-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can an Evolutionist be Saved?
- Thread starter Mike Gascoigne
- Start date
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
I do not find willful, blind stupidity to be a Christian virtue—I find it to be an exceedingly dangerous enemy of the cross of Christ. The science of evolution is just that—a science. Christian fundamentalists have enough problems without delving into a subject they are woefully ignorant of. With the passing of each and every year the evidence for evolution is continuing to mount and extremist “Christian” fundamentalism is becoming more and more the view of the superstitious and the ignorant, pulling the veil of darkness further and further over the Christian faith, threatening to put out the light once and for all.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
This quote is inaccurate! Please either post the correct quote or retract this quote altogether.
I don't think I am stupid. I am YEC. And I reject evolution completely on both its fundamental conflict with the Bible and its own lack of merit.
I find it to be an exceedingly dangerous enemy of the cross to reject what God clearly says because it disagrees with what secular scientists, many of the key ones are atheists, say that what God declared cannot be true.
Evolution is not science like other realms of science. It deals strictly with things that are supposed to have occurred in the past or things that are supposed to be now occurring but strangely cannot be observed. By definition, that makes evolution neither provable nor falsifiable... and if creationism is not science for these reasons then neither is evolution.
Further, evolution is founded ultimately on an unproveable and increasingly suspect premise- that everything has a naturalistic explanation.
The ID movement is testimony that many scientists are recognizing that design, not natural process, is the best explanation for the order and incredible precision we see in nature.
Once you introduce the creator... the debate becomes the level of His involvement. How much of what we observe is the result of natural processes and how much is the result of design and direct creation...
You speak of woeful ignorance? You choose to turn a blind eye to the inherent, pervasive weaknesses in the theory of evolution and accuse others of being "woefully ignorant"?
I have said here that evolution is possible. It is incredibly unlikely but none the less possible. Chance occurrence does not create the order that we have in nature. A slight variation in the natural balance of our universe would have cataclysmic consequences for life on earth.
Now you probably want to invoke God at this point... but that would be wholly inconsistent on your part. You ridicule others for believing that God not only could have but did create the world in accordance with Genesis yet want to rely on a guiding influence to ensure that the constants of physics are balanced in the right proportions to support life on earth?
With the passing of each year, honest scientists are admitting that they are no closer to proving macroevolution than Darwin was.
Many highly educated, well respected, oft "published" scientists are now recognizing that naturalism as a premise is fatally flawed... and some think evolution as well. The evolutionary processes that we cannot observe and cannot recreate may be that way for a reason... those processes do not work to accomplish macroevolution.
Believing what the Bible says in spite of what the world says is "threatening to put out the light once and for all"? I don't think so.
If we were talking about hard science then you wouldn't see this resistance. We fundamentalists aren't nearly as "stupid" as you seem to think. Many of us hold down jobs requiring significant skill, education, and training.
If we were denying gravity for instance where we have formulas that produce observable results... or perhaps microevolution, like we observe throughout nature.... then maybe you have a point.
But what you are arguing is that the God we deem all powerful could not have created the world, fully functional, by sheer act of will and to think He not only could have but did is stupid. You are arguing that we should place our faith in the interpretations and extrapolations of secular science rather than the text of scripture and the God it defines.
You argue that we should trust people whose foundational argument is that everything has a natural cause when our very salvation depends on things that are absolutely supernatural in character. But adopting their naturalistic assumptions when interpretting part of the book that provides foundation for our faith is supposed to be good for the gospel? I don't think so.
Let's say that everything (being extraordinarily generous) that evolutionists say is occurring now- is. Does that prove that God didn't construct the world in the last 10,000 years? When we decide to design and build things do we make them immature, turn them over to chance, and hope they end up like we hope? No. We design them functional and suited to the purpose we have in mind.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
I am not suggesting that you are stupid—I’m suggesting that you are willfully refusing to use the intelligence that God gave you when you evaluate the evidence against extremist fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, science, and reality.
The Bible does not tell us the age of the earth or even hint at the possibility of a young earth. The sciences of geology, biology, paleontology, palynology, physics, and astronomy, however, do tell us that the earth is billions of years old, and that the universe is much older than that. Some aspects of macroevolution are subject to reasonable doubt; that the earth if billions of years old, however, is not subject to reasonable doubt.
The proposition that the earth is only 10,000 years old is absolutely as ridiculous as the proposition that the earth is flat—and as I have posted elsewhere, there still are some extremists who firmly believe that the earth is flat. Indeed, I could start a thread in which I could post more scientific evidence for a flat earth than you could for a young earth! And as for Biblical evidence, the Bible expressly teaches the earth is flat and those who attempt to deny this do so on the basis of careless reading and faulty exegesis. Therefore, to believe that the earth is young is even more foolish than to believe that the earth is flat.
I am not suggesting that you are stupid—I’m suggesting that you are willfully refusing to use the intelligence that God gave you when you evaluate the evidence against extremist fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, science, and reality.
The Bible does not tell us the age of the earth or even hint at the possibility of a young earth. The sciences of geology, biology, paleontology, palynology, physics, and astronomy, however, do tell us that the earth is billions of years old, and that the universe is much older than that. Some aspects of macroevolution are subject to reasonable doubt; that the earth if billions of years old, however, is not subject to reasonable doubt.
The proposition that the earth is only 10,000 years old is absolutely as ridiculous as the proposition that the earth is flat—and as I have posted elsewhere, there still are some extremists who firmly believe that the earth is flat. Indeed, I could start a thread in which I could post more scientific evidence for a flat earth than you could for a young earth! And as for Biblical evidence, the Bible expressly teaches the earth is flat and those who attempt to deny this do so on the basis of careless reading and faulty exegesis. Therefore, to believe that the earth is young is even more foolish than to believe that the earth is flat.
I was just this afternoon talking to a physicist who is a good friend of mine and a Christian. He was telling me theories they crammed down his throat in college; theories that he knew couldn't be right, but he indicated that by the time they finished, nearly all scientists are so brainwashed by this rubbish that they think they are god's themselves and know so much more than the average man. He is a YEC, by the way and he uses his God CREATED brain every single day and he has a real problem with people like you saying the "evidence" shows this or the "evidence" shows that. He said we THINK the evidence shows this and that because we are brainwashed by the egotistical ivory tower scholars who teach a lot of hogwash.
He is a fascinating and VERY smart scientist on the leading edge of some stuff you don't want to know about.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Scott,
I believe that you are confusing what God says with your personal, uninformed interpretation of Genesis. As for “secular scientists,” science is a secular rather than a sacred pursuit and ALL scientists are by definition “secular scientists.” As for “key” scientists, there is no such thing; and very few scientists are atheists. As for the scientists who are atheists—whose fault do you suppose that is?
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Phillip,
Are you sure that you are not using the word “physicist” a little bit loosely? Your description of your friend strongly suggests that this man is much less than a scientist and that he has virtually no formal education. If I am wrong, post his name and the university from at which he earned his doctorate in physics, and tell us by whom he is employed as a physicist.
If you would like, I can post the names of hundreds of real physicists with real doctorates from real universities who are currently employed as physicists in prestigious positions, ALL of whom KNOW that the earth is billions of years old, and NONE of whom have been brainwashed.
Scott,
I believe that you are confusing what God says with your personal, uninformed interpretation of Genesis.</font>[/QUOTE] Craig, I believe you are confusing what God says with your personal, misinformed denial of any interpretation that even remotely represents Genesis as an accurate account. Even your allegory contention will not fit evolution. You must deal with direct contradictions by saying one is true and the other is not.
Science should first and foremost be a pursuit of factual truth... which means that evidence should be followed whereever it leads... even if it leads to the necessity of an intelligent designer... even if it leads to evidence against the naturalistic presupposition... even if it undermines evolution.
That is actually very debatable. I don't think it is debatable though that scientist involved in academic work directly related to evolution are more inclined to be atheists.
Theirs according to Romans 1:18. Who is more guilty of not recognizing the creative hand of God than those who make a life of looking at the evidence of creation?As for the scientists who are atheists—whose fault do you suppose that is?
The one thing I can say for atheists who believe in evolution though is their position is consistent. Their lack of belief in God and assumption of naturalism are absolutely mutually supportive.
I cannot help but note the inconsistency of one who believes that God can spiritually resurrect them and one day reward them with a home in heaven... a place that is apparently much more grand than our natural world... but cannot believe that such a God could have spoken the world into existence just as He said.
Oh, but maybe "heaven" is allegorical? Do you think heaven evolved or is evolving?
If God can directly create heaven then why can't you believe that He directly created earth?
Illustration: When engineers build space shuttles, they don't just through the ingredients into a zero-gravity vacuum and set off an explosion. No, they carefully put each component part into place because the system has to be precise in order to function.
There is evidence that our universe is precisely ordered in such a way to sustain life here on earth. If the stars and their light were not in place, it would have a direct effect on us here. Design specifically entails putting functioning parts in place to support a broader system.
There is absolutely no dishonesty if God "allowed the universe to look old". It is simply what designer/makers do. They put things how they need to be so they function properly.
I am not suggesting that you are stupid—I’m suggesting that you are willfully refusing to use the intelligence that God gave you when you evaluate the evidence against extremist fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, science, and reality.</font>[/QUOTE] Why? Because I haven't reached the same conclusion as you? That's no less offensive than calling me stupid.
BTW, I have used that intelligence in that I have looked at what evolution has to say and even accepted it at one time. But my "intelligence" tells me not to simply accept things uncritically.
Do I know the mechanics of how everything came to be as it is? No... and neither do evolutionists. We know how things work NOW.
I looked at not only the claims/explanations given by evolution but also its premises and logic. I believe they are terribly flawed... not because I refuse to see evidence but because I do see evidence.
That is more or less true. It does however give a timeline for creation in six days... that gives no indication of being any thing other than narrative. From that, people have used biblical geneologies and ages to back track. Others have proposed missing generations.
Of course Luke gives us one of those geneologies... it extends from Christ all the way back to Adam. Do you think Christ led one of the writers of scripture to include an allegorical person in a geneology for a literal person? Especially considering the geneology was intended to support Jesus claims of being messiah.
Yes it is. You assume that the evidence used to support these age calculations is the result of uninterrupted natural processes. The Bible indicated that God created...
I really won't argue against the long first day argument. Admittedly, it has appeal and some merit.
That's a false association and surely you are honest enough to admit it.And as for Biblical evidence, the Bible expressly teaches the earth is flat and those who attempt to deny this do so on the basis of careless reading and faulty exegesis. Therefore, to believe that the earth is young is even more foolish than to believe that the earth is flat.
So now Phillip is either a fool or a liar for suggesting someone with training and intelligence would dare disagree with you?
So they can't be "real physicists with real doctorates from real universities" unless they adopt your philosophical bias and the theory founded on it?If you would like, I can post the names of hundreds of real physicists with real doctorates from real universities who are currently employed as physicists in prestigious positions, ALL of whom KNOW that the earth is billions of years old, and NONE of whom have been brainwashed.
If they have been academically conditioned to believe that only one premise (naturalism) and one conclusion (evolution) is valid then they have been brainwashed... and that is very close to what occurs.
They do not entertain or even allow the discussion of alternatives. That is by definition indoctrination, propaganda, and, yes, brainwashing. Science Education should be about discovering truth... not limited by philosophical presuppositions.
__________________________________________________Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I do not find willful, blind stupidity to be a Christian virtue—I find it to be an exceedingly dangerous enemy of the cross of Christ. The science of evolution is just that—a science. Christian fundamentalists have enough problems without delving into a subject they are woefully ignorant of. With the passing of each and every year the evidence for evolution is continuing to mount and extremist “Christian” fundamentalism is becoming more and more the view of the superstitious and the ignorant, pulling the veil of darkness further and further over the Christian faith, threatening to put out the light once and for all.
THAT kind of thinking is perhaps what is meant by THIS;
Mt 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mt 24:25
Behold, I have told you before.
And THIS;
2Th 2:11
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
For a very long time I wondered just what it could be that would come along and be so compelling as to threaten the deception of the very elect of God. Then I read Craig's comment.
Now it is so very clear just what it could be. Simply it is this hairbrained notion that God is an evolutionist. And those who deny it are doing Christ an injustice.
Truly a sad yet exciting day! Now that THAT has come to pass, we can only look up! All that's left is either the revelation of Anti-christ or the rapture, depending on your view of things.
Even so, Come Lord Jesus!
In HIS service;
Jim
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
“My” philosophical bias??? 99.9% of Ph.D. scientists believe in an old earth and macroevolution based upon an almost infinite amount of data—and I am biased because I agree with some of their basic tenets???
Please either post some data to support your notion that 99.9% of Ph.D. scientists have been “academically conditioned” or retract your ludicrous and totally absurd notion.
There is much more evidence that the earth is flat than there is that the earth is only 10,000 years old, but both notions are about as irrational as any notion could possibly be. But you appear to be arguing that for scientists to ignore the possibility that the earth is flat and only 10,000 years old indicates that they have not only been indoctrinated, but brainwashed. I suppose you would also argue that for scientists to ignore the possibility that the moon is made of cheese and infested with mice also indicates that they have not only been indoctrinated, but brainwashed. I guess that is where the word “lunatic” comes from.
Since you are neither conditioned nor brainwashed and not only allow the discussion of alternatives, but even entertain them, I suppose that you would also argue for the entertainment of alternative life styles like cross-dressing, pedophilia, and bestiality. Or is it possible that there are some things that are so very wrong that to entertain them is wrong in and of itself? Personally, I find the concept of a young earth and a boat built out of Tinker Toys bobbing up and down in the ocean with 6,000,000+ animals in it to be outside the realms of both science and sanity. I also believe that the God made man smarter than monkeys so that we could read the Bible and understand it rather than trip over our shoelaces and make fools of ourselves and our Creator.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
“We actually agree on something!”
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
I believe in and teach the truth; you believe in and teach the lie of KJOism, bringing indescribable shame upon the body of Christ. So which one of us are these verses really talking about?
Personally, I find the concept of a young earth and a boat built out of Tinker Toys bobbing up and down in the ocean with 6,000,000+ animals in it to be outside the realms of both science and sanity.
_________________________________________________
1Co 3:18
¶ Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1Co 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Out of your own mouth you have indicted yourself.
You really ought to quit making a fool of yourself.
In HIS service;
Jim
_________________________________________________
1Co 3:18
¶ Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1Co 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Out of your own mouth you have indicted yourself.
You really ought to quit making a fool of yourself.
In HIS service;
Jim
