripture otherwise you are adding to the word of God and that is a serious offense. I provided my belief on the gap theory and explained it was how I interpreted the scriptures but that a person could take it or leave it. You presented your belief and then without any scripture claimed it was the right belief and everyother belief was wrong even if they have more scriptural evidence than yours. Again I repeat if you are going to try and teach someone about God, even if it is just how he creates, you need the bibles support or you are just adding to God's word. That is also what the bible is for.
 

Moseme

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
133
Gender
Male
That's a common misconception, but it's false. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. Many of the great biologists from Darwin to Francis Collins, have been theists or deists.

As you know, many creationists openly admit that there is very good evidence for evolution. They just have religious beliefs that they prefer to the evidence.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
I must have told you over 50 times that I do not accept arguments from authority as it is a logical fallacy. This is why you believe the erroneous theory of macro-evolution because you completely ignore what other people are saying if you do not like it and you continue to build your case on logical fallacies. Stop sending me links to these people.
 

Moseme

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
133
Gender
Male
A theory is an idea or a group of ideas that has been repeatedly confirmed by testing predictions of that theory. Gap "theory" is a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory.
There you go changing definitions again here is definition from the Oxford English dictionary "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." The gap theory should never be taught as doctrine. No theory should be taught as doctrine
 

Moseme

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
133
Gender
Male
I happen to agree with Tour and believe it to be impossible that life just started.
But macroevolution and the beginning of life are two different subjects.
Also, I respect what others believe if they have an intelligent viewpoint.
I'm not going to convince Barbarian to change his views.
It's interesting to discuss them...who knows; he might turn out to be right when we know more!
He could be right in the end. I don't think he will be though. If I did then I'd be an evolutionist lol.

And so you say you agree with dr tour when he says it's impossible for life to have just started on its own but disagree with everything that he says about macro-evolution?
 

Moseme

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
133
Gender
Male
LOL
I think I just said the above to you in the post just before this one!
I know that scientists seem to be getting a little desperate after it was proven that the universe did not always exist.
So since it came into existence, one of the questions becomes: Has there been enough time for this macroevolution
to happen?

Guess we'll have to wait and see.
I also think it's interesting that we can't seem to get beyond the BB...
why?
Because time didn't exist !
God created even time.
Has there been enough time for macro-evolution to happen? Thats impossible to answer. Because the theory of macro-evolution cannot be tested no one knows how long its takes for macro-evolution to occur. But maybe barbarian could answer for us as he thinks that he can test it.
 

Moseme

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
133
Gender
Male
Barbarian wondering

I want to point out that I agree with Darwin on some of his theories. I just dont agree with him on everything. I do believe that people's perception of him has been distorted by both church people and atheists.
 

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,754
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
you are aware that your theory is just a theory right?

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words​


Worth learning. Secondary schools do a horrible job of teaching the methodology an epistemological basis of science.

I mean you just sound arrogant and full of it when you say that your way is God's way when there is absolutely no evidence in the word of God that God used evolution.
Even knowledgeable YE creationists openly admit there is very good evidence for it.
And Paul did believe that God created all of life from nothing just like he created all of the complex galaxies from nothing.
He never said so. I doubt if he thought so, since God says that life came from existing creation. It takes a very willfully stubborn person to not accept that God's own word disagrees with your belief when he has made himself clear that life was brought forth by the world He created.

Neither Paul nor Moses believed in Gap Doctrine or YE creationism, both of which are modern inventions.
So let me get this straight you are saying that economics enabled Darwin to create the theory of evolution but actual chemistry is useless?
I'm pointing out that the discovery of economics showed Darwin how order can arise spontaneously by natural means. The facts that humans behave economically and that natural selection drives evolutionary change is an inherent part of the world He created, and they happen for the same reasons.

An economist with no understanding of biology would never see it. But Darwin, who was familiar with Malthus and Smith, recognized the "hidden hand" in biology as it is in economics. If Tour knew what evolution was, for example, he would have less trouble understanding how biology works.
But it can be safe to say that if sports were an interest then the creation of his God would probably be an interest as well.
Perhaps you could clarify that a bit? I don't quite see what you're getting at.
Anyways I asked for major scientific breakthroughs in the field of biology since you said that is the only field that qualifies.
You seem to have assumed I said something I did not. But I mentioned anatomy, for example. The discovery that widely disparate organisms have anatomically homologous features was a very important clue as to the way God produces new species and higher taxa.

Darwin, was the first to demonstrate that barnacles are arthropods, not mollusks as had been assumed, using the new science of comparative anatomy. He would be considered a giant of biological science for that breakthrough alone. He also has a prominent place in geology, being the first to work out the origin of pacific atolls. His geological understanding served him well in his investigations in South America.

Physiology was another. And of course, the very beginnings of paleontology even then showed a few transitional forms.

Chemistry, until the formation of biochemistry, not so much.
Youre quick to use something outside of biology when it might support your theory but completely discredity a major branch of science because it disproves macro-evolution.
Actually, that's wrong, too. For example, the Precambrian Ediacaran "biota" was suspected to be early animals, which would badly damage both YE and Gap Doctrine, if true. Chemists (biochemists, really) managed to identify traces of cholesterol in Ediacaran fossils, confirming them to have been animals.

And let's be clear. God has NEVER endorsed your theory. So I'm going to say you're just trying to restrict ways that god can create to only way that you like
He never made it clear how He did it. Apparently, it wasn't important for us to know for our salvation. God could have poofed everything into existence last Tuesday, complete with false memories in our heads. But the evidence indicates that He did it as science has found.
If you are going to say anything about God whether it has to do with how he saves or how he creates or ANYTHING you need to support it with scripture otherwise you are adding to the word of God and that is a serious offense.
St. Paul says otherwise:
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
You presented your belief and then without any scripture claimed it was the right belief
[/QUOTE]
As you learned, it's a theory. A theory, BTW, is an idea or set of ideas that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.
and everyother belief was wrong even if they have more scriptural evidence than yours.
As you know, God didn't say one way or the other about the origin of species. You've just assumed that.
Again I repeat if you are going to try and teach someone about God, even if it is just how he creates, you need the bibles support
As I showed you, God says that the earth brought forth living things. And yes, by "earth" I mean the physical world. Your idea that living things came from nothing, is contradicted by scripture. I was under the impression that the "life ex nihilo" error was only a YE mistake.
 

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,754
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Has there been enough time for macro-evolution to happen? Thats impossible to answer. Because the theory of macro-evolution cannot be tested no one knows how long its takes for macro-evolution to occur. But maybe barbarian could answer for us as he thinks that he can test it.
Well, that's a good question. Let's look at it. Could there possibly be enough useful mutations in the time we have, to produce new species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms, and domains?

The first question is, "how many useful mutations can occur in one generation?" To know that, we need three numbers.
1. How big is the population?
2. How many mutations occur per individual in that population?
3. How many of them are potentially useful?

Now, this is complicated by issues like epistasis and environmental changes, but let's assume those are neutral for now. We can go back and add that to the model in a bit if you like. Generally, those things tend to favor evolutionary change, but not always. We have a good number of identified favorable mutations in humans, but what percentage of all mutations do you think are favorable? Give me a number, we'll try to match it up to the data, and then we can go on.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,754
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,754
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
There you go changing definitions again here is definition from the Oxford English dictionary "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."
Sorry, the scientific definition is the one that applies in science:
A theory is an idea or a group of ideas that has been repeatedly confirmed by testing predictions of that theory. Gap "theory" is a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory.

The OED is using the lawyer's definition of "legal theory." The scientific definition is much more precise. If you're talking law, or even informal use, the OED is good enough. Science has a more precise definition. This is why Newton referred to gravitation as a theory. It was an idea that he tested rigorously by collecting data to test his hypothesis. Since the predictions of his hypothesis were repeatedly verified, it qualified as an established theory.
The gap theory should never be taught as doctrine. No theory should be taught as doctrine
Since Gap creationism is a religious belief, it does not qualify as a scientific theory.
Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or "the Gap Theory") is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-yom creation period, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved six literal 24-hour days (light being "day" and dark "night" as God specified), but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.[1][2][3] It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.
 

wondering

Supporter
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
16,391
Gender
Female
That's man's revision of Christianity. Nothing in scripture denies it.

Postmodernists seem to think Darwin is kinda icky. And Marxists detested him to the point that the Soviets outlawed his theory.

Two stereotypes that don't fit reality very well

Darwin wouldn't have approved.
Interesting...re Darwin, I mean.
 

wondering

Supporter
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
16,391
Gender
Female
He could be right in the end. I don't think he will be though. If I did then I'd be an evolutionist lol.

And so you say you agree with dr tour when he says it's impossible for life to have just started on its own but disagree with everything that he says about macro-evolution?
No, I never said that.
I don't believe in macroevolution right now.
But it might be proven to be true someday.
I just hate to limit God and like to keep the possibility open.
 

Moseme

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
133
Gender
Male
Barbarian
I never said Paul was for gap theory or YE. But he was for creationism, same with Moses. Let's look at Romans 1:20 basically God is reflected in his creation. When we look at creation we see the characteristics of God. Now my god is a God of order and not chaos. He is a hands on God who personally set the boundaries of the universe. He told the sea where to stop and only go a certain distance. So leaving the development of his most important creation in the chaotic hands of random indiscriminate mutations is something that God would NEVER do. Can you believe a God of order trusting chaos with his most important creation?

And the bible does say that God created life from nothing. It is the very definition of the Hebrew word that Moses used when saying that God created life. Now how god created the bodies for that life to inhabit I dont fully know. I just know that it wasn't through the process of macro-evolution because that is a very chaotic and improbable process and God created sea animals in one day and land animals the next. Now I do know how God created the body of Adam in one day from the dust of the earth. Maybe he created animals the same way.

And just because you say something is true, that doesnt automatically make it true. There is no evidence for macro-evolution and you keep confusing micro-evolution and it's evidence with macro-evolution. And you constantly saying that there's evidence doesn't make it magically appear.

Face it. The bible is against macro evolution.
 
Top