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

Breaking the shackles of evolutionary propaganda

Recommended Posts

From the dying embers of faith, via atheism and evolutionary compromise, to a rock solid confidence in biblical creation and Scripture-one man's fascinating journey.

 

More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a sad story, because for whatever reason he adopted the framework that anything other than young-earth creationism equals atheism.

"The ‘monster’ of unbelief within me was continuously being fed by what I’d call evolutionary propaganda. Discovery Channel, National Geographic, newspapers, magazines, text books, study books, even entertaining sources such as movies, all were making one thing very obvious: Earth is very, very old and we are the products of millions of years of evolution. Apart from the apparent pointlessness of our existence, that also meant that what was written in the Bible and taught in church could not possibly be true. And if that was the case, there was in fact no reason to believe the God mentioned in the Bible was even real.
"

 

That framework tells the enemies of Christianity that to disprove the Bible and pull people away from Christ, all they have to do is show the earth is old. That's it. Evidence of an old earth is evidence that God doesn't exist. It also tells young people that they must choose between Christianity and science.....can't have both. So many kids will just figure if Christianity is such an anti-science belief, they don't want anything to do with it.

 

​​​​​​​And it doesn't have to be that way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a sad story, because for whatever reason he adopted the framework that anything other than young-earth creationism equals atheism.

"The ‘monster’ of unbelief within me was continuously being fed by what I’d call evolutionary propaganda. Discovery Channel, National Geographic, newspapers, magazines, text books, study books, even entertaining sources such as movies, all were making one thing very obvious: Earth is very, very old and we are the products of millions of years of evolution. Apart from the apparent pointlessness of our existence, that also meant that what was written in the Bible and taught in church could not possibly be true. And if that was the case, there was in fact no reason to believe the God mentioned in the Bible was even real.
"

 

That framework tells the enemies of Christianity that to disprove the Bible and pull people away from Christ, all they have to do is show the earth is old. That's it. Evidence of an old earth is evidence that God doesn't exist. It also tells young people that they must choose between Christianity and science.....can't have both. So many kids will just figure if Christianity is such an anti-science belief, they don't want anything to do with it.

 

And it doesn't have to be that way.

 

Yeah, I think it is important to believe in Old Earth Creationism. It almost seems like the enemy created YEC to be a straw man to make Christianity look like it is based on a weak argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Millions of years of macroevolution is an assault against Scripture, it may not disprove God, but it's inconsistent with our one true God. Bramha and macroevolution go together just fine.

 

Christians don't have to choose between the Bible and science but they don't have to believe everything they are told is scientific fact either. YEC isn't just a thought.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Millions of years of macroevolution is an assault against Scripture, it may not disprove God, but it's inconsistent with our one true God. Bramha and macroevolution go together just fine.

 

Christians don't have to choose between the Bible and science but they don't have to believe everything they are told is scientific fact either. YEC isn't just a thought.

 

Macroevolution is an assault on Scripture I agree. But I believe in OEC and the Day Age interpretation which fits with both Scripture and science.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Macroevolution is an assault on Scripture I agree. But I believe in OEC and the Day Age interpretation which fits with both Scripture and science.

 

That's a respectable stance, microevoulution takes time and so dose populating the world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's a respectable stance, microevoulution takes time and so dose populating the world.

 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Macroevolution is an assault on Scripture.

Then you believe evidence for macroevolution is evidence against Christ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Millions of years of macroevolution is an assault against Scripture, it may not disprove God, but it's inconsistent with our one true God.

Obviously millions of Christians disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you believe evidence for macroevolution is evidence against Christ?

 

No, I just believe the evidence supports separate ancestry. I have total faith in Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously millions of Christians disagree.

 

Millions of Christians disagree on many many subjects. I look at Scripture first and science. I do not believe they conflict.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you believe evidence for macroevolution is evidence against Christ?

 

Nope, I believe Christ is evidence against macroevolution.

 

I've yet to see any evidance supporting macroevolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I just believe the evidence supports separate ancestry. I have total faith in Christ.

If it's not too much trouble, I'd be curious to see what evidence you're referring to.

 

Millions of Christians disagree on many many subjects. I look at Scripture first and science. I do not believe they conflict.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, I believe Christ is evidence against macroevolution.

How?

 

I've yet to see any evidance supporting macroevolution.

Where have you looked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for sharing. I hope you don't mind if I comment on it :RpS_smile:.

 

First, it starts off with this assertion, "Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). " Two things stand out to me on that. First, Dr. Morris has made up his own definition of evolution, and then uses that made-up definition to say evolution doesn't happen! I hope you see the fallacy in that. I mean, if an atheist told you that he defined Christianity as a form of cannibalism (because we partake of the body of Christ) and rejected Christianity because he didn't want to be associated with cannibals, would you just accept that? If you wouldn't, why then do you accept Dr. Morris' made-up definition of "evolution"?

 

Also, he says evolution is one "kind" becoming another "kind", but he never says what a "kind" is. As we've seen in this forum, no one can say what it is.

 

So in sum on that point, Dr. Morris has made up his own definition of evolution that centers on an undefined term, and from that concludes that evolution doesn't happen. Do you see how seriously flawed that is?

 

And looking through the next couple of paragraphs, it's pretty much the same thing......no evidence of change across "kinds", even though he never says what a "kind" is.

 

I'll wait for your reply before continuing......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for sharing. I hope you don't mind if I comment on it :RpS_smile:.

 

First, it starts off with this assertion, "Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). " Two things stand out to me on that. First, Dr. Morris has made up his own definition of evolution, and then uses that made-up definition to say evolution doesn't happen! I hope you see the fallacy in that. I mean, if an atheist told you that he defined Christianity as a form of cannibalism (because we partake of the body of Christ) and rejected Christianity because he didn't want to be associated with cannibals, would you just accept that? If you wouldn't, why then do you accept Dr. Morris' made-up definition of "evolution"?

 

Also, he says evolution is one "kind" becoming another "kind", but he never says what a "kind" is. As we've seen in this forum, no one can say what it is.

 

So in sum on that point, Dr. Morris has made up his own definition of evolution that centers on an undefined term, and from that concludes that evolution doesn't happen. Do you see how seriously flawed that is?

 

And looking through the next couple of paragraphs, it's pretty much the same thing......no evidence of change across "kinds", even though he never says what a "kind" is.

 

I'll wait for your reply before continuing......

 

He is basically stating one genus does not change into another type of genus so there is no proof of macroevolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is basically stating one genus does not change into another type of genus so there is no proof of macroevolution.

 

And if you were provided an example of evolutionary change that crossed the genus boundary?

 

EDIT: But I'm still wondering......why do you go along with Dr. Morris' made-up definition of evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And if you were provided an example of evolutionary change that crossed the genus boundary?

 

EDIT: But I'm still wondering......why do you go along with Dr. Morris' made-up definition of evolution?

 

Then it would be part of the implementation of the design of living systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then it would be part of the implementation of the design of living systems.

I guess I'm not understanding. Let me know if I've missed something.....

 

You said you believe "the evidence supports separate ancestry".

 

When I asked about that evidence, you liked to an ICR page that says evolution never happens because we never see evidence of change across "kinds".

 

You clarified by saying that "kind" = genus.

 

So wouldn't it stand to reason that if we find an example of change across genera, that would be "evolution" (meeting Dr. Morris' criterion) and would therefore negate the ICR page?

 

Also, why do you go along with Dr. Morris' made-up definition of evolution?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm not understanding. Let me know if I've missed something.....

 

You said you believe "the evidence supports separate ancestry".

 

When I asked about that evidence, you liked to an ICR page that says evolution never happens because we never see evidence of change across "kinds".

 

You clarified by saying that "kind" = genus.

 

So wouldn't it stand to reason that if we find an example of change across genera, that would be "evolution" (meeting Dr. Morris' criterion) and would therefore negate the ICR page?

 

Also, why do you go along with Dr. Morris' made-up definition of evolution?

 

I shouldn't have answered your hypothetical question but I did. I said if there was evidence of macroevolution, which there isn't, then it would be part of the implementation of the design of living systems.

 

His definition is fine with me. It is mainly wording you are calling out. His points still stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I shouldn't have answered your hypothetical question but I did.

Why not? That's how we learn and understand each other.....we ask each other questions.

 

I said if there was evidence of macroevolution, which there isn't, then it would be part of the implementation of the design of living systems.

But it would also be a very clear indication that macroevolution is real, correct?

 

His definition is fine with me. It is mainly wording you are calling out. His points still stand.

No, I'm wondering why you don't see the fallacy in someone making up their own definition for something, and then basing their rejection of that thing on the made-up definition. As I asked, would you accept an atheist doing the same with Christianity?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? That's how we learn and understand each other.....we ask each other questions.

 

 

But it would also be a very clear indication that macroevolution is real, correct?

 

 

No, I'm wondering why you don't see the fallacy in someone making up their own definition for something, and then basing their rejection of that thing on the made-up definition. As I asked, would you accept an atheist doing the same with Christianity?

 

I was taught once to try to avoid responding to too many hypothetical questions in a debate. It opens up anything that could be hypothetical.

 

I wouldn't accept that but this is almost a play on words.

 

Are you and OEC that believes in macroevolution and common ancestry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another excellent source is Dr. Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How?

 

 

Where have you looked?

 

If you do a study on the geneolgies you'll see they are all connected from Adam all the way to Christ.

 

Where have I looked? What's there to look at? Theories?

  • Like 2

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