Are there any Christians that don't believe in Creationism out there?

[bhsmte]

Yes, because evolution is taught in schools. Since it is easy to control children, a person would have to research on their own to not believe in it. They would have to actually think of researching it... which may not happen.

I believed in evolution before AND I was a Christian. I believed God used evolution to create people. Of course there are some serious flaws with that...but hey I was probably 12 at the time. I believed what I was told. I believed for a long time and even in college wrote a 20 page final on the Beak of the Finch. I think that's when I started not believing because I didn't find anything in the book proving macroevolution....just adaptation.

When I became a teacher I researched it more and saw a lot of the flaws....to the point it was completely laughable at how ridiculous. I tried asking science teachers in my school about it to debate it... But I actually never found one that really believed it. I know my professor in college really did though.

What are these flaws, in the scientific theory of evolution?

 

[Aman777]

What are these flaws, in the scientific theory of evolution?

1. It's incomplete since it cannot explain where Humans had our origin.
2. it's not scientific because it's believers cannot repeat it, so they make excuses.
3. It falsely supposes that the sons of God (prehistoric people) were Humans
4. It cannot explain the process of putting the highest intelligence into Apes
5. It is provable False Historically. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

Want more? It's really easy to refute (prove wrong) the False ToE. Amen?

 

[Cassidy Bennett]

What are these flaws, in the scientific theory of evolution?

Reasons evolution doesn't exist:
1. There are no progressions of animals becoming other animals or in between animals. (There are variations in "kinds" but not going from one animal to another which would have been found.)
2. There are no "missing links" for humans...or animals! (There are incomplete monkey bones like "Lucy". We would have A LOT of missing links unless of course it was only 1 man and woman created from it. Getting too close to creation with that one. )
3. Animals in the past were larger (dinosaurs, giant insects, giant sharks, etc) ( higher oxygen creates bigger beings/ animals like in the past)
4. Extinction- we are losing thousands of animals a year, not gaining. (Losing 1000 to 100,000 depending on the numbers you look at)
5. DNA mutations cause a weakening not strengthening. (This didn't exist in Darwin's day)
6. Living beings do not come from non living objects. (A rock is a rock by any other name)

Say a lie over and over and you're sure to believe it. But try to prove it true and it doesn't work. This is the case of evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

Reasons evolution doesn't exist:
1. There are no progressions of animals becoming other animals or in between animals. (There are variations in "kinds" but not going from one animal to another which would have been found.)
2. There are no "missing links" for humans...or animals! (There are incomplete monkey bones like "Lucy". We would have A LOT of missing links unless of course it was only 1 man and woman created from it. Getting too close to creation with that one. )
3. Animals in the past were larger (dinosaurs, giant insects, giant sharks, etc) ( higher oxygen creates bigger beings/ animals like in the past)
4. Extinction- we are losing thousands of animals a year, not gaining. (Losing 1000 to 100,000 depending on the numbers you look at)
5. DNA mutations cause a weakening not strengthening. (This didn't exist in Darwin's day)
6. Living beings do not come from non living objects. (A rock is a rock by any other name)

Say a lie over and over and you're sure to believe it. But try to prove it true and it doesn't work. This is the case of evolution.

What is your take on Francis Collin's professional opinion on the evidence for evolution, as a devout Christian, Physician and former head of the human genome project? Is Francis off his rocker?

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reasons evolution doesn't exist:
1. There are no progressions of animals becoming other animals or in between animals. (There are variations in "kinds" but not going from one animal to another which would have been found.)

This is an amazingly ignorant error since there are countless examples of this. And "kind" is a worthless term since no creationist can make a working definition of it .

By the way there is no "change of kind" in evolution. That may be your problem. You are still a great ape, still a primate, still a mammal, still a tetrapod, still a vertebrate, still a member of chordata and still a eucaryote.

2. There are no "missing links" for humans...or animals! (There are incomplete monkey bones like "Lucy". We would have A LOT of missing links unless of course it was only 1 man and woman created from it. Getting too close to creation with that one. )

This is largely a repeat of your first error. And Lucy was not a "monkey" unless you count yourself as a monkey. And you seem to have the mistaken belief that Lucy was the only Australopithecus afarensis ever found. There are far more than 300 of them. We do have "A LOT of missing links" but there will always be gaps in the fossil record since fossilization is a rather rare event.

3. Animals in the past were larger (dinosaurs, giant insects, giant sharks, etc) ( higher oxygen creates bigger beings/ animals like in the past)

Some were larger, some were smaller. The larger animals were more apt to be preserved. Just think about it. A mouse will rot away to nothing in less than a year. It can take years for an elephant's remains to return totally to nature.

4. Extinction- we are losing thousands of animals a year, not gaining. (Losing 1000 to 100,000 depending on the numbers you look at)

There is a net loss right now mainly due to man. But there are also always new species arising. Ring species are an example of this event in action.

5. DNA mutations cause a weakening not strengthening. (This didn't exist in Darwin's day)

No, DNA mutations are for the most part benign. Some are negative, and a very few are positive. But it only takes a very few for evolution to advance.

6. Living beings do not come from non living objects. (A rock is a rock by any other name)

Oops, moving the goalposts. An admission that you lost.

Say a lie over and over and you're sure to believe it. But try to prove it true and it doesn't work. This is the case of evolution.

One of us may be lying here. But I think that is not the case. You are merely very badly misinformed. Sadly some of the people that misinformed you did know better. The were lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. It's incomplete since it cannot explain where Humans had our origin.

Actually it can and has.

2. it's not scientific because it's believers cannot repeat it, so they make excuses.

You do not understand what "repeatability" is in an experiment. It is repeatable. You merely cannot test it with bogus tests.

3. It falsely supposes that the sons of God (prehistoric people) were Humans

Nope, no such assumptions allowed. By the way, you are making a rather strange claim here. That puts the burden of proof upon you.

4. It cannot explain the process of putting the highest intelligence into Apes

Sure it can. You already made this error.
5. It is provable False Historically. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE[/quote]

How does that support your claim? It is merely a map. A map of events that happened just "yesterday" in a geological sense. Evolution is a process that has been going on for billions of years. A few thousand years is nothing.

Want more? It's really easy to refute (prove wrong) the False ToE. Amen?

You have to give us something before you can give anyone "more". You did not refute the theory of evolution. You only demonstrated your ignorance.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Creationist: "There is no evidence for evolution!"

Evolutionist presents evidence.

Creationist, closing eyes and covering ears: "You still haven't shown me evidence of evolution!"

 

[Cassidy Bennett]

What is your take on Francis Collin's professional opinion on the evidence for evolution, as a devout Christian, Physician and former head of the human genome project? Is Francis off his rocker?

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2

I would have to really research this obviously but I've already caught some pretty ridiculous statements.

Karl:
we have no direct evidence for most of them and we have to infer them hypothetically. How do you respond to this large number of missing pieces in the puzzle? Does that bother you at all?

Francis:
it doesn’t bother me at all. Is the absence of a fossil representation of an organism really all that troubling when you realize that what you’re asking for in that case—fossilization— is extremely unlikely to have happened?

So basically...nope there's no physical evidence for it.

To answer his questing yes it is unlikely when we have dinasour fossils millions of years beforehand. We would have evidence.

Now we can actually go back and predict pretty much to the base pair what was the genome sequence of the common mammalian ancestor.

I'm not a geneticist, but DNA is so incredibly complicated that we still don't understand it. Yet he's saying he can make predictions on a common ancestor? Yea, doubtful. On top of that according to the article Francis resigned in 2009....so we're not even talking about current news.

I'm just not convinced sorry. I found those problems just skimming it. On top of that it doesn't address any of the other points made.

 

[bhsmte]

I would have to really research this obviously but I've already caught some pretty ridiculous statements.

Karl:
we have no direct evidence for most of them and we have to infer them hypothetically. How do you respond to this large number of missing pieces in the puzzle? Does that bother you at all?

Francis:
it doesn’t bother me at all. Is the absence of a fossil representation of an organism really all that troubling when you realize that what you’re asking for in that case—fossilization— is extremely unlikely to have happened?

So basically...nope there's no physical evidence for it.

To answer his questing yes it is unlikely when we have dinasour fossils millions of years beforehand. We would have evidence.

Now we can actually go back and predict pretty much to the base pair what was the genome sequence of the common mammalian ancestor.

I'm not a geneticist, but DNA is so incredibly complicated that we still don't understand it. Yet he's saying he can make predictions on a common ancestor? Yea, doubtful. On top of that according to the article Francis resigned in 2009....so we're not even talking about current news.

I'm just not convinced sorry. I found those problems just skimming it. On top of that it doesn't address any of the other points made.

Ok, so you think Francis Collins and all the other Phd level biologists are all simply; wrong, stupid, all in on a conspiracy, or what exactly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationist: "There is no evidence for evolution!"

Evolutionist presents evidence.

Creationist, closing eyes and covering ears: "You still haven't shown me evidence of evolution!"

That is why I try to hard to get them to learn what is and what is not evidence. They appear to know that they are wrong. By keeping themselves from learning they can still claim there is no evidence when there obviously are mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[Aman777]

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Francis doesn't know that Humans (descendants of Adam) arrived in the mountains of Ararat 11,000 years ago. The people who he thinks are Humans were the sons of God (prehistoric people) who descended from the common ancestor of Apes. Francis has listened to too many evo religionists who believe that mindless Nature magically evolved the superior intelligence of Humans into creatures with animal intelligence. Human intelligence MUST be inherited. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Actually it can and has.

Then tell us Which world Humans were made in. I don't think you can since your knowledge is only of the present world...and you reject God's Truth. Amen?

***You do not understand what "repeatability" is in an experiment. It is repeatable. You merely cannot test it with bogus tests.

Then repeat the process by which God's superior intelligence, which is like Adam's, Gen 3:22 was placed within the sons of God (prehistoric people). You cannot.

*** Nope, no such assumptions allowed. By the way, you are making a rather strange claim here. That puts the burden of proof upon you.

For some 6 million years since prehistoric people diverged from Chimps, they NEVER planted a crop, built a home, nor had ANY of the traits of modern Humans but remained as any other animal until the past 1% of time. For 99% of the time, they remained dumb as posts.

SUDDENLY, within ONE Generation, men began to Farm, build cities and exhibit the traits of modern Humans, just like Adam's descendants did on his Earth. What happened and WHY do the worshipers of Evolism not notice? Hint: it destroys their beliefs which have faith that mindless Nature knows best

*** Sure it can. You already made this error.
5. It is provable False Historically. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

How does that support your claim? It is merely a map. A map of events that happened just "yesterday" in a geological sense. Evolution is a process that has been going on for billions of years. A few thousand years is nothing.

False. Descent with modification within kinds has been going on for billions of years until some godless evols dreamed up the False ToE. The Map shows the FIRST Human farming, city building and EVERY other trait of modern Humans was FIRST exhibited just SW of Lake Van, Turkey where the Ark arrived. I challenge you to show us a Map of where prehistoric people magically evolved into Humans.

*** You have to give us something before you can give anyone "more". You did not refute the theory of evolution. You only demonstrated your ignorance.

For someone who whines anytime someone shoots an ad hominem at them, you seem to be able to dish it out better than you can take it. It's really hard to teach an evo religionist anything. They have eyes which cannot see. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Creationist: "There is no evidence for evolution!"

Evolutionist presents evidence.

Creationist, closing eyes and covering ears: "You still haven't shown me evidence of evolution!"

Not me. I reject their false ToE because no evol can tell us HOW or WHEN mindless nature put God's superior intelligence in people who had lived like animals for Millions of years. NONE can because it's the biggest Lie ever told. God Bless you

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then tell us Which world Humans were made in. I don't think you can since your knowledge is only of the present world...and you reject God's Truth. Amen?

Humans evolved on this world. If you want to claim that the Bible is"God's word" the burden of proof is upon you. If you want to claim there was another world, the burden of proof is upon you.

I can support my claims. You cannot support yours.

***You do not understand what "repeatability" is in an experiment. It is repeatable. You merely cannot test it with bogus tests.

Then repeat the process by which God's superior intelligence, which is like Adam's, Gen 3:22 was placed within the sons of God (prehistoric people). You cannot.

*** Nope, no such assumptions allowed. By the way, you are making a rather strange claim here. That puts the burden of proof upon you.

For some 6 million years since prehistoric people diverged from Chimps, they NEVER planted a crop, built a home, nor had ANY of the traits of modern Humans but remained as any other animal until the past 1% of time. For 99% of the time, they remained dumb as posts.

So what? But actually that is not true since they made tools long before the planted crops. Tool using and making is a major human trait.

SUDDENLY, within ONE Generation, men began to Farm, build cities and exhibit the traits of modern Humans, just like Adam's descendants did on his Earth. What happened and WHY do the worshipers of Evolism not notice? Hint: it destroys their beliefs which have faith that mindless Nature knows best[/quoite]

Nope, another claim that you need to support with evidence. It can be shown that those events were not an overnight occurrance.

*** Sure it can. You already made this error.
5. It is provable False Historically. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

How does that support your claim? It is merely a map. A map of events that happened just "yesterday" in a geological sense. Evolution is a process that has been going on for billions of years. A few thousand years is nothing.

False. Descent with modification within kinds has been going on for billions of years until some godless evols dreamed up the False ToE. The Map shows the FIRST Human farming, city building and EVERY other trait of modern Humans was FIRST exhibited just SW of Lake Van, Turkey where the Ark arrived. I challenge you to show us a Map of where prehistoric people magically evolved into Humans.

Nope, that was only the area where it finally really caught hold.

*** You have to give us something before you can give anyone "more". You did not refute the theory of evolution. You only demonstrated your ignorance.

For someone who whines <snip after personal attack>

Please don't make false claims. If I said that you were an idiot that would be a personal attack. As is your false claim about "whining". Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not me. I reject their false ToE because no evol can tell us HOW or WHEN mindless nature put God's superior intelligence in people who had lived like animals for Millions of years. NONE can because it's the biggest Lie ever told. God Bless you

That is a poorly asked question that assumes something that never happened and was never claimed.

When you have an assumption of an unsupported claim in a question the very question is bogus.

 

[Aman777]

Humans evolved on this world. If you want to claim that the Bible is"God's word" the burden of proof is upon you. If you want to claim there was another world, the burden of proof is upon you.

I can support my claims. You cannot support yours.

False, since I can show that ONLY God could have told us 3k years ago where life began, which was in WATER. Genesis 1:21 Science confirmed this Fact which YOU cannot refute, in 2016. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

Another proof of God is that ONLY God could have known that the first Stars did not light on the Day of the Big Bang but at a later date. Gen 2:4 shows that the Big Bang was on the 3rd Day and the first Stars lit up on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 Now, it's your time to tell us how ancient men could have known that 3k years ago. I predict you will continue to promote the lies of evolism while ignoring the scientific Facts which mankind is just now discovering.

Here's the scientific evidence:>>The First Stars In The Universe Formed Later Than We Thought

According to the paper, published in Astronomy & Astrophysics, only 10 percent of the universe was ionized 500 million years after its birth. Combining this with other observations, it tells us that process was very quick, with half the universe being reionized by 700 million years and completely reionized by 900 million years. The scientists also confirmed the first stars were plentiful enough to do this on their own.

*** So what? But actually that is not true since they made tools long before the planted crops. Tool using and making is a major human trait.

False, since Chimps had tools before prehistoric men diverged from them, by "fishing" for termites with stick tools. IOW, it's an animal trait which evols falsely teach little children, was a Human ((descendants of Adam) trait. They should be ashamed of ruining children's minds but many are so silly they don't believe God's Truth. They start children off by force teaching them that they are nothing but animals. God have mercy on their souls since they don't know the increased punishment they will receive for their evil teaching which offends the children who believe in Jesus. Mat 18:6 God Bless you

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a mess. Aman, we need to go over the basics. Until you learn what is and what is not evidence you will continue to post nonsense like you just did.

 

[Aman777]

What a mess. Aman, we need to go over the basics. Until you learn what is and what is not evidence you will continue to post nonsense like you just did.

Thanks for the atheistic viewpoint. You don't seem to like it when someone posts that Genesis AGREES with Science and History. It seems to have put the hush mouth on your preaching that there is NO evidence of God or that He even exists. All you can manage to do is preach your precious view of what you think "evidence" is. That's because its all you got.

I don't agree with your idea of evidence since it requires circular reasoning to put one's faith in man's knowledge. Just believe what we say, because we can support our "evidence" with another religionist's view, which agrees with us, some spew. Such arrogance in placing man's changeable view above God's unchangeing Truth is noted. It's what Lucifer thought too. Isa 14:12 God Bless you

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the atheistic viewpoint. You don't seem to like it when someone posts that Genesis AGREES with Science and History. It seems to have put the hush mouth on your preaching that there is NO evidence of God or that He even exists. All you can manage to do is preach your precious view of what you think "evidence" is. That's because its all you got.

But it does not agree with science. You are merely reinterpreting parts of Genesis to match a very small part of what is known. Ironically you deny that science at the same time.

And no, you did not "hush" me at all. Your errors are so obvious that as usual you refute yourself. You still do not know what evidence is, that fact alone makes you kill your own arguments.

I don't agree with your idea of evidence since it requires circular reasoning to put one's faith in man's knowledge. Just believe what we say, because we can support our "evidence" with another religionist's view, which agrees with us, some spew. Such arrogance in placing man's changeable view above God's unchangeing Truth is noted. It's what Lucifer thought too. Isa 14:12 God Bless you

Please, it is not "circular reasoning" since we can test it independently. You are the one with circular beliefs that cannot be tested.

You are projecting your sins upon others again.

 

[Aman777]

Please, it is not "circular reasoning" since we can test it independently. You are the one with circular beliefs that cannot be tested.

Great, please tell us How and When mindless Nature implanted Adam's superior intelligence into the sons of God (prehistoric people). Otherwise, we would still be looking for a hole to sleep in tonight. Show me the evidence, name names and give dates. My names and dates can be tested, so be careful. God Bless you