Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

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.
Register now

Christforums

.... an orthodox (true and correct when contrasted with Liberal theology) Protestant forum whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. We do not "argue" with nor do we solicit the membership of people who espouse secular or cultic ideologies. We believe that our conversations are to be faith building and posts that advance heretical or apostate thinking will be immediately deleted and the poster permanently banned from the forum. This is a Christian Protestant community for people to explore the traditional theologies of Classical Protestantism.

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
News Feeder

Gal?pagos with David Attenborough: Evolution

Recommended Posts

Sir David Attenborough and Charles Darwin were both mistaken in their evaluation of the animals of the Galápagos as evidence for evolution.

 

More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I described in the thread I started earlier in this forum, my main interest here is in what I see as unnecessary damage being done to our faith and Great Commission by anti-science groups within Christendom. The creation.com article in the OP is one example, as I'll demonstrate....

 

They start off by making up their own definition of "evolution":

 

Whether or not evolution has occurred on Galápagos (or anywhere else on Earth for that matter) depends very much on what is meant by the term ‘evolution’. The theory that creationists oppose is the idea (and consequent atheistic worldview) that all living things on Earth have arisen from a single source (which itself came from non-life). The key issue is the type of change required. For example, to change microbes into marine iguanas would require massive successive increases in the genetic information of the genome. However, none of the examples of change over time that Attenborough calls ‘evolution’ in this series involve the addition of new genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and/or loss of existing gene information. Hence they do not support Darwinian (i.e. microbes-to-marine-iguana) evolution.

 

A couple of things.....first, "all things from a single source" is universal common ancestry; evolution is the process by which it occurs. Second, notice how they say whether or not something is "evolution" is based on whether there's been an "increase in genetic information", yet they never say what "genetic information" is, nor do they say how to measure it (so we can tell whether it has increased). Finally, they add another made-up criterion when they say it's not evolution unless there's been an "addition of new genes". Again, where did this definition come from? Looks like they just made it up.

 

They continue...

 

if speciation occurs, this too is not Darwinian evolution, because this involves a sorting of existing information, not the acquisition of new genetic information.

 

Again their whole argument hinges on "new genetic information", yet they never say what that is or how to measure it.

 

I'll stop here for the moment, but I want to bring this back to my larger point. These types of creationist articles and resources are doing a great disservice to our faith. They cast science as an anti-Christian enterprise, which gives people the impression that if you want to be a Christian you have to reject science. But more importantly, they fill believers heads with ridiculous arguments and talking points. So after reading this article, they go out into the world and repeat them. "That's not evolution! There wasn't an increase in genetic information!" But then they'll get immediately asked "What's genetic information and how are you measuring it?" What are they going to say? Creation.com didn't tell them. In my experience this is a big problem. I've seen many a creationist stumble and stammer over this very question and end up getting quite angry and in the end, make Christians and Christianity look absurd. IOW, creation.com is setting Christians up to fail.

 

That makes me wonder......why? Why does creation.com try and argue from a scientific perspective, rather than one of faith? If they believe evolution contradicts their faith, then they should just say so and leave it at that. There's no reason to take that next big step and start trying to argue against the science. And there's certainly no reason to deliberately send fellow Christians out there with silly talking points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I described in the thread I started earlier in this forum, my main interest here is in what I see as unnecessary damage being done to our faith and Great Commission by anti-science groups within Christendom.

 

I agree that a lot of damage has been done by anti-science groups withing Christiandom but the anti-science groups are those who accept evolution and try to reconcile it with the Bible. A study of the age of the earth and of the origin of life requires historical as well as scientific information.

 

They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. (2 Peter 3:4-6)

 

Evolutionists make two assumptions regarding history. They assume that everything natural process that is going on now has always been going on and that there was never a worldwide flood. Of course, if they were right then evolution would have to be true. There would be no other way to explain the existence of life. Creationists accept the Bible as being historically correct. Christians who accept evolution generally teach that the flood was only a local flood and didn't cover the whole world.

 

they say whether or not something is "evolution" is based on whether there's been an "increase in genetic information", yet they never say what "genetic information" is, nor do they say how to measure it

 

Evolutionists believe the first forms of life were single celled organisms. They believe that many of the organisms developed into the many celled organisms that exist today. These forms of life possess characteristics that were nonexistent in their ancestors. That is what we mean by an increase in genetic information.

 

They cast science as an anti-Christian enterprise, which gives people the impression that if you want to be a Christian you have to reject science.

 

No, we do not reject science. We deny that the theory of evolution has been proved by science. If want to understand the creationist view of science this blog would be a good place to start:

 

https://biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/home/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that a lot of damage has been done by anti-science groups withing Christiandom but the anti-science groups are those who accept evolution and try to reconcile it with the Bible.

How are people like me anti-science?

 

They assume that everything natural process that is going on now has always been going on

Well......yeah. You object to the assumption that gravity was the same in the past as it is today? Electromagnetic force? Chemical bonding? Erosion?

 

I mean, exactly which natural processes do you believe only began once humans started studying things?

 

and that there was never a worldwide flood.

First, that wasn't an assumption, it was a conclusion drawn from the data. I hope you appreciate the difference. Second, it wasn't "evolutionists" who reached that conclusion, it was European scientists who were predominantly Christians.

 

Of course, if they were right then evolution would have to be true. There would be no other way to explain the existence of life.

Evolution is true because we see it happen.

 

Evolutionists believe the first forms of life were single celled organisms. They believe that many of the organisms developed into the many celled organisms that exist today. These forms of life possess characteristics that were nonexistent in their ancestors. That is what we mean by an increase in genetic information.

That's not at all useful. Remember, the creation.com article argument rests on their made-up definition of evolution (it's only evolution when there's been an increase in "genetic information"). Therefore, they must have a means of measuring "genetic information", right? Otherwise, how would anyone know if the "genetic information" has increased, decreased, or remained the same?

 

I would think that much is obvious.

 

No, we do not reject science. We deny that the theory of evolution has been proved by science.

That's just silly. "We don't reject science, we just reject the conclusions of science that conflict with our beliefs." The fact remains, evolutionary biology is a longstanding valid field of science, and young-earth creationists reject it. Not only that, in order to be a young-earth creationist you have to reject pretty much all of the conclusions of the earth and life sciences.......geology, genetics, physics, cosmology, archaeology, etc.

 

If want to understand the creationist view of science this blog would be a good place to start:

 

https://biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/home/

 

There's quite a bit of material there. Do you have something specific you wish to discuss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, exactly which natural processes do you believe only began once humans started studying things?

 

Natural processes did not change when we began studying them but there was a point in time when they began, when God created the universe. Some scientists deny that the universe was created but believe it always existed and this affect their interpretation of the data they observe.

 

First, that wasn't an assumption, it was a conclusion drawn from the data. I hope you appreciate the difference. Second, it wasn't "evolutionists" who reached that conclusion, it was European scientists who were predominantly Christians.

 

In the past most European countries had established churches and anyone born in the country was considered to be a member of that church and therefore a Christian. A Christian is someone who has recognized his sinfulness, repented of his sins, and put his faith in Jesus Christ. There are a lot of people who profess to be Christians and who really believe they are Christians who have not done this. (You claim you are a Lutheran. Have you ever made this decision to believe in Christ or are you a Lutheran just because you were raised in a family that was Lutheran? If you haven't trusted in Christ that would explain why you find it so hard to understand the things I am telling you.)

 

Evolution is true because we see it happen.

 

Where do you see it happening?

 

Remember, the creation.com article argument rests on their made-up definition of evolution (it's only evolution when there's been an increase in "genetic information"). Therefore, they must have a means of measuring "genetic information", right? Otherwise, how would anyone know if the "genetic information" has increased, decreased, or remained the same?

 

If you reject that definition of evolution, how do you define it?

 

evolutionary biology is a longstanding valid field of science

 

It is a longstanding and widely accepted theory but it is based on a false belief regarding history, that the natural processes we observe have always been going on and didn't start when God created the universe.

 

There's quite a bit of material there. Do you have something specific you wish to discuss?

 

The entire blog shows that the Bible is scientifically true. Read any part you like and you will find that this is true.

 

There is evidence that show the earth can't be as old as most people think it is. Here is a post on my blog in which I pointed out some of this evidence.

 

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/the-missing-navels/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural processes did not change when we began studying them but there was a point in time when they began, when God created the universe. Some scientists deny that the universe was created but believe it always existed and this affect their interpretation of the data they observe.

That doesn't make sense. Biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, geologists, and everyone else who works in the earth and life sciences.....they come from all walks of faith, yet they manage to reach the same conclusions about the age of the universe, age of the earth, and the evolutionary history of life on earth.

 

So you assertion of bias due to religious beliefs just doesn't match up with reality.

 

In the past most European countries had established churches and anyone born in the country was considered to be a member of that church and therefore a Christian. A Christian is someone who has recognized his sinfulness, repented of his sins, and put his faith in Jesus Christ. There are a lot of people who profess to be Christians and who really believe they are Christians who have not done this. (You claim you are a Lutheran. Have you ever made this decision to believe in Christ or are you a Lutheran just because you were raised in a family that was Lutheran? If you haven't trusted in Christ that would explain why you find it so hard to understand the things I am telling you.)

So basically what you're saying is, these people whose names you don't even know nor have you ever read their work, you feel you can judge them as not being Christians. I suppose that's based on nothing more than that they reached conclusions about the history of the earth that conflict with what you believe.

 

And that makes me wonder.....do you believe creation/evolution and young earth/old earth are salvation issues? IOW, do you believe that one must be a young-earth creationist in order to be a Christian?

 

Where do you see it happening?

Pretty much everywhere. We fight against it when we have to keep developing new antibiotics and vaccines, and we exploit it through the process of domestication.

 

If you reject that definition of evolution, how do you define it?

Well first, it's not so much that I 'reject" creation.com's definition of evolution, it's that I see it for what it is......their own personal made-up definition. I mean, would you go along with any definition of Christianity that some atheist website makes up?

 

And the definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

 

It is a longstanding and widely accepted theory but it is based on a false belief regarding history, that the natural processes we observe have always been going on and didn't start when God created the universe.

Well that's simply wrong. Evolution is not at all based on or dependent on God not creating the universe. I have no idea where you got that from, but whoever told you that was misleading you.

 

The entire blog shows that the Bible is scientifically true. Read any part you like and you will find that this is true.

Ok, thanks.

 

There is evidence that show the earth can't be as old as most people think it is. Here is a post on my blog in which I pointed out some of this evidence.

 

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/20...issing-navels/

 

Are you interested in discussing that material with me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't make sense. Biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, geologists, and everyone else who works in the earth and life sciences.....they come from all walks of faith, yet they manage to reach the same conclusions about the age of the universe, age of the earth, and the evolutionary history of life on earth.

 

So you assertion of bias due to religious beliefs just doesn't match up with reality.

 

The subject of the age of the earth involves history as well as science. The Bible tells us that God created the earth and everything on it in six days. It also tells us there was a world wide flood which was responsible for all the fossils we find. The belief that the earth is old requires a rejection of this historical information. Many who believe in an old earth are Christians but they try to reconcile their beliefs with the Bible by claiming that the creations days were long periods of time and not literal days.

 

And that makes me wonder.....do you believe creation/evolution and young earth/old earth are salvation issues? IOW, do you believe that one must be a young-earth creationist in order to be a Christian?

 

I have been a Christian 60 years. The first 50 of those years I believed in an old earth and in evolution because I was taught it in school and I believed that it had been scientifically proved. It is only in the last few years that I have actually studies the subject of creation and have come to the conclusion that my former beliefs were wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many who believe in an old earth are Christians but they try to reconcile their beliefs with the Bible by claiming that the creations days were long periods of time and not literal days.

Which eliminates the role of bias due to some sort of anti-Bible or anti-God agenda.

 

I have been a Christian 60 years. The first 50 of those years I believed in an old earth and in evolution because I was taught it in school and I believed that it had been scientifically proved. It is only in the last few years that I have actually studies the subject of creation and have come to the conclusion that my former beliefs were wrong.

You didn't address the question I asked. Do you believe creation/evolution and young earth/old earth are salvation issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you believe creation/evolution and young earth/old earth are salvation issues?

 

Of course not. I told you that I was saved 50 years before I came to believe in young earth creation. They aren't salvation issues but if you believe in evolution you are teaching error along with truth when you tell others what you believe. If you tell others that what the Bible says about creation isn't literally true some will conclude that what the Bible says about the death and resurrection of Christ isn't literally true either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course not. I told you that I was saved 50 years before I came to believe in young earth creation. They aren't salvation issues but if you believe in evolution you are teaching error along with truth when you tell others what you believe. If you tell others that what the Bible says about creation isn't literally true some will conclude that what the Bible says about the death and resurrection of Christ isn't literally true either.

 

In my experiences, if you tell people that the Bible strictly teaches a 6,000 year old earth and universe, many will conclude that the Bible isn't trustworthy and can be safely rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In my experiences, if you tell people that the Bible strictly teaches a 6,000 year old earth and universe, many will conclude that the Bible isn't trustworthy and can be safely rejected.

 

They are likely to respond that way if you don't also show them that there is scientific evidence to support the belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are likely to respond that way if you don't also show them that there is scientific evidence to support the belief.

 

No, there isn't.

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.

×
Articles - News - Registration Terms