Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
Christforums

Dr Charles Bree, the scientist who challenged Charles Darwin's science

Recommended Posts

And here we are, 150 or so years later and Bree is (at best) a footnote in history while Charles Darwin remains the most famous biologist in history.

 

This part of the creation.com article interested me: "In fact, from Genesis history he might have realized that the diversity of species today must have descended from a more limited number of kinds on the Ark."

 

So according to this website, we went from a very small (2 or 7) number of representatives of each "kind" to all the species in existence today in a relatively very short amount of time. How does that happen without evolution, or the evolution of new species?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does that happen without evolution, or the evolution of new species?

It happens by the process of natural selection, which is just the opposite of evolution. Evolution teaches that life began with simple single celled organisms which evolved into the many complex organisms that exist today. The Bible teaches that God created very complex organisms that through the natural selection process produced the many forms of life that exist today.

 

The fact that Darwin is famous and Bree is almost unknown shows that most people don't want to acknowledge that God is our creator.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It happens by the process of natural selection, which is just the opposite of evolution.

That makes as much sense as "moving water is the opposite of erosion".

 

But I would like to see your more detailed explanation of how we went from a single breeding pair of each "kind" to all the species that exist today, but without the evolution of any new species.

 

The Bible teaches that God created very complex organisms that through the natural selection process produced the many forms of life that exist today.

Can you quote scripture where it says anything about "complex organisms" or natural selection?

 

The fact that Darwin is famous and Bree is almost unknown shows that most people don't want to acknowledge that God is our creator.

Sorry, I don't understand how the latter follows from the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwin didn't have the same technology Bree had access to, that makes him a little more reliable. We also understand that single cells are much more complex than what Darwin could even try study.

 

People want who will tell them what they want to hear, they want Darwin, they want humanisim, they want eugenics, not the creation story and Christ because they don't want to be accountable for their sins.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I would like to see your more detailed explanation of how we went from a single breeding pair of each "kind" to all the species that exist today, but without the evolution of any new species.

As individuals spread out over the earth they encountered many different living conditions. Sometimes some individuals would be better suited for survival so their descendants increased in number while others decreased. Over time these changes resulted in the formation different species. These species didn't evolve because no new genetic information was formed. Certain genes that already existed were selected because they helped individuals survive.

 

Can you quote scripture where it says anything about "complex organisms" or natural selection?

No, these words aren't found in the Bible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People want who will tell them what they want to hear, they want Darwin, they want humanisim, they want eugenics, not the creation story and Christ because they don't want to be accountable for their sins.

 

You're setting the terms to where someone can't be a Christian (or even believe in God) and recognize evolution as real. But the reality is, most "evolutionists" are not atheists and there are millions of "Christian evolutionists" all over the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As individuals spread out over the earth they encountered many different living conditions. Sometimes some individuals would be better suited for survival so their descendants increased in number while others decreased. Over time these changes resulted in the formation different species. These species didn't evolve because no new genetic information was formed.

What do you mean by "genetic information"?

 

Certain genes that already existed were selected because they helped individuals survive.

Where did those genes come from?

 

No, these words aren't found in the Bible.

Thank you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're setting the terms to where someone can't be a Christian (or even believe in God) and recognize evolution as real. But the reality is, most "evolutionists" are not atheists and there are millions of "Christian evolutionists" all over the world.

 

I'm not setting any terms.

 

Darwins theory enables godless beliefs, I've yet to meet an atheist who doesn't believe in macro evolution or try to use it as proof against God.

 

As far as millions of Christians believe macro evolution, I'd like to know where that statistic came from, what makes it credible, and are they really Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darwins theory enables godless beliefs, I've yet to meet an atheist who doesn't believe in macro evolution or try to use it as proof against God.

Personally, I don't let atheists play any role in determining what realities I do or don't accept. So if an atheist tries to argue that evolution means God doesn't exist, I don't let that be a deciding factor in whether or not I recognize evolution as real.

 

As far as millions of Christians believe macro evolution, I'd like to know where that statistic came from, what makes it credible, and are they really Christians.

This article is a good starting point: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5788/765.full

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They were created by God.

Do you believe God created the genetic sequences that allow the malaria parasite to kill millions of people? After all, the life history of that particular parasite is quite complex, which obviously requires very complex genetics.

 

And I think you missed this....... What do you mean by "genetic information"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe God created the genetic sequences that allow the malaria parasite to kill millions of people? After all, the life history of that particular parasite is quite complex, which obviously requires very complex genetics.

 

And I think you missed this....... What do you mean by "genetic information"?

 

The entrance of sin into the world has affected all life so that some forms are now harmful.

 

By genetic information I mean the information that is found in our genes and that we pass on to our descendants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The entrance of sin into the world has affected all life so that some forms are now harmful.

That doesn't really address the issue. The plasmodium life cycle requires numerous very specific genes that are quite complex and (I assume) contain a lot of "genetic information". Your position is that the only source of genes and "genetic information" is God. Surely you see what that means, right?

 

By genetic information I mean the information that is found in our genes and that we pass on to our descendants.

Again, a definition that contains the term being defined is the logical fallacy of circular definition. Similar to your use of the term "kind", if you cannot define the term upon which your argument hinges, then your argument is meaningless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't let atheists play any role in determining what realities I do or don't accept. So if an atheist tries to argue that evolution means God doesn't exist, I don't let that be a deciding factor in whether or not I recognize evolution as real.

 

 

This article is a good starting point: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5788/765.full

 

I tried to check out the article but couldn't get it to load.

 

Darwins theory contradicts our God as understood from Scripture, so atheist use his theory in attempt to discredit Scripture and/or deny God's existance. Darwin believed our God could not be true due to suffering in the world. Ironic though that Darwin wasn't an atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't really address the issue. The plasmodium life cycle requires numerous very specific genes that are quite complex and (I assume) contain a lot of "genetic information". Your position is that the only source of genes and "genetic information" is God. Surely you see what that means, right?

It means that God created everything.

 

 

Again, a definition that contains the term being defined is the logical fallacy of circular definition. Similar to your use of the term "kind", if you cannot define the term upon which your argument hinges, then your argument is meaningless.

 

The creation account says that God created every form of life after its kind, so kind means the original organisms that God created.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tried to check out the article but couldn't get it to load.

That's too bad. The paper attempts to provide an explanation for why the US is an outlier among the developed world in terms of public acceptance of evolution. In doing so, they examine survey data from across the developed world, as represented by this graph...

 

main-qimg-978895aa4757a7b979274ef13db9c46e.png.8bbe064810bb9654e6c50582079fc6df.png

 

There are literally hundreds of millions of Christians in those countries who have no problem reconciling Christianity and science. Then there's also the Clergy Letter Project, where tens of thousands of Christian clergy have signed a letter that states (in part)....

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris."

 

Darwins theory contradicts our God as understood from Scripture

Obviously quite a few Christians disagree.

 

so atheist use his theory in attempt to discredit Scripture and/or deny God's existance.

As I said earlier, I don't allow atheists to dictate my beliefs or play any role at all in forming them.

 

Darwin believed our God could not be true due to suffering in the world. Ironic though that Darwin wasn't an atheist.

Darwin could have been an evangelical Satanist, and it wouldn't matter one bit as to the validity of his work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's too bad. The paper attempts to provide an explanation for why the US is an outlier among the developed world in terms of public acceptance of evolution. In doing so, they examine survey data from across the developed world, as represented by this graph...

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"main-qimg-978895aa4757a7b979274ef13db9c46e.png","data-attachmentid":46378}[/ATTACH]

 

There are literally hundreds of millions of Christians in those countries who have no problem reconciling Christianity and science. Then there's also the Clergy Letter Project, where tens of thousands of Christian clergy have signed a letter that states (in part)....

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris."

 

 

Obviously quite a few Christians disagree.

 

 

As I said earlier, I don't allow atheists to dictate my beliefs or play any role at all in forming them.

 

 

Darwin could have been an evangelical Satanist, and it wouldn't matter one bit as to the validity of his work.

 

The graph has too little info for me to say much of anything about.

 

It doesn't matter how many accept evolution, that doesn't make it fact. The theory dominates education, not so surprising that its accepted, its basically forced into our minds as fact. All Im saying is I don't trust satistics.

 

It's not limiting God to go by the evidance provided by God, The Bible. It's not that God could not but that God did not that is the arguement.

 

Now if Darwin was a Satanist his view of evidance would certainly be baised. And now we're back to arguing what makes his theory valid. Science is as fallible as man is and evolutionist have been wrong in the past, such as animals said to have evolved from that seen in fossel records only to find the animal isn't extinct and did not evolve into anything.

Yet in a cave discoered in Peru they found insects and spiders with no eyes and extra lond antenna to survive in the dark while the same insects found on land have shorter antenna. Thats one of many arguments that make young earth science valid.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It means that God created everything.

I guess we'll have to disagree. I don't believe that God specifically and deliberately created the genetics that have caused pain, suffering, and death among countless people.

 

The creation account says that God created every form of life after its kind, so kind means the original organisms that God created.

You don't seem to be interested in any sort of actual conversation, so I'll just thank you for your time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The graph has too little info for me to say much of anything about.

It shows that in the rest of the developed world the majority of the population recognizes evolution as true. Given the hundreds of millions of Christians in those countries, we can conclude that hundreds of millions of Christians across the world have no trouble reconciling their faith with science.

 

It doesn't matter how many accept evolution, that doesn't make it fact.

No one here ever made that argument (that because millions accept evolution as true, it is therefore true).

 

All Im saying is I don't trust satistics.

When I said there were millions of "Christian evolutionists" all over the world, you specifically asked for the statistics. But now that I give you some, you say you don't trust statistics? Well, if you don't trust them why did you ask for them?

 

Now if Darwin was a Satanist his view of evidance would certainly be baised.

Maybe, maybe not. That's the beauty of science......if there's any bias in someone's work, other scientists will eventually pick up on it and correct it. That's why people from all worldviews--Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, etc.--can do good science and reach the same conclusions.

 

Science is as fallible as man is and evolutionist have been wrong in the past

So? Does that mean we automatically reject everything from science? If so, exactly how did you post your message?

 

such as animals said to have evolved from that seen in fossel records only to find the animal isn't extinct and did not evolve into anything.

Yet in a cave discoered in Peru they found insects and spiders with no eyes and extra lond antenna to survive in the dark while the same insects found on land have shorter antenna. Thats one of many arguments that make young earth science valid.

I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me. And if you don't trust science because it's carried out by fallible mankind, why don't you distrust the material from young-earth creationists on the same grounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It shows that in the rest of the developed world the majority of the population recognizes evolution as true. Given the hundreds of millions of Christians in those countries, we can conclude that hundreds of millions of Christians across the world have no trouble reconciling their faith with science.

 

 

No one here ever made that argument (that because millions accept evolution as true, it is therefore true).

 

 

When I said there were millions of "Christian evolutionists" all over the world, you specifically asked for the statistics. But now that I give you some, you say you don't trust statistics? Well, if you don't trust them why did you ask for them?

 

​​I asked where the statistic came from and what made it creidable.

 

Maybe, maybe not. That's the beauty of science......if there's any bias in someone's work, other scientists will eventually pick up on it and correct it. That's why people from all worldviews--Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, etc.--can do good science and reach the same conclusions.

 

Young earth creationest do just that, we come the same conclusions and weed out the biased. I agree with Scripture and the science that makes Scripture valid.

 

So? Does that mean we automatically reject everything from science? If so, exactly how did you post your message?

 

No, evolutionest don't own science, I reject them, not the study itself.

 

I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me. And if you don't trust science because it's carried out by fallible mankind, why don't you distrust the material from young-earth creationists on the same grounds?

 

We have The Bible as the guide to sience. The Bible is infallible. Young earth creationest find the truth by the truth and is shown to be true.

​Theory from man's mind on how creation happened is fallible without The Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have The Bible as the guide to sience. The Bible is infallible. Young earth creationest find the truth by the truth and is shown to be true.

​Theory from man's mind on how creation happened is fallible without The Bible.

 

First, I'll note that you pretty much ignored everything I posted to you, even the information that you requested. Please understand how that isn't a good way to carry on a conversation.

 

Second, I guess we'll just disagree on whether the Bible was intended to be read as a science textbook. I don't see any indication of that in scripture at all. Also, young-earth creationism has not shown anything to be true. I can't think of a single contribution young-earth creationism has made to science in the past 50-100 years, can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I'll note that you pretty much ignored everything I posted to you, even the information that you requested. Please understand how that isn't a good way to carry on a conversation.

Second, I guess we'll just disagree on whether the Bible was intended to be read as a science textbook. I don't see any indication of that in scripture at all. Also, young-earth creationism has not shown anything to be true. I can't think of a single contribution young-earth creationism has made to science in the past 50-100 years, can you?

 

The Bible is true or its false. There's plenty of evidance to support The Bibles claims about the begging of the world as read literally. Science doesn't contradict literal Gen but instead backs it up.

 

Its your opinion that young earth creationist have shown nothing to be true.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe that God specifically and deliberately created the genetics that have caused pain, suffering, and death among countless people.

 

If God didn't create them, who did?

 

You don't seem to be interested in any sort of actual conversation, so I'll just thank you for your time.

 

I have explained exactly what is meant by the word "kinds". For some reason you don't seem to be able to understand what I have said.

 

It shows that in the rest of the developed world the majority of the population recognizes evolution as true.

 

1 John 5:19 says, "The whole world lies in the power of the evil one." One result of this subjection is that most of the world's population rejects the message of salvation contained in the gospel. Most of them also reject the account of creation found in the Bible and they have come up with the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life. This explanation is so widespread that even many Christians are deceived by it. All of my schooling has been in public schools where I was taught that the earth is billions of years old and that all life came about by evolution. After I became a Christian I continued to believe this for about 50 years. It is only in the last few years that I have actually examined the "evidence" that proves these things and have come to the conclusion that it is false.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible is true or its false. There's plenty of evidance to support The Bibles claims about the begging of the world as read literally. Science doesn't contradict literal Gen but instead backs it up.

 

Its your opinion that young earth creationist have shown nothing to be true.

 

I'm getting the sense that you're not really interested in an actual conversation, so I'll just thank you for your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×