"So true christians do NOT believe in evolution."

[rmwilliamsll]

So true christians do NOT believe in evolution.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16718501&postcount=9


I'm interested in knowing if this poster expressed this thought outloud in the forums here because:

s/he is new.
s/he is honest and is saying what all the YECists are really thinking but not saying.
s/he is simply mistaken.

There is always an undercurrent of calling your opposition unsaved, or not quite Christian. I remember 4 or 5 years ago writing that i thought that YECists were dangerous heretics. I've used the "truely Reformed" label, which is not quite the same thing, but probably has the same basic motivation. But i think i've come to the conclusion that it is not just bad technic but it is really wrong, YECism, OEC or TE is not a salvation issue and to word it as such is not just dangerous and polarizing but is simply not true.

But this poster, who has 18 posts at this time, is s/he wording what is in all YECists minds? or have some reached this same point as i have, it is not a salvation issue and ought not be treated as such?

.....

 

[neverforsaken]

some people assume when they do not know any different. Im a christian, and although i hate labels, i would fit in the catagory of an evangelical. Im also a thiestic evolutionist. I believe that the Bible is true, but that it is true for its purpose. The bible is thousands of years old. But the science of evolution less than 200 years old. and the science of genetics is little more than 50 years old. If the bible had tried to explain the science of creation to early hebrews, i doubt they would be able to comprehend it.

 

[Sojourner<><]

yoink

 

[Critias]

This statement made is a judgment of the heart. Unless one is either Jesus/God, or God has personally spoken to them about all those who believe evolution is God's method of creation, the person is in error.

We can judge the fruits of people, not the heart. It is an impossible task for us to do on our own. If you claim you are speaking for God on this subject, when making such a statement, you better be right or be repenting.

On the flip side, if I came to you and said believing in evolution will result in the demise of you faith in Jesus Christ, would you believe me? Even if I said I was speaking what the Lord has told me to say? I highly doubt any TE would believe me. If that is the case, then this concludes that TE's are close-minded when it comes to alternative explanations of evolution.

Now, so there doesn't arise a debate out of this, I am not claiming I am speaking what the Lord says, at this moment. I am just presenting an example to ponder.

Lastly, it is not the untrained Christians duty to tell others what is not a salvation issue within the Bible. A person who does this will become responsible if they told another that they need not believe X piece in Scripture, when God does require it. This is why Paul stated, those who are teachers will be judged more harshly because of what they have taught. If it is to be in error, then God will hold them accountable for teaching a false teaching.

I believe it is unwise for a Christian, who is not a Pastor, who is not a Theologian to make such statements that Genesis 1-3 holds no Salvation points and needs not to be of concern to new Christians. You have no authority or training to make such a statement.

This is why there are teachers and Pastors. If we all could just teach on our own without training, then there would be no need for a teacher or pastor. But, Paul, in the wisdom he had given by God, instituted teachers and Pastors as positions within the Church to teach and lead.

I would beware making such statements that parts of God's Word are not Salvation issues if you have not exhaustively been taught by God and those sent by God on the issue at hand. You are putting your ownself in danger and the soul of the one whom you tell to not concern themselves with the issue at hand in danger.

We all will be held accountable for what we teach others about God and His Word, Christian or not.

 

[Pyrogenesis]

True Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of the One True God, that He died for their sins and rose again. True Christians love Him and obey His commandments.

True Christians don't have to believe in a certian method of creation. I'm a YEC, but I'm not going to let anything get in the way of my relationship with Christ. If my belief in a young earth interfears with my relationships with other Christians, then I'll put it aside for the good of the body.

We don't need division based on something as obscure as how the world was created. Let's just come together and agree that it needs to be saved.

 

[shernren]

I believe it is unwise for a Christian, who is not a Pastor, who is not a Theologian to make such statements that Genesis 1-3 holds no Salvation points and needs not to be of concern to new Christians. You have no authority or training to make such a statement.

I agree. Genesis 1-3 holds numerous salvation points. But I would clarify that I believe that neither side of the C-E debate denies any of those points.

 

[proverbs 3:5-6]

Well.. in regards to never forsaken, and to modern science, we have the 2nd law of thermodynamics which.....
"......describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe." So.... how can one creature evovlve into a more advanced one. It is breaking a proven basic law of scienece. Look it up. Hope this helped.

 

[GenemZ]

some people assume when they do not know any different. Im a christian, and although i hate labels, i would fit in the catagory of an evangelical. Im also a thiestic evolutionist. I believe that the Bible is true, but that it is true for its purpose. The bible is thousands of years old. But the science of evolution less than 200 years old. and the science of genetics is little more than 50 years old. If the bible had tried to explain the science of creation to early hebrews, i doubt they would be able to comprehend it.

Its easy!

Look what God did with the serpent in Genesis! Zap! Crawling in his belly he will go!

And? In the future? These ancient folks could not perceive any concept involving evolution? Nonsense! God has creatures the way they are because they serve a purpose in revealing something about his super creative genius ability. The ancients could handle the parting sea? But, they would be stumped by God explaining evolution? Jesus turned water in to wine? But to tell them that a dog became eventually a horse, they could not believe?

I do not know who started the rationale you just handed us. For I have heard it before. What do you think those ancients were? All possessing an IQ of 50? If God told them evolution was his way, they would have believed it. But, God did no such thing. He simply speaks of new creations replacing the old.

Isaiah 11:6-8 niv
" The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.


The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest."


Things will change rapidly and the old will be forgotten....

Isaiah 65:17 niv
"Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind."

God buries the old, and raises up the new! He does not use evolution when a new age comes in.

Isaiah 65:25 niv
" The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD."

If God wanted to make evolution known it would have been simple. Why explain the genetics to understand it? Did Darwin understand DNA? NO! Did he write about genetics? NO! Come on! God simply had to explain how he created animals to transform. The ancients had the vocabulary for that. Yet, God says that evolution was not his means for creation. God simply lied. Right? He had no reason not to declare creation was by evolution, other than he did not use that means for the creation.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[neverforsaken]

the bible mentions the miracles like the red sea, but does not EXPLAIN them. But i cannot see every animal that ever existed living all at the same time. dinosaurs living along side cows? or how about the wooly mammoth living in a non ice age environment. Since the bible says that animals did not harm each other before the fall, its not that i dont believe that they couldnt live together, but the last dinosaur died out 65 million years ago and the biblical timeline only extends a few hundreds of thousands of years ago at its longest. if they find a dinosaur bone less than 50,000 years old, then you got your argument.

 

[shernren]

Proverbs, I hate to be bald but do be more credible when making scientific statements. This from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics :

Creationists often claim that biological evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, asserting that the law states that entropy spontaneously increases. Biologists argue that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to a closed system, which the surface of the Earth is not since it receives megajoules per second of energy from the Sun. The vast majority of living organisms derive their energy from the sun, either primarily (as in the case of plants) or secondarily (in the case of organisms which eat other organisms). Solar energy is thus used by biological organisms to maintain and increase their complexity. For instance, a fully-grown tree is more complex than a sapling; the energy that enables its increase in complexity comes from the sun.

Check out the full article, especially the links below that specifically list sites from both sides of the argument.

I hope I have not been overly cruel but you ought to take research a little more seriously and then we'll have some serious fun talking origins.

 

[neverforsaken]

So.... how can one creature evovlve into a more advanced one. It is breaking a proven basic law of scienece.

well, the creature doesnt evolve, the species does. but as far as advancements go, there are cases where small advancements, (which over time become larger advancements by accumilation of small advacements) did happen. for instance. there was a case on the galapagos not too long ago where scientists were studying a group of birds and one season there was a terrible drought. The plants the birds normally fed on withered and died, the only plants the birds ate from other than the ones that died were a nut baring and only the birds of that species with beaks strong enough to crack open the nuts were able to eat. the had slightly larger beaks than the birds in the species had. So the birds of that species with beaks not strong enough died off, while the birds in that species with larger beaks lived and mated with the other surviving(larger beaked) birds and therefore created the next generation of birds of whom they had larger beaks.

another example is if you take a group of men and throw them in the ocean and see who survives. the ones who cant swim die. but thats not the end, the ability to swim and the ability to swim better comes in handy when the seas turn rough. the ones who survive are the fittest of the group and are able to teach their offspring how to swim and therefor add another skill important to survival. Natural selection is everywhere verifyable as well as universal.

 

[artybloke]

Not sure your second one is a good example: swimming in human beings isn't innate it's learned, and therefore not subject to evolution.

 

[GenemZ]

the bible mentions the miracles like the red sea, but does not EXPLAIN them. But i cannot see every animal that ever existed living all at the same time. dinosaurs living along side cows? or how about the wooly mammoth living in a non ice age environment. Since the bible says that animals did not harm each other before the fall, its not that i dont believe that they couldnt live together, but the last dinosaur died out 65 million years ago and the biblical timeline only extends a few hundreds of thousands of years ago at its longest. if they find a dinosaur bone less than 50,000 years old, then you got your argument.

The Bible, when read by those who know the original languages, see that the Bible speaks of multiple creations. The one we see is just one of a series of creations that were from the hand of God.

http://www.creationdays.dk/withoutformandvoid/1.html

And, the Bible says that God will once again replace this present creation with a new one.

Isaiah 65:17 niv
"Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind."


That new creation will see lifeforms that will appear to have evolved, because of their similarity to what we will now see. Yet, God says it will be a new creation. One that suddenly takes place! Not over a perod of thousands of years.

Isaiah 65:25 niv
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD.

Isaiah 11:6-8 niv
6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.


7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest."


God has been doing this all along when he would create a new age of the earth. Evolutionists see the similarities and have been assuming its evolution. When in fact, it has been by a command of God.

Please, look up that link and read it. YEC's have been suppressing this information for years. Just like they suppress scientific data concerning the age of this earth. They only preach to the choir and frustrate their opponent by denying anything they say that opposes them. It a simple technique. As long as they gave their choir, they will do it.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

well, the creature doesnt evolve, the species does. but as far as advancements go, there are cases where small advancements, (which over time become larger advancements by accumilation of small advacements) did happen. for instance. there was a case on the galapagos not too long ago where scientists were studying a group of birds and one season there was a terrible drought. The plants the birds normally fed on withered and died, the only plants the birds ate from other than the ones that died were a nut baring and only the birds of that species with beaks strong enough to crack open the nuts were able to eat. the had slightly larger beaks than the birds in the species had. So the birds of that species with beaks not strong enough died off, while the birds in that species with larger beaks lived and mated with the other surviving(larger beaked) birds and therefore created the next generation of birds of whom they had larger beaks.

another example is if you take a group of men and throw them in the ocean and see who survives. the ones who cant swim die. but thats not the end, the ability to swim and the ability to swim better comes in handy when the seas turn rough. the ones who survive are the fittest of the group and are able to teach their offspring how to swim and therefor add another skill important to survival. Natural selection is everywhere verifyable as well as universal.

Can everyone sing? Play guitar? What was man before he invented music? Those who were musical were not yet aware of their capacities until the mean to express it was made available. What about scientists? Are all scientist? Until the discipline was organized there were men with scientific minds walking this earth before the discipline of science was invented.

Take a person who lived in Finland all his life, and have him move to Miami. His skin will tan when exposed to the sun for long lengths of time. Was that evolution? Or, an innate ability waiting to be tapped into? God had created into creatures innate latent abilities that did not manifest until the time was just right. Those birds with the beak change? They were always able to have a beak change. Dogs shed hair in warmer climates. So? Keep that dog in a colder climate and you would not see the hair shed. Its not evolution. Its God ability to see a need before it happens and provides for it.

Now? Take your example of the men thrown into the sea? Some can swim? Some could not? Hmmmmmmmmm.... if some began to sprout gills after taking to the water for centuries, then you may have a valid point. But, to just be able to swim? Its a gift. Just like playing guitar is a gift. Its not evolution. Its simply a matter of supply and demand. Those who can supply what is demanded will live.

Now... Take those same swimmers and non swimmers, and place them in a dessert. Those who can not swim may better adapt to the dry and arid climate. Therefore, being the "fittest" is a relative term and not immutable. Some creatures will survive in one situation better than another. There is no innate state of being the fittest. It only means that the environment will affect what is innate in a creature and determine its survival.

Those who do not possess already what is needed to survive will die off. They do not develop this ability at the time of the need. It was already there!

Those who do possess what is needed to survive did not evolve. They already had this innate gift to survive what was required of them. Just like some have a gidt for mathmatics. Its inborn. Not evolved. The survival of the fittest is not evolution as much as its an elimination of diversity. Survival of the fittest is merely the elimination of diversity in creation.

The ones that died off may have been the fittest if the environment had a different set of demands. And, the ones which are now the fittest, may have died off. Being the fittest is a relative term.

2 Corinthians 12:9 niv
"But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me."

God's means to transform a believer into the nature of Christ comes from their inability to survive their environment! To become strong in Christ one must be the worst canditate....be totally unfit.... to survive the world we live in.

"That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. "

God has inverted the equation of survival of the fittest....


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Crusadar]

neverforsaken said: well, the creature doesnt evolve, the species does. but as far as advancements go, there are cases where small advancements, (which over time become larger advancements by accumilation of small advacements) did happen.

Yes of course, the classic evolutionist response (wishful thinking if you ask me), if given enough time these small changes will accumulate and will add up to become something else. Well for all their hypothesizing there is still zero evidence that such accumulations do add up to be anything. If TE’s disagree then perhaps an honest to goodness example would suffice.

for instance. there was a case on the galapagos not too long ago where scientists were studying a group of birds and one season there was a terrible drought. The plants the birds normally fed on withered and died, the only plants the birds ate from other than the ones that died were a nut baring and only the birds of that species with beaks strong enough to crack open the nuts were able to eat. the had slightly larger beaks than the birds in the species had. So the birds of that species with beaks not strong enough died off, while the birds in that species with larger beaks lived and mated with the other surviving(larger beaked) birds and therefore created the next generation of birds of whom they had larger beaks.

Actually it was about two decades agon- to be more exact in the early 70’s if I remember correctly. The scientists were a Peter and Rosemary Grant and others. What they really discovered was a variation within the beak sizes of finches on a single island which increased in thickness during periods of drought (and has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution) For the simple fact that as the rain came back the beak sizes also decreased and returned to normal (something which is often left unreported). In this particular instance it was estimated that a new species of finch would be produced within 200 years if such changes as the increase in beak size were to be cumulative. What was actually observed in the Grant’s research was that it was not cumulative at all. The beak size merely changed from a drought environment where there is less food, and reverted back when there was plenty of food - in adaptation to the food source that was available.

Creationists don’t deny that there are such changes that can occur, what is denied is the erroneous extrapolations that such changes are the purposeless and mindless process that changed monkeys into men.

 

[proverbs 3:5-6]

Granted i jumped the gun on that one, but how do u believe evolution started? "the big bang" = a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions do not produce life, and there is no record of this. If life were possible to come about through chemical reactions, then it would have to be considered spontaneous generation. SG has been disproven multiple times. Im just curious to know what you believe. I hope you dont take this offensivly because it is not intended to be, im just curious.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Creationists don’t deny that there are such changes that can occur, what is denied is the erroneous extrapolations that such changes are the purposeless and mindless process that changed monkeys into men.

the basic problem is that the statement "purposeless and mindless" is a metaphysical statement, not a scientific one. YECists consistently confuse science with the metaphysics human beings like Dawkins derive from their science. As a result they attack good science in the name of destroying bad metaphysics.

confusion all the way down.

the TofE says nothing like "purposeless and mindless process", it talks about common descent, mutation with variation, natural selection and an increasing fitness to a particular environment.

Science is deliberately non-teleological and rarely talks about values, both are over the limit of acceptable scientific discourse, reserved to metaphysics, religion and world views not biological science.

....

 

[GenemZ]

the TofE says nothing like "purposeless and mindless process"....

Its more like... TOE's must ignore the foundation upon which their theory stands. Science in this case, says..... "Don't confuse me with the facts! All I am concerned about is the area I am concentrating on!"

It does not matter to them if the 'big picture' destroys the reality of what evolutionists enjoy exploring, and impress themselves with what they can know(very important factor, that they impress themselves) ..... All science is concerned about is what they can see. Never mind, any logical conclusions from what can be seen.

If you believe all creation came from evolution? And, it is not purposeless and mindless in the process? Then you must come back center to God being behind it. If you do? Then you end up calling God a liar.

Genesis 2:7 niv
"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

TOE calls Genesis 2:7, a lie!

So? If you are not going to call God a liar? Then you must concede that evolution as a process is mindless and purposeless. It "just happened by chance."

Science is deliberately non-teleological and rarely talks about values, both are over the limit of acceptable scientific discourse, reserved to metaphysics, religion and world views not biological science.

Yet, if anyone who is a Christian and knows God's Word? He would have the knowledge to see if TOE is not viable and valid. The blind secular scientists will not have a clue.

Proverbs 14:12 niv
"There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death."

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

Take a person who lived in Finland all his life, and have him move to Miami. His skin will tan when exposed to the sun for long lengths of time. Was that evolution? Or, an innate ability waiting to be tapped into?

Both. Humans evolved in Africa, where it was advantageous to produce lots of melanin in the skin to have protection from UV rays.

Humans who adapted to survive in Finland included the adaptation of producing less melanin, so that in their shorter summer season, they could absorb more Vitamin D to carry them through the 24-hour nights and/or very short days of winter. They never lost the ability to produce melanin, just didn't use it.

The Finlander who spends time in the Florida sun gets a tan because some of the melanin producing mechanisms are temporarily turned on. So you are right, it's innate.

But the original capacity to produce melanin in skin cells evolved in his African ancestors.

God had created into creatures innate latent abilities that did not manifest until the time was just right. Those birds with the beak change? They were always able to have a beak change. Dogs shed hair in warmer climates. So? Keep that dog in a colder climate and you would not see the hair shed. Its not evolution. Its God ability to see a need before it happens and provides for it.

Yes, it is evolution. Without the capacity to evolve there is no capacity to turn variation into adaptation. But much of that evolution took place many millennia ago. That is why you can have adaptation without needing a mutation to happen today or even last week. An adaptive mutation can happen right now, or it could have happened in Homo habilis and just be needed now.

Those who do not possess already what is needed to survive will die off. They do not develop this ability at the time of the need. It was already there!

While this is normally true, it does sometimes happen that a mutation will occur at the time of need. Some bacteria, under stress, increase their mutation rate. This increases the probability that a needed mutation will occur. It's not a guarantee, but just a better chance.

Those who do possess what is needed to survive did not evolve. They already had this innate gift to survive what was required of them.

They had the innate gift because of previous evolution in their species.

Survival of the fittest is merely the elimination of diversity in creation.

True. And mutations rebuild diversity.

The ones that died off may have been the fittest if the environment had a different set of demands. And, the ones which are now the fittest, may have died off. Being the fittest is a relative term.

True. This is a very important point that many forget.

 

[GenemZ]

Both. Humans evolved in Africa, where it was advantageous to produce lots of melanin in the skin to have protection from UV rays.

That is only a guess that they evolved.


God scattered man over the surface of the earth. He wanted them scattered in groups. How did he begin the process? ZAPPP! He broke them up into groups all speaking different languages.

Genesis 11:1-9 niv
"Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.


They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."


But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."


So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth."


God got men to scatter according to giving them new languages. Once he got them where they were to be, he went ZAPPP! God transformed them for their given area and environment. How can we know this? How do we know God can cause an immediate physical change?

Genesis 3:14 niv
"So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life. "

The serpent did not crawl on his belly before then! Zapp! Now, he does!


God is able to zap a creature and transform it instantly when he chooses! The best way to keep men separated into nations was to create a common look amongst them. God separated all men into nations.

Acts 17:26 niv
"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."


And, God will accomplish an instant change in creation design in the future!

Isaiah 11:6-8 niv
The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.



The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.


The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. "


When the Lord begins his Millennial reign of the earth it will be an instant transformation of all creation! No time for thousands of years for evolution to have an effect like that.

God does not spell it out in black and white in his Word! We must be led into truth by the Spirit.

John 16:13a niv
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."

Philippians 1:9 niv
" This is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight."

If God did spell everything out in simple black and white there would be no need for spiritual guidance into truth! It will be all ritual and mechanics. It would be religion, and not a living relationship with God!

That is why religion is so bad. It allows unbelievers, and believers who are carnal, to call themselves Christian when they have not a clue as to what the spiritual relationship is with the Father. They push their way into influencing and corrupting what Christianity is supposed to be. But, God allows for it, as to separate the willing from the dead.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 niv
"In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval."


So? How does God separate the living from the dead? He allows lies which desire to substitute for the truth to be introduced to believers to see who has his approval, and who does not. Its to show us, for ourselves to see, so when we are evaluated before the Lord...That his judgement of our hearts will be self evident to us, when what we were to the Lord in time, is revealed to us. We will know his judgement is righteous. For now we are getting to see what we wish and will to do. And, God always gives grace before judgement. He always offers mercy first. He offers truth in doing so.

Grace and peace, GeneZ