Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. 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!

[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[first post go easy on me please :) ]My name is Ossie, I'm from London and I'm 16. I consider myself a believer in evolution and an Atheist. Please don't be put off by this, I do not think any less of those who don't believe in this, as even if there is a God or not, humans are intelligent beings that are able to make their own independent decisions.

Let me start by saying that I do not wish to 'convert' you to Athiesm or disprove your faith, to do so would be wrong of me. I would simply like a viewpoint from the other side. I will do my best to not turn this into a 'my view is better than yours just because I say so' thing, and hope that you do the same. Mature discussion only please.

So my question is: Why should people not believe in Darwinian Evolution?

I have deliberately left this a broad question so you may interpret this how you wish. Please back up your responses with detailed evidence.

I look forward to your responses.

Regards,

Ossie :)
 
Hi Ossie and welcome. Please be aware of our rules (ToS) on the "Quick Links" bar at the top of this page and thanks. I hope you enjoy your time with us.
:waving

2.2: No active promotion of other Faiths is allowed:

You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussing these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted.
 
2.2: No active promotion of other Faiths is allowed:

You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussing these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted.

I dont understand, have I broken a ToS? I have stated that I am not promoting atheism, in fact I am asking others to disprove it. Have I broken a rule or are you just reminding me of a ToS?
 
I dont understand, have I broken a ToS? I have stated that I am not promoting atheism, in fact I am asking others to disprove it. Have I broken a rule or are you just reminding me of a ToS?
I'm sorry Ossie if it sounded as if I were saying you had broken a rule The manner in which you said you were not attempting to disprove our faith, I just wanted you to know what our rules said about it. Thanks.
 
Welcome to CF.net!
You're really going out of your way to make your question sound diplomatic, aren't you? :D

So my question is: Why should people not believe in Darwinian Evolution?
I'm christian and I'm wondering about that, too. I personally have no problem believing that God created (and keeps creating) life through the ways of nature.
 
I'm christian and I'm wondering about that, too. I personally have no problem believing that God created (and keeps creating) life through the ways of nature.

Is that from reading the Bible from a young age or as a revelation later in life? If you are wandering about it, would you say that Evolution, on a general level, makes logical sense when looking at it?

Ossie
 
Is that from reading the Bible from a young age or as a revelation later in life? If you are wandering about it, would you say that Evolution, on a general level, makes logical sense when looking at it?
Well I grew up in an agnostic environment and never had Bible lessons until I was like 19. Creationism was not taught at my school, neither was Intelligent Design. They weren't even mentioned. So maybe I never had a chance to become a good creationist. :lol
However, I can see God's work in this world. It's not science, it's more a feeling I get when looking for example at the way mathematics holds everything together.

I don't claim to understand biology very well, but from what I know it makes more sense than young earth creationism makes. In addition to the evolutionary aspects there's also geology and physics that make more sense (and hold more beauty) when looking at them in the light of the currently most accepted scientific theories.

As for making sense... I'm not an expert in biology, and there may be white spots and missing details, but in general it makes sense to me.

Right now the place I live in is sitting on top of mountains of limestone and when you're very lucky you find fossile imprints of sea shell or snail-like animals, implying that this once was a sea floor. But we're hundrets of kilometers from the coast. The only way a biblical creationism could explain mountains of fossilised and sedimented sea animal bodies would be Noah's flood. But that flood could have stranded and killed only one generation of sea animals (those that lived at that time), but the amount of limestone we have here would imply it's been hundrets or thousands of generations that lived, died and got burried here, the sea that covered this region of Europe must have lasted for a very long time, definitely longer than 6000 or 10000 years.
 
Hello :)

I think we need to determine what is meant by Darwinian evolution. A lot of people take it to mean came about and evolved from single cell organisms using nothing but materialistic means or natural selection. Others take it to mean what Darwin discovered.

I'm firmly in the latter because what Darwin discovered was that animals have adapted themselves to their surroundings and traced it back through time. Science in the 150 years since his book has adapted the theory based on extra information we now have but the core has remained. But his theory does not explain the origins of life. It explains how we went from simple organisms to more complex ones but offers no explanation as to where those simple organisms come from.

I'm wary of using a God of the gaps approach here (science can't explain it therefore God did it) because that's a weak argument. But I don't see God and evolution as competing explanations because they are 2 completely different categories. Evolution is a mechanism, God is an agent/designer. To pitch them against each other is like saying "here's a Ford motor car. One explanation is the laws of physics and internal combustion, the other is Henry Ford. Choose one as an explanation for the car"

I'm not a scientist so I leave the scientific arguments to the scientists but I have no issues with the theory of evolution. It's not a perfect theory, it has gaps but as an overall whole its sound and many Christian scientists hold to it. But like mechanisms and a designer provides a full explanation for everything that had a beginning on this earth, I see the same with life; God used evolution to bring about life.

Hope that makes sense :)

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
 
Some of the properties, and some of the ideas of evolution make sense. However; Like Grazer stated above me, people try to use it to disprove the creator (or the car maker to use his analogy). This is where I believe the ignorance resides within the theory itself. Let me break it down to elect an intelligent thought.

Creature A is found. Scientists study creature A, and designate it based upon its attributes and appearance. They then find ANOTHER fossil of creature A, only this one is 10 thousand years younger than its elder. Again, they study the creature, and designate it based upon its attributes and appearance. Low and behold, they find that this creature has "upgraded." In a sense. Not only can they confirm it has longer legs for quicker mobility, but it has a much more powerful jaw for hunting. Not really impressive when you think about it. Humans have remained relatively the same for thousands of years. If I saw antarctic indians growing fur, then I would question things. Everything logical so far, right? This is where Scientists jump off of the cliff. Instead of assuming that the creature is simply "adapting", the scientists take things a large step further. They theorize that if you go even farther into the future(hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions), you would find this creature completely changed into something else. COMPLETELY. While it sounds like just reasoning to explain the existence of our wild life, it has inherent holes that will never be explained, and I will tell you why.

This is where we are so far. Creature A was found, and linked to creature B. The scientists have now theoretically aligned and linked creature A&B to creature C millions of years later. However, they have never found a single fossil linking creature A&B to creature C. Why? Because it's a different creature entirely. In other words, if someone showed me a fossils of a half fish/half land creature, It would be a much more believable theory. Scientists say that evolution occurs over thousands and millions of years. A very very slow process indeed! If it is a slow process, then why don't we see the "steps" in evolution? Why don't we see that half fish/half land creature? I don't mean human placed fossils, for example. Where they adjust the fossils of different/ or the same creature to fit the theory. IE...The "Evolution of Man", aka the very famous illustration of each step of "ape" slowly growing upright until it reaches humanity. Did you know that I could take the bones of an ape right now, and align them to stand upright? Does that do anything for the theory? No, it is where the ignorance lies (like I stated above). You can't expect me to accept a theory, where they are unable to provide any real, unaltered evidence for. I refuse to accept that creature A&B magically jumped to creature C, just because someone in some book told me so. I wan't to see the proof, which they won't ever be able to provide. Because it just simply doesn't exist.

Point number 2. There are some creatures that defy the theory of evolution. The fact that they are alive, is proof that they absolutely could not have evolved. Termites are a great example. Termites eat wood, yet they cannot digest wood. Then why in the heck would they eat it? Because they are actually born with a tiny creature in their stomach. That creature eats the wood, and the bi product is protein and nutrients. The Termite absorbs it, and is able to live. How can such a relationship between creatures form through Evolution? How could a wood eating creature evolve if it can't digest wood? The Termite is not equipped to eat anything else, so it surely cannot wait around for MILLIONS of years for this creature to arrive in its stomach.

Regardless, the theory lives on in the biased minds of those who think they can disprove the creator of all things. It is in fact used as an alternative to God. People who chose not to believe in him created a device to show how we got here without him. Take away the God factor in life, and the theory of Evolution wouldn't even be a theory. It cannot stand the test of true criticism, and it is held together by ignorant, biased minds. Is it really that unreasonable to believe all things were created by a designer? That each creature was created for a specific purpose?
 
Whilst it is true that perhaps, Darwin did not explain the origin of life, it has since been able to be worked out. I'm not claiming absolute knowledge on this matter, but this is what I believe:

-newly formed earth (a few hundred million years old) is abundant with water and nutrients from asteroid impacts (although some nutrients are toxic)
-CO2 layer and other gases in atmosphere start to warm planet
-first protein is formed (it is important to realise that this is NOT life yet, only a very complex molecule)
-more proteins are formed, as well as more complex molecules such as glucose.
-cell-like structures which can convert CO2 to O2 whilst creating glucose slowly form from the mixture of molecules. (scientists believe that these were very primitive algae)
-sufficient O2 in atmosphere after a few million years of photosynthesising, bacteria start to form in nutrient rich seas.
-some bacteria photosynthesise like the algae, some start to use the O2 to create glucose and release CO2, start of the carbon cycle.
-eventually unicellular organisms move closer to shore (due to overcrowding near the middle of oceans) where they are exposed to greater levels of O2.
-more O2 is more beneficial, so primitive gills start to form
-organisms now able to produce more glucose as gills are more efficient, excess energy, first multicellular organisms
-first primitive sea creatures are formed.
-eventually larger and larger organisms are mutating out of the others as there are more efficient ways to process the nutrients in the water, son more energy available for growth
-by now, some of the 'algae' have moved onto damp land around the seas and early plants and trees start to form.
-organisms that fed on algae have to adapt to gain algae from other places than the sea. At first, they start to jump quickly out of water and grab what they can, of course not every attempt successful.
-eventually primitive legs on fish start to form limbs (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik )
-organisms spending more and more time above sea level due to 'legs'
-primitive lungs formed
-some species move onto land
-scales adapt to become skin like on reptiles, some become wing-like structures, (which go on to form feather like structures and eventually birds
-some move further inland, where they either start to eat other vegetation or become carnivores
-some move into jungle areas, start swinging from trees and climbing up then to get food (early primates)
-similar ancestors to the primates move to less jungle areas and begin to stand on hind two legs in order to run faster and catch prey better
-these begin evolving into modern day homosapien sapiens, who have larger brains and are capable of self recognition and intelligent thought

Now I can't stress enough that there was a long time between the next step (millions of years).
I'm also sure that what I have written is not 100% complete or in detail as it should be (that's what books on this subject are for)

As for the termites: they are two species which benefit from the work of one. The termite CAN digest some of the nutrients by itself, just not all (i.e. cellulose). The cellulose is broken down by another organism which can do it, and the energy is used by both. And by the way you have organisms living inside you. Billions of them, in fact, more than what you have as body cells. In your gut, the bacteria help to: Stimulate the production of antibodies in your blood, increasing your immune system strength and capacity to deal with toxins, allergens, harmful microorganisms, and incompletely digested protein
Produce nutrients that are essential to your health like Vitamin B12 and Vitamin K
Take up space and resources in your gut, which helps to prevent infection by harmful bacteria, fungi, and parasites
Produce natural antibiotics, acids, and hydrogen peroxide, which also help to protect you against infection by harmful microorganisms, including bacteria that can cause food poisoning
Help to digest food

(drbenkim.com)


Ossie
 
I do not believe it does not disprove God, however I have seen nothing yet to my satisfaction to actively prove a God/gods.

I would now like to pose the question: What proof do we have for God/gods?

Again, no harm meant, just wandering.

Ossie
 
I do not believe it does not disprove God, however I have seen nothing yet to my satisfaction to actively prove a God/gods.

I would now like to pose the question: What proof do we have for God/gods?

Again, no harm meant, just wandering.

Ossie

No harm taken. Can you clarify what you define proof as and what you would accept? I'm going to play by your rules on this one.
 
I've left this open to interpretation, but so long as you have made a point backed with evidence and then explained that evidence well, then I shan't take quarrel with it (that's not to say I might not counter it though). Let me give a bad example as to help with this.

There is a God. The Old and New Testament state this (with a quote). Everything in the Bible is true, therefore there must be a God.

This is a poor response because it is based too much on assumptions. I would like to see HARD EVIDENCE to support claims please.

Ossie
 
I've left this open to interpretation, but so long as you have made a point backed with evidence and then explained that evidence well, then I shan't take quarrel with it (that's not to say I might not counter it though). Let me give a bad example as to help with this.

There is a God. The Old and New Testament state this (with a quote). Everything in the Bible is true, therefore there must be a God.

This is a poor response because it is based too much on assumptions. I would like to see HARD EVIDENCE to support claims please.

Ossie

Please allow me to give an example of evolution in action.

Could you be right? Playing in a basketball league I found my jumps becoming higher, my speed increased, and my agility improved; needless to brag of my three point shot. I never had a bone density test to see if my bones were taking on the characteristics of fowls as I was more concerned with fouls.

The need was apparent, the desire intense; if I could have flown, dunking the ball would be a cinch. I never checked, feathers would have been a plus, like water off a duck's back, my defense would have no lack.

Instead of running up and down the court, would have flapping my arms been better? Would be to the surprise of the crowd, a lift off become unfettered?

I may never know what it is to really fly, but till I die Darwin can cry; you didn't read the letter, you could have done so much better.
 
Whilst it is true that perhaps, Darwin did not explain the origin of life, it has since been able to be worked out. I'm not claiming absolute knowledge on this matter, but this is what I believe:

-newly formed earth (a few hundred million years old) is abundant with water and nutrients from asteroid impacts (although some nutrients are toxic)
-CO2 layer and other gases in atmosphere start to warm planet
-first protein is formed (it is important to realise that this is NOT life yet, only a very complex molecule)

There are enormous holes in these 'steps' you put forth.

The improbabiltiy of a protein 'evolving' is so gigantic,that I don't know why the idea of abiogenesis has ever taken root - apart from a means of excluding God from the picture.

The improbability of an enzyme system forming by chance is so gigantic that Fred Hoyle likened it to a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and producing a Boeing 707.

Pasteur finished off the concept with his experimental findings and established very firmly and on a scientifically irrefutable basis, that life only comes from pre-existing life.

Nobody has been able to disprove this finding, though zillions have been spent on the effort.

So for anyone to calmly view this vast chasm between the living and the dead and suggest that it could possibly be bridged by chance processes, evolutionary processes of one sort or another, is to leave the realms of science for the fairyland of fantasy.

The mathematics governing the improbability are well worked out - and it is only the optimism of the anti-God brigade that drives the research forward.

You really should look into this matter conscientiously and perhaps a good starting place might be with Professor John Lennox's book God's Undertaker - Has Science Buried God?

You might with profit go on to my blog which deals with the single
phenomenon most destructive to evolution theory in existence today, namely instinct.

http://belligerentdesign-asyncritus.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/migration-of-birds.html
www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com/

I could go on, but will leave it there, hoping that this - and the evidence collected on my blog - will make you aware that there is a great deal to be said against evolution, and for Creation.

All the best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would actually say there's a lot more supporting evolution than God, at least, more logical things.

Let me put this dilemma towards you: if God is all powerful and all knowing, then is there an object he can make that he cannot lift because it is too heavy?

If yes, then he is not all knowing as he cannot make something which he cannot do, and if not, then he is not all powerful.

Ossie
 
I'm sure He can do it - but only He knows how!

Your argument is not one to be taken take seriously, since your eternal life and any hope of salvation from death you may ever have, depends on your answer to the question: does God exist? (Professor Lennox in the aforementioned book deals with your question quite finally).

He that comes to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
 
Ok...I hope to be able to do that :)

Lets take the science aspect first. Science is neutral, it's data can be interpreted theistically or atheistically. To some like Richard Dawkins, he interprets it atheistically. To some like Francis Collins, they interpret theistically. To some like Stephen Jay Gould, they haven't concluded either way but that's as far as they go. For me, the science has shown that this world has all the hallmarks of design. On a separate note, it was the Christian faith that helped give rise to science. To quote C.S. Lewis "Men became scientific because they believed in a law of nature and they believed in a law of nature because they believed in a law giver" So science is not really going to help either side here but some like John Lennox and Alistair McGrath have claimed that science sits more neatly with a theistic world view. I tend to agree but that's not the point. Science can be pointer but it can't take you all the way.

So how do we get to the God of the Bible? Well we're into history now. Lets start with the bible. We currently have over 5500 complete Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This figure alone eclipses anything we have for ancient history (I think the runner up is Homers Illiad with 600) but when you add on other languages and fragments, the total is in the region of 24,000 The time frame from the first copy to the originals is around 50 years-100 years with the documents themselves dating to within 18 years of the actual events (Pauls letters) to 50 years (Johns gospel) Again this is unprecedented with Homers Illiad being 300 years from original to copy and the information on Alexander the Great compiled from just 2 sources written nearly 600 years after he died. I'm doing this off the top of my head so I apologize if my figures aren't 100% accurate which they probably aren't so I'll post some YouTube videos with the data in so you can check them out yourself :)

Now, Jesus. There really is no dispute within history or scholarship about his existence. I know Richard Dawkins says a scholarly case can be made that he didn't exist but he quotes a professor of German Language. Professor Graeme Clarke, eminent classical historian at the National University of Australia, has gone on record as saying "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian, who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of Jesus Christ. The documentary evidence is simply overwhelming"

The resurrection. Everything hangs on this, my conversion hung on this. If it happened, then Christianity is true. If it didn't, then Christianity is false. It's that simple. Now most atheists laugh at this and dismiss it out of hand but the evidence, which again most is simply not disputed by historians and scholars, I found very compelling. I put together a very simplistic overview of the evidence which can be found at http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/blog/show/14094309-the-importance-of-the-resurrection but I will quote from C.F.D Moule:

"If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with? … the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church… remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself"

The debate here is not "is it possible" but "did it happen?"

The birth and rapid rise of Christianity is also a factor. Historians have concluded that there was a core of Christianity being preached around the area, including the resurrection, within a year of the reported events. Coupled with the early writings detailed earlier, this is was not something that evolved slowly. There is also an argument from morality but I'm not overly familiar with the nuances of this point so I'll link to a debate which covers them.

I don't profess to be an expert but I have compiled a load of resources that I have found very helpful. I'm doing this very quickly hence why I've just put quotes and linked to the full videos/articles. The reason for this is I feel these guys do a far better job at presenting the evidence in full than I can. Plus you can see the points in their full context and, in the case of the debates, the rebuttals. There's loads more on my site and the sites I've linked to so hopefully you'll find something useful. Any questions, please ask and I'll do my best for you :)

http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/17362890-the-veracity-of-the-new-testament - Gary Habermas on the New Testament documents
http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/16433254-did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead- - Gary Habermas and Antony Flew debate the resurrection (I believe this is a fantastic example of how debates can be done without the need to belittle or insult the opposition or their points)
http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/...rgument-that-changed-a-generation-of-scholars - The resurrection evidence that changed a generation of scholars
http://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible - Craig Blomberg on Jesus and the accuracy of the Bible (I recommend starting with this one as its the shortest and covers a variety of points)
http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/17163660-the-historicity-of-the-bible - Interview with Craig Blomberg
http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/17224428-craig-blomberg-on-the-new-testament - Another interview with Craig Blomberg
http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/17224425-is-there-a-god- - Ethicist Peter Singer and Professor John Lennox debate Is there a God (another great example of how debates can be done civilly)
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/mcgrath/lecture.html - Alistair McGrath lecture in response to Richard Dawkins
http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response - Biologist Dennis Venema answers questions on how he believes the theory of evolution and yet is a Christian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top