Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Recommended Posts

Hi all! 

This topic isn't so much about arguing the merits of evolution versus creationism, but rather for me, an outsider (as a "believer" in evolution), to understand what it is exactly members of this forum believe about the theory of evolution.

I appreciate any input and here are a list of suggested content to be discussed: what do you think evolution is? Why do you reject evolution? What do you think a theory is? What led you to be interested in this topic? Why do you think evolutionary theory is popular in biology? Can you define a "kind"? To what extent can a creature evolve if you believe it's possible? Why is there an extent to which a creature can evolve? And, of course, why do you hold those beliefs?

If I have the chance or feel the need, I'll jump in and express my opinion, but I'll more than likely just be asking for clarification for my benefit and understanding (and hopefully your's too!)

Thanks :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well when I was a school they taught creation but mentioned a theory called evolution. Soon after a scientist wrote  that evolution is not a theory, but a proto theorum.  Today in schools the teach evolution as a  scientific fact.  But it is not science, no one have ever witnessed evolution so they cannot scientifically examine it.  I shared this link on my Facebook page recently.

http://www.icr.org/article/8801

I added a comment  "You have got to be gullible to believe in evolution.

 

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Old-Pilgrim!

Could you please provide a definition for what you think evolution is and why you don't believe it?

Thanks :) 

Hi Invicta!

If you could likewise provide your defintion of what you believe evolution is and why you don't believe it, that'd be quite helpful.

Also, I read your article; it only seemed to critique radioisotope dating and the age of the earth which is separate from the theory of evolution. Unless you disagree in which I'm open to explanation.

Thanks again :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is a belief that organic matter evolved from nothing,  I don't believe it because I believe the bible.  Those who believe in evolution, at least those I have encountered, believe that man is evolving to a better being.  However, as I see it the reverse is happening.  My wife and I are reading Jeremiah at present and reading about the Jews sacrificing their children to Moloch.  How terrible we say.  But millions of children are sacrifice today to the god of women's choice. There has been on the news the last couple of days, a report of a pregnant woman who was attacked and lost her child and left with critical  life threatening injuries. The father has been charged with destroying a child.  How terrible.  Yes, but how hypocritical when millions are destroyed in clinics every year.  All laws come from God.  If there is no God, then there is no right and no wrong, every man can do right in his own eyes.

Why do I believe the bible?

The bible teaches that man is a sinner and the human heart is desperately wicked and that God is a just and awesome Holy God who created all things.  

Throughout the scriptures God promised a redeemer so rescue men from their sinful rebellion against God.  He even said when he would come.  In the fullness of Time Jesus, the Holy Son of God was born of a virgin and lived a holy life which we never could.  The scriptures say, no one is righteous, no not one.  Sin demands a sacrifice. When Jesus died as the Holy Son of God on the cross, he was our sacrifice.  Our sins were transferred to Him.  Or as the bible says "He became sin for us."   Turn to Jesus for salvation now and he will forgive all your sins and rebellions, and give you life ab abundantly.    COME,

 Luke 15:7  I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. 

Luke 15:10  Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

COME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Evolution is a temporary theory set up by the illuminate (followers of satan) in order to lever people away from the idea of the creator God of the Bible, I think it is already now being brought down and discredited by the same illuminate so that the atheists generation either need to become Christian or new agers, and they are expecting that most of them will become  new agers. I think the bloke who wrote the God delusion is probably a luciferian pretending to be an odious atheist in order to make atheism look bad.

I think the theory is so bad that it is unsustainable. It gives Science a bad name. Thats what I think of Evolution theory, I would be unable to believe in something which I believe to be a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi :) 

This question is to all:

Does the scientific definition of evolution, that is the change of allele frequencies in a given population over time, raise any objections? Do you think there is something wrong with this definition and why?

Thanks :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi :) 

This question is to all:

Does the scientific definition of evolution, that is the change of allele frequencies in a given population over time, raise any objections? Do you think there is something wrong with this definition and why?

Thanks :) 

Not sure what you are talking about, please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invicta,

Sure, I'd be happy to explain. Science defines evolution as the change in allele frequencies (allele is a term for genes) of a population over time (generally through natural selection). This means that the gene pool of any given population changing brings about a change in the organisms phenotype (characteristics expressed physically) and/or genotype (characteristics expressed on the genetic level).

My question is does anyone object to this definition of evolution and why? Furthermore, does anyone object that this happens and why?

Thanks :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really are serious about wanting to see an academic refutation of evolution please watch these videos.

 

http://www.fairhavenbaptistcollege.org/media/live-streaming/evolution-and-science-seminar-march-2015

I think you will be surprised at the research this man put into putting all this together.

May God open your eyes to the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.amazon.com/The-Devils-Delusion-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374

 

consider this book and consider a review of it:

 

"I suppose most people like to at least appear to be open-minded, but sometimes I wonder how often (say) a conservative Republican sits down to read Noam Chomsky's political screeds, or a dedicated leftist sits down to enjoy Adam Smith. I picked up "The Devil's Delusion" in just that spirit, fully expecting to find a book which would argue against most of my own beliefs.

I wasn't really expecting something as brilliant, challenging, and engaging as this. If you think that the only people who don't believe in evolution are Fundamentalist knuckle-dragging Georgia swamp-dwellers, you're in for a big surprise. Berlinski himself is an agnostic of Jewish descent, an astonishingly erudite man and a brilliant thinker. He also writes frightfully well. And it is often hard to disagree with him. As he notes in the opening pages of this book --- concerning religion, God, and the rest: "I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false."

You might want to read those two sentences again, because they form the logical heart and soul of this book. Berlinski is not on a mission to preach religion; his task is to make plain just how little we actually know about the universe, and to try and re-awaken our sense of wonder. In this, he succeeds brilliantly.

The book cannot really be summarized in a brief review, but let me try to show you at least his thoughts about cosmology and the Big Bang. First, he makes it clear that the atheist camp has always had a hankering for an eternal universe (funny, that describes me, too) and a huge dislike for a universe which had an actual beginning, and then he demonstrates that all of current cosmological theory and knowledge points to the Big Bang as a singularity --- and not a universe which is constantly expanding and then contracting. So it comes Scarily Close to "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." He then amuses himself (and us) by skewering all of the "objective scientists" who are trying to wiggle out of this "difficulty." It really does sound like "objective scientists" accept the "scientific facts" which suit their own biases.

"We have no idea how the ordered physical, moral, mental, aesthetic and social world in which we live could ever have arisen from the seething anarchy of the elementary particles." One thing I can add is that, the last time I checked, we don't even know how genes and RNA manage to control the color of the eyes. We may be able to draw the hereditary chart and point to the right place in the DNA, but we have no idea at all how the genotype turns into the phenotype.

Berlinski is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, which is a place devoted to the idea of Intelligent Design, but, as an agnostic, he's something of a maverick even there. You can find him in Wikipedia and on YouTube as well."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have stated, I'll not have any discussions with you.

You can paint it any way you wish, gloss it over if you wish...but the fact remains (and you have just admitted) that you are using faith.

You are placing your faith in something that you also admitted is only an example for explaining life, its diversity, and its origins. That's all you will ever have, because evolution cannot and will not be...observed. Therefore, evolution isn't...science. Evolution falls under "natural science". Therefore, if it can't be observed, it's not science. That alone should cause you to question your object of faith.

You are placing your faith in something that you also admitted to have only read about.

You have also admitted that the only observed research that you have personally been involved with proves adaptation...not evolution.

You put your faith in an ever-changing "book" that is proven wrong by it's own "writers" as new "chapters" are written that show previous "verses" to be wrong...even though they claimed to be true when they were written.

I have a book authored by one Person, a book that never changes, and a book that has never been proven wrong and will never be proven wrong. The same truths that were recorded in it thousands of years ago still hold true today. History has validated the truths of this book. Archaeology has validated the truths of this book. SCIENCE has validated the truths of this book.

Seems awfully logical to accept something that has been proven to be true.

You need to get saved Professor. You need to repent of this foolish logic that has you blinded to God and headed to an eternity of pain and torment in the lake of fire. You're a sinner, and as a sinner you will die and go to hell. Then, one day in the future, you will stand before God and be judged. There will be no excuses, no second chances, and no pleas of mercy will help. You will be cast alive into the lake of fire where you will spend eternity. Your only hope is to accept the Lord Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection as the payment for your sins.

Professor, the Lord Jesus Christ loves you. He died for you, he was buried for you, and he rose from the grave for you.

Read it ---> http://john3verse7.weebly.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Hi all,

This post is going out to every forum I have commented on. I have come to the conclusion that my presence is most likely unwanted and unappreciated. I came to this forum under the pretenses that I would be able to enjoy serious discussions concerning theological issues rather than simply being told that my motives are suspect, I am a liar, I am filth, etc etc.

I hold no ill will towards anyone here and understand that these are your sincerely held beliefs. Unfortunately, the negative reception I have received makes me all the more reserved in my thoughts about being honest with those who don't know my beliefs.

I hope my presence has not caused any undue secession amongst your ranks and I now respectively depart from this site. I will attempt to delete my account, although a moderator may be required to do that. If this is the case, I ask that it be done.

Good day to all and thank you for the answers I've received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't like anybody telling him that he deserves to die and burn in Hell the same as everybody else...he doesn't want the truth...his own words, though perhaps a Freudian slip in poor English, state that what he was doing here was a "pretense",  defined by the Oxford dictionary as "an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true".  He's not finding enough people here who are willing to entertain his "wisdom" and "science", so now he leaves with a general insult against all Christians.  So much for Mr. Nice Guy.

 "I came to this forum under the pretenses that I would be able to enjoy serious discussions concerning theological issues...."

Saying he wanted to enjoy serious discussions of theological issues was a pretense, making his true motive of desiring to destroy the faith of Christians by the same means he has been persuaded to reject God, the atheistic gurus he idolizes with all their atheistic beliefs masked under the pretense of science....my guess is a first or second year college student since that "changes in alleles in populations" stuff  is Bio 101 evolutionary propaganda.  The poor kid has bought into it for some reason thinks he needs to sell it to others, and that is what he came here for.  Atheism is self-delusional, so it becomes hard for an atheist to be honest about the motivations of their beliefs.

 

Edited by Saintnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordan Kurecki, and Brethren,

Thank you very much for letting the brethren know about the book, "Darwin's Black Box."

I have read, and studied very closely, "Darwin's Black box," by Michael J. Behe. It is an excellent book refuting Evolution in a scrientific manner. Any inteligent, and open-minded person, who reads the book can only come to the concrete conclusion that Darwin's theory of evolution is non-scrientific in the Biochemical realm of science. It is my recommendation that all of the brethern obtain a copy of the book and study it closely.

Edited by Alan
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.amazon.com/The-Devils-Delusion-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374

 

consider this book and consider a review of it:

 

"I suppose most people like to at least appear to be open-minded, but sometimes I wonder how often (say) a conservative Republican sits down to read Noam Chomsky's political screeds, or a dedicated leftist sits down to enjoy Adam Smith. I picked up "The Devil's Delusion" in just that spirit, fully expecting to find a book which would argue against most of my own beliefs.

I wasn't really expecting something as brilliant, challenging, and engaging as this. If you think that the only people who don't believe in evolution are Fundamentalist knuckle-dragging Georgia swamp-dwellers, you're in for a big surprise. Berlinski himself is an agnostic of Jewish descent, an astonishingly erudite man and a brilliant thinker. He also writes frightfully well. And it is often hard to disagree with him. As he notes in the opening pages of this book --- concerning religion, God, and the rest: "I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false."

You might want to read those two sentences again, because they form the logical heart and soul of this book. Berlinski is not on a mission to preach religion; his task is to make plain just how little we actually know about the universe, and to try and re-awaken our sense of wonder. In this, he succeeds brilliantly.

The book cannot really be summarized in a brief review, but let me try to show you at least his thoughts about cosmology and the Big Bang. First, he makes it clear that the atheist camp has always had a hankering for an eternal universe (funny, that describes me, too) and a huge dislike for a universe which had an actual beginning, and then he demonstrates that all of current cosmological theory and knowledge points to the Big Bang as a singularity --- and not a universe which is constantly expanding and then contracting. So it comes Scarily Close to "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." He then amuses himself (and us) by skewering all of the "objective scientists" who are trying to wiggle out of this "difficulty." It really does sound like "objective scientists" accept the "scientific facts" which suit their own biases.

"We have no idea how the ordered physical, moral, mental, aesthetic and social world in which we live could ever have arisen from the seething anarchy of the elementary particles." One thing I can add is that, the last time I checked, we don't even know how genes and RNA manage to control the color of the eyes. We may be able to draw the hereditary chart and point to the right place in the DNA, but we have no idea at all how the genotype turns into the phenotype.

Berlinski is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, which is a place devoted to the idea of Intelligent Design, but, as an agnostic, he's something of a maverick even there. You can find him in Wikipedia and on YouTube as well."

All of this jibberish is what the Bible calls "science, so called" and "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."  Pardon me if I have slighty misquoted the Bible here, but it's close enough for accuracy of meaning.  There is nothing impressive in Berlinski's book for a Bible believer. 

A much more powerful and truthful statement, much more eloquent than any of the Berlinski jibberish, is "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things seen were not made out of things which do appear."  And before any science fan assumes I am simpleminded on the subject, I will have to agree that I simply believe God and never believed my college professors who taught this pseudo-science pseudo-philosophical religious nonsense.  I always have been and always will be a hobbyist of physics...it comes easy to me for some reason, I simply enjoy it....and I enjoy watching the pseudo-intellectuals in their pride never able to come to the knowledge of their truth even though any truth they find in their science always supports and never refutes the word of God.

Why in the world should a Christian study an agnostic to learn how to answer an atheistic evolutionary scientist?  The Bible has all the answers.

Edited by Saintnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.amazon.com/The-Devils-Delusion-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374

 

consider this book and consider a review of it:

 

"I suppose most people like to at least appear to be open-minded, but sometimes I wonder how often (say) a conservative Republican sits down to read Noam Chomsky's political screeds, or a dedicated leftist sits down to enjoy Adam Smith. I picked up "The Devil's Delusion" in just that spirit, fully expecting to find a book which would argue against most of my own beliefs.

I wasn't really expecting something as brilliant, challenging, and engaging as this. If you think that the only people who don't believe in evolution are Fundamentalist knuckle-dragging Georgia swamp-dwellers, you're in for a big surprise. Berlinski himself is an agnostic of Jewish descent, an astonishingly erudite man and a brilliant thinker. He also writes frightfully well. And it is often hard to disagree with him. As he notes in the opening pages of this book --- concerning religion, God, and the rest: "I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false."

You might want to read those two sentences again, because they form the logical heart and soul of this book. Berlinski is not on a mission to preach religion; his task is to make plain just how little we actually know about the universe, and to try and re-awaken our sense of wonder. In this, he succeeds brilliantly.

The book cannot really be summarized in a brief review, but let me try to show you at least his thoughts about cosmology and the Big Bang. First, he makes it clear that the atheist camp has always had a hankering for an eternal universe (funny, that describes me, too) and a huge dislike for a universe which had an actual beginning, and then he demonstrates that all of current cosmological theory and knowledge points to the Big Bang as a singularity --- and not a universe which is constantly expanding and then contracting. So it comes Scarily Close to "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." He then amuses himself (and us) by skewering all of the "objective scientists" who are trying to wiggle out of this "difficulty." It really does sound like "objective scientists" accept the "scientific facts" which suit their own biases.

"We have no idea how the ordered physical, moral, mental, aesthetic and social world in which we live could ever have arisen from the seething anarchy of the elementary particles." One thing I can add is that, the last time I checked, we don't even know how genes and RNA manage to control the color of the eyes. We may be able to draw the hereditary chart and point to the right place in the DNA, but we have no idea at all how the genotype turns into the phenotype.

Berlinski is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, which is a place devoted to the idea of Intelligent Design, but, as an agnostic, he's something of a maverick even there. You can find him in Wikipedia and on YouTube as well."

The only people who have no idea of how genes and RNA manage to control the color of eyes are people who deny God's design and His rule over it.  There is no good reason that any Christian should elevate as admirable an intellect that underestimates God....no good reason to elevate my own intellect as His thoughts and His ways are much higher than mine.  The only thing good that might be found in my intellect is the possibility that it can be a vessel God can use to glorify Himself, His miracle in action for His own purpose and glory.  Intellectual pride is a all too common of a plague among Christians today.

"When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died,

my richest gain I count but loss, and pour contempt on all my pride"

 

"Were the whole realm of glory mine, that were a present far too small

Love so amazing, so divine, demand my life, my heart, my all"

 

Edited by Saintnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was simply trying to point out that there are unbelieving scientists that do not believe in Darwinian Evolution.

Yes, I understand that, but they still do not have the beginning of wisdom, knowledge, or understanding by Biblical boundaries.  The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.   An agnostic is a fool, even if he does dispute evolutionary scientists.  And by the way, "agnostic" is only a euphemism for atheist, a pretense of being an intellectual and deeper thinking atheist.  Both of them can be classified as existential religions the same as Hinduism or Bhudism...however Boodism is spelled....it's all atheistic nonsense.  The Bible is much better reading than any agnostic or atheistic genius of worldly acclaim.

A solid Biblical understanding is much more powerful than any amount of agnostic encyclopedia commentary on religion, science, or philosophy.  There is no wisdom, or counsel, or understanding against the Lord, and Berlinski is obviously full of garbage trying to stand against the Lord in agnostic atheism.

Edited by Saintnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Professor_Physika
      Hi all  
      I would like to know your opinions on atheism being defined as a religion. Some questions to discuss:
      1) Is atheism a religion?
      2) What is the definition of atheism?
      3) What is the definition of religion?
      4) How did you reach your conclusions?
      Thanks  
    • By Professor_Physika
      Hi all
      As some of you may know, I'm a recent member invited by another member of this online forum. I'm also an atheist.
      So far, I have been treated fairly respectably on this board which I greatly appreciate, but there have been some inklings by fellow board members as to the intent of some of my posts.
      In an effort to help me further understand Christian doctrine and the opinions of Christians in general, I've started this thread so that the following question can be answered: what do you think about atheists and why?
      (Possible suggestions for discussion: what do you think an atheist is, what do you think an atheist believes or doesn't believe, do you have any atheistic friends, etc etc; by the way, fill free to express your honest opinion, I don't offend easy  )
      Thanks  
    • By Professor_Physika
      Hi all! This is my first real post so I'm gonna get right to it.
      I believe it's possible that the following syllogism prohibits the idea of free will and actually supports the idea that it is an illusion.
      1) God created the universe.
      2) God is timeless.
      3) God is omniscient.
      4) God had a choice in creating the universe.
      5) If God knew beforehand the events of this universe as His timeless omniscience would seem to imply, He bears ultimate responsibility for all actions taken in said universe, acting, in a way, as the "prime mover" of a Rube Goldberg-esque machine. In the same way that a domino has no choice but to fall over when hit by the domino triggered before it, so do people also lack the free will to alter their decisions. Therefore, free will does not actually exist and is instead an illusion.
      My question is this: where am I wrong, how did you determine that I'm wrong, do you support a contrary position, and why?
      Thanks
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 135 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...