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  
Brother Jason

CosmicSkeptic vs. Answers in Genesis

Recommended Posts

 

Do people here ever watch atheist youtube videos? An atheist friend of mine on facebook posted this video. I don't know if other people here are young earth creationists, but I am and I wanted to share some of my thoughts on this video (a lot more could be said), and see what others thought.

 

So here are some of the main objections that I have.

 

He attempts to argue against Young Earth Creationism by claiming that just because you can’t witness something occurring doesn’t mean you can’t have evidence that it occurred. Duh, no one’s claiming that you can’t have evidence something occurred. Obviously Young Earth Creationists believe there’s evidence a global flood occurred, and creation geologist, Andrew Snelling, wouldn’t have sued the Grand Canyon to be allowed to do his research if he believed you couldn’t have evidence of something happening in the past. This is just a stupid straw man argument.

 

 

 

He also says that it goes without saying that no one was around to observe the “creation myth”. No that doesn’t go without saying, we say that God observed his act of creation and the Bible records his eye-witness account. He’s just asserting his atheist bias, which is not an argument.

 

 

 

He claims that the only people who understand evolution and reject it do so for religious reasons. No one rejects all of evolution outright. Even Young Earth Creationists agree to some extent with evolutionists, as can be seen in the very article he’s responding to which says that natural selection is a part of the biblical world view. What we reject is the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, and this certainly isn’t rejected for solely religious reasons. Highly respected scientists and mathematicians such as Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldgrege, Gordon Rattray Taylor, Lancelot Law Whyte, David Berlinski, Murray Eden, Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, C.H. Waddington, Sir Fred Hoyle, among many others have rejected it for entirely scientific and mathematical reasons.

 

 

 

He claims that evolution isn’t a historical science! Do not the titles, On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man imply otherwise? One of the most respected evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, Ernst Mayr, wrote, “Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”

 

 

 

He objects to Answers in Genesis using the word “design” even though that word is found in Richard Dawkins’ very own definition of biology! “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

 

 

 

This blew my mind, he actually claimed that evolutionary scientists NEVER use similarities between animals as evidence for evolution! What?! Evolutionists are always appealing to homology, whether it’s fossils to genetics. Homology is defined as, “the state of having the same or similar relation, relative position, or structure.” Here’s an evolutionary biologist, Robert Trivers, appealing to homology, “The chimpanzee and the human share about 99.5 per cent of their evolutionary history, yet most human thinkers regard the chimp as a malformed, irrelevant oddity while seeing themselves as stepping-stones to the Almighty. To an evolutionist this cannot be so. There exists no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another.” The fact that he said evolutionists don’t do that is stunningly stupid.

 

 

 

He thinks that Young Earth Creationists believe, “Every single living thing had a sudden, distinct origin less than a few thousand years ago.” I’m not sure what he means by “thing”, I can only assume he’s referring to species. That’s wrong. We believe that God created different kinds of animals that cannot breed with each other. Most kinds probably fit in the classification of family not species. Literature exists on this topic that he clearly hasn’t read so he has no idea what he’s talking about.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew Snelling, wouldn’t have sued the Grand Canyon to be allowed to do his research if he believed you couldn’t have evidence of something happening in the past. This is just a stupid straw man argument.

 

ROFL - You crack me up, so true.

 

Highly respected scientists and mathematicians such as Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldgrege, Gordon Rattray Taylor, Lancelot Law Whyte, David Berlinski, Murray Eden, Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, C.H. Waddington, Sir Fred Hoyle, among many others have rejected it for entirely scientific and mathematical reasons.

 

I'd think any respected Mathematician or even Chemist for that matter would be on the side of Creationism. Exactly what is the probability of something coming from nothing?

 

Good stuff thanks for sharing. Read your thoughts but haven't reviewed the video.

 

God bless Brother Jason,

William

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd think any respected Mathematician or even Chemist for that matter would be on the side of Creationism. Exactly what is the probability of something coming from nothing?

 

 

I agree. There is no way an honest mathematician could understand DNA, cell formation, and universe fine-tuning and not be a Creationist. It is physically impossible for all that to happen by random chance. I believe 10^-50 is considered an impossibility. The cosmological constant alone is 10^-120 fine-tuned. That's just one constant of the universe. There are approximately 10^78 atoms in the known universe, to give an idea of the scales we are talking about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people here ever watch atheist youtube videos? An atheist friend of mine on facebook posted this video. I don't know if other people here are young earth creationists, but I am and I wanted to share some of my thoughts on this video (a lot more could be said), and see what others thought.

What's most sad to me is how the debate is framed, where atheism is on the side of science and Christianity is against it. That's become such a common theme, it's just generally assumed and few people even notice it anymore.

 

He attempts to argue against Young Earth Creationism by claiming that just because you can’t witness something occurring doesn’t mean you can’t have evidence that it occurred. Duh, no one’s claiming that you can’t have evidence something occurred.

 

Answers in Genesis: Were You There?

 

 

He claims that the only people who understand evolution and reject it do so for religious reasons.

And that's pretty much true.

 

No one rejects all of evolution outright. Even Young Earth Creationists agree to some extent with evolutionists, as can be seen in the very article he’s responding to which says that natural selection is a part of the biblical world view.

You should look around this forum. I've seen articles linked to (from creation.com) that define evolution as only occurring when a new "kind" is produced, and then saying that it's never happened. One member here says "belief in evolution" is a "Satanic plot". Whenever I state that evolution is an observed fact, I immediately get challenged on it. And if you need further evidence, Argument #1 that AiG says "evolutionists should avoid" is "evolution is a fact", which includes this: "Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is. It’s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof."

 

Not only that, but the AiG page he's critiquing includes"natural selection is evolution" as Argument #7 that "evolutionists shouldn't use". But here you're saying natural selection is evolution. IOW, you're contradicting Answers in Genesis.

 

What we reject is the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, and this certainly isn’t rejected for solely religious reasons. Highly respected scientists and mathematicians such as Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldgrege, Gordon Rattray Taylor, Lancelot Law Whyte, David Berlinski, Murray Eden, Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, C.H. Waddington, Sir Fred Hoyle, among many others have rejected it for entirely scientific and mathematical reasons.

You're mischaracterizing things. For example, Gould and Eldredge simply proposed that patterns in the fossil record be viewed in light of a different mode of speciation than Darwinian anagenesis. But you certainly can't chalk them up as being among those who "reject evolution".

 

He claims that evolution isn’t a historical science! Do not the titles, On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man imply otherwise? One of the most respected evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, Ernst Mayr, wrote, “Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”

Evolutionary biology includes both historical and contemporary components.

 

He objects to Answers in Genesis using the word “design” even though that word is found in Richard Dawkins’ very own definition of biology! “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

He objects to them using "design" "in that context" and then goes on to explain how their use of the word in their argument is circular.

 

This blew my mind, he actually claimed that evolutionary scientists NEVER use similarities between animals as evidence for evolution! What?! Evolutionists are always appealing to homology, whether it’s fossils to genetics. Homology is defined as, “the state of having the same or similar relation, relative position, or structure.” Here’s an evolutionary biologist, Robert Trivers, appealing to homology, “The chimpanzee and the human share about 99.5 per cent of their evolutionary history, yet most human thinkers regard the chimp as a malformed, irrelevant oddity while seeing themselves as stepping-stones to the Almighty. To an evolutionist this cannot be so. There exists no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another.” The fact that he said evolutionists don’t do that is stunningly stupid.

He actually said that "common characteristics were the inspiration behind evolution, not the proof." He then went on to describe how Darwin did not just simplistically say "Ah ha, evolution is true" after noticing common characteristics. He then explained how no evolutionary biologist makes the argument that evolution is true just because some animals look alike. And that's entirely correct.

 

He thinks that Young Earth Creationists believe, “Every single living thing had a sudden, distinct origin less than a few thousand years ago.” I’m not sure what he means by “thing”, I can only assume he’s referring to species. That’s wrong. We believe that God created different kinds of animals that cannot breed with each other. Most kinds probably fit in the classification of family not species. Literature exists on this topic that he clearly hasn’t read so he has no idea what he’s talking about.

You're splitting hairs. If you ask young-earth creationists where, say tigers came from, they will tell you that they (and all other "cats") trace their origin back to the creation week ~6,000 years ago.

 

And at the end he notes that millions of Christians across the world don't subscribe to young-earth creationism, which is also true.

Edited by River Jordan

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