-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A person who is illogical in one regard doesn't have to be illogical in all regards. An incredibly skilled engineer can know next to nothing about biology. So it's not impossible for intelligent philosophers or physicists to conclude everything was created by God as is.
As for scientists, most accept the theory of evolution (this includes scientists who'd fields of expertise aren't related to the study of life or the age of the earth). And almost all scientists who's fields are related to biology or geology accept evolution, both theist and atheist scientists.
Most creationists aren't scientists. The few scientists who do accept creationism are almost always experts in fields unrelated to evolution science, making their opinions as credible as any layperson's opinion. I'm sure there are a few biologists or geologists who are creationists, but they have never made any contributions towards proving creationism or disproving evolution.
Most people who study biodiversity, geology, and fields related to evolution have concluded evolution to be true through viewing the evidence and measuring it honestly. The few who don't only reject the evidence due to their pre-conceived notion that the Bible must be true and any evidence that contradicts the Bible must be wrong.
I can't remember the article, so I unfortunately can't provide a link to it, but one scientists talked about his struggle with science and religion. He was a biologist who kept finding contradictions between evolution and the Bible's creation account. He talked about how he went through the entire Bible and cut out all the parts that seemed to contradict itself or what we have proven through science. By the time he was done with the Bible, there was so little of the pages left it nearly fell apart when he picked it up. He said that in the end, he chose to accept the Bible through faith - even if it meant rejecting the science he held so dearly. He is taking it on faith that the evidence for evolution is wrong, even if he doesn't know how it's wrong.
So how do intelligent people come to flawed conclusions? It's hard to understand, but it's something everyone does in one way or another to some degree.
As for scientists, most accept the theory of evolution (this includes scientists who'd fields of expertise aren't related to the study of life or the age of the earth). And almost all scientists who's fields are related to biology or geology accept evolution, both theist and atheist scientists.
Most creationists aren't scientists. The few scientists who do accept creationism are almost always experts in fields unrelated to evolution science, making their opinions as credible as any layperson's opinion. I'm sure there are a few biologists or geologists who are creationists, but they have never made any contributions towards proving creationism or disproving evolution.
Most people who study biodiversity, geology, and fields related to evolution have concluded evolution to be true through viewing the evidence and measuring it honestly. The few who don't only reject the evidence due to their pre-conceived notion that the Bible must be true and any evidence that contradicts the Bible must be wrong.
I can't remember the article, so I unfortunately can't provide a link to it, but one scientists talked about his struggle with science and religion. He was a biologist who kept finding contradictions between evolution and the Bible's creation account. He talked about how he went through the entire Bible and cut out all the parts that seemed to contradict itself or what we have proven through science. By the time he was done with the Bible, there was so little of the pages left it nearly fell apart when he picked it up. He said that in the end, he chose to accept the Bible through faith - even if it meant rejecting the science he held so dearly. He is taking it on faith that the evidence for evolution is wrong, even if he doesn't know how it's wrong.
So how do intelligent people come to flawed conclusions? It's hard to understand, but it's something everyone does in one way or another to some degree.
It is a joke, but it's a horrendous analogy that doesn't reflect evolution science what-so-ever. The joke makes it appear that evolutionists believe complicated life popped out of primordial soup as if everything pulled together like a magnet forming complicated cells. First of all, this has to do with abiogenesis and not evolution. Second, scientists don't believe complicated life "just happened". The comic is a strawman that fails to understand how evolution works.
Lastly, analogies are meant to help explain one's points of view - it can't be used as an argument. You admitted that the comic was a joke so this is a message to those who believe the snowman analogy is a good argument. It's not. That's like saying, "Nobody ever saw a snowman give birth to another snowman, therefore it's absurd to believe babies come out of their mother's body!"
So how can we be confident that evolutionary theory is accurate if we still have gaps? Because we have enough evidence that supports evolutionary theory. We still have gaps and we still make corrections here and there but it all continues to point towards evolution as we make more discoveries. This is how every field of science works! There are gaps in our understanding of gravitational theory, but we're still able to launch satellites into space where they can orbit the earth without crashing back down!
Lastly, analogies are meant to help explain one's points of view - it can't be used as an argument. You admitted that the comic was a joke so this is a message to those who believe the snowman analogy is a good argument. It's not. That's like saying, "Nobody ever saw a snowman give birth to another snowman, therefore it's absurd to believe babies come out of their mother's body!"
So how can we be confident that evolutionary theory is accurate if we still have gaps? Because we have enough evidence that supports evolutionary theory. We still have gaps and we still make corrections here and there but it all continues to point towards evolution as we make more discoveries. This is how every field of science works! There are gaps in our understanding of gravitational theory, but we're still able to launch satellites into space where they can orbit the earth without crashing back down!
Last edited:
H
Fire away. 
There are few biologists, physicists, or perhaps even philosophers who are creationists. There are quite a few, however, who are theistic evolutionists. I have no issues with them as they are essentially saying the same thing I am. You will find more anti-evolutionists among those scientists who don't actually deal with evolution in their line of work.
How will we find answers if we don't ask questions? Feel free to indulge your curiosity.
There are few biologists, physicists, or perhaps even philosophers who are creationists. There are quite a few, however, who are theistic evolutionists. I have no issues with them as they are essentially saying the same thing I am. You will find more anti-evolutionists among those scientists who don't actually deal with evolution in their line of work.
How will we find answers if we don't ask questions? Feel free to indulge your curiosity.
Thanks for replying Cycel
i would have to disagree that there are only "few" biologists, physicists, or philosophers who are creationists, in the sense that we are talking about. Perhaps there are only few in comparison to some other groups, but these creationist scientists still exist, and dare I say...have a more thorough education in this field then either if us. Theistic evolutionists are still "creationists", they just believe that the Almighty started the evolutionary process....at least that is my understanding.
I have a couple more questions for u, if u don't mind.
Pasteur seemed pretty adamant that living things can only arise from other living things. If he were here today, and you had the opportunity to talk to him, what would u say regarding his theory of biogenesis in microbiology?
there are some bees that only have one set of wings, yet u are still able see where their second set of wings had previously been. In fact, these "second set of wings" still move in sync with the first set while in flight. Since bees evolve into having two sets of wings, why do these bees appear to be de-evolving?
can u please explain the Platypus?
H
um....
I reject that all scientists/ biologist/ physicist/philosophers who are creationists are "flawed" in some sense. Granted, even intelligent people come up with wrong conclusions, but neither group is exempt from this. If I am not mistaken, there are men much more intelligent then either of us who started out as atheist or agnostic, but ended up converting to Christianity after studying biology and such.
I think for anyone to say that this group is wrong no matter how educated or intelligent they are, is a little arrogant. IMO
I reject that all scientists/ biologist/ physicist/philosophers who are creationists are "flawed" in some sense. Granted, even intelligent people come up with wrong conclusions, but neither group is exempt from this. If I am not mistaken, there are men much more intelligent then either of us who started out as atheist or agnostic, but ended up converting to Christianity after studying biology and such.
I think for anyone to say that this group is wrong no matter how educated or intelligent they are, is a little arrogant. IMO
I'm going to answer some of your questions for Cycel if you don't mind. : P
For sake of argument, let's refer to creationists as those who believe God created life as is and those who believe God started the evolutionary process as evolutionists.
It's hard to imagine an intermediate between living and non-living things, between sentience and non-sentience. This is why so many creationists laugh at the idea of sentient life suddenly forming in primordial soup (assuming this is what scientists believe), because they can't fathom an intermediate stage between the two.
It's definitely hard to imagine, perhaps impossible (in the same way we can't imagine what it's like to be a living plant without the ability to think or feel). But it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Science is constantly proving that our intuition is, to some degree, flawed. For example, intuition once told us that the sun revolved around the Earth, but we now know it's the other way around.
There's no such thing as "devolving". Some attributes in animals that aren't necessary for survival are lost over time. These are called vestigial structures. Snakes and whales are wonderful examples of animals who still have their hind leg bones! Vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The platypus looks like it's a collection of different species combined into one animal. How could a mammal have a bill? The answer is simple, the bill of a platypus is structurally different from the bill of birds. It doesn't actually have a duck bill, or any kind of bird-like bill. The bill of the platypus is unique to it's lineage in the same way bat wings differ greatly from bird wings. They're both wings, but very different in how they came to be and what they've become.
There's a video I watched a while back that easily explained the difference between the platypus bills and bird bills, but I can't readily find it. If you're interested in watching it, let me know and I'll spend some time digging it up for you so you can watch it. There are numerous other videos on the internet that goes over platypus evolution - one of them might actually be the video I'm looking for. Just let me know if you're interested, I don't want to waste an hour looking for a video you're not interested in watching. : P
Anyway, keep the questions going. They're good questions.
Thanks for replying Cycel
i would have to disagree that there are only "few" biologists, physicists, or philosophers who are creationists, in the sense that we are talking about. Theistic evolutionists are still "creationists", they just believe that the Almighty started the evolutionary process....at least that is my understanding.
i would have to disagree that there are only "few" biologists, physicists, or philosophers who are creationists, in the sense that we are talking about. Theistic evolutionists are still "creationists", they just believe that the Almighty started the evolutionary process....at least that is my understanding.
It's hard to imagine an intermediate between living and non-living things, between sentience and non-sentience. This is why so many creationists laugh at the idea of sentient life suddenly forming in primordial soup (assuming this is what scientists believe), because they can't fathom an intermediate stage between the two.
It's definitely hard to imagine, perhaps impossible (in the same way we can't imagine what it's like to be a living plant without the ability to think or feel). But it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Science is constantly proving that our intuition is, to some degree, flawed. For example, intuition once told us that the sun revolved around the Earth, but we now know it's the other way around.
There's no such thing as "devolving". Some attributes in animals that aren't necessary for survival are lost over time. These are called vestigial structures. Snakes and whales are wonderful examples of animals who still have their hind leg bones! Vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The platypus looks like it's a collection of different species combined into one animal. How could a mammal have a bill? The answer is simple, the bill of a platypus is structurally different from the bill of birds. It doesn't actually have a duck bill, or any kind of bird-like bill. The bill of the platypus is unique to it's lineage in the same way bat wings differ greatly from bird wings. They're both wings, but very different in how they came to be and what they've become.
There's a video I watched a while back that easily explained the difference between the platypus bills and bird bills, but I can't readily find it. If you're interested in watching it, let me know and I'll spend some time digging it up for you so you can watch it. There are numerous other videos on the internet that goes over platypus evolution - one of them might actually be the video I'm looking for. Just let me know if you're interested, I don't want to waste an hour looking for a video you're not interested in watching. : P
Anyway, keep the questions going. They're good questions.
No, it isn't. Complicated cells evolved from very simple cells - and the simple cells evolved from different protein structures.
You misunderstand, I wasn't referring solely to creationists. All people hold flawed views, whether they're evolutionists or creationists. This is why it's easy for me to accept that some incredibly intelligent people do indeed reject evolution - because I've learned that all people hold flawed views. Heck, even evolution scientists aren't immune - they're also subject to holding flawed views related to other sciences, politics, and even some evolutionary claims that have been revised.
So when someone asks why some intelligent people accept creationism, as if to stump me - I respond that it's not impossible for intelligent people to be wrong. Therefore, you have to look into the issue with more depth.
You misunderstand, I wasn't referring solely to creationists. All people hold flawed views, whether they're evolutionists or creationists. This is why it's easy for me to accept that some incredibly intelligent people do indeed reject evolution - because I've learned that all people hold flawed views. Heck, even evolution scientists aren't immune - they're also subject to holding flawed views related to other sciences, politics, and even some evolutionary claims that have been revised.
So when someone asks why some intelligent people accept creationism, as if to stump me - I respond that it's not impossible for intelligent people to be wrong. Therefore, you have to look into the issue with more depth.
H
I don't mind u answering at all . I'd just like it if we could keep this civil. To often these things end up getting heated and disrespectfully arguementative. I don't wish that to be the case here. And in no way do I mean that u have been uncivil or disrespectful in the past.
My fear is that, sometimes, theistic evolutionists get lumped in with evolutionists who do not believe in intelligent design. There appears to be a vast difference between these two groups...but it does lead me to ask the question of whether you give any consideration to what theistic evolutionists believe in regards to intelligent design?
so...Darwin was right in his theory of evolution but Pasteur was wrong in this theory of biogenesis? What if it was the other way around? Whose to say Pasteur was wrong, since we have no evidence that life came from non life?
Ok....I understand what u are saying but....according to the evolutionary process, bees evolved from wasps and yet wasps are predators and bees are pollen collectors and have a symbiotic relationship with plants. Would this not imply that bees are "lower" than their predator ancestors? Also, aren't there pollinating wasps who perform the same pollinating process as bees? Why would evolution be necessary if both currently still exist?
The platypus doesn't look like a collection of different species combined into one animal....it is a collection of different species combined into one animal. It lays eggs like a reptile; it suckles it's young like a mammal; has a single ventral opening for elimination, mating and birth, as well as claws like a reptile; it can detect electrical currents like some fish; it has a bill similar to that of a bird; webbed forefeet like those of an otter; a flat tail like a beaver; it can inject poisonous venom like a snake. All these characteristics being in one animal doesn't merely suggest a collection but scientifically proves a collection into one organism.
I would be interested in watching the videos u r talking about, but I can't promise I will get to watching them anytime soon, so don't kill yourself looking for them. Whenever u get around to it u can just pm me the link, if u want
. I'd just like it if we could keep this civil. To often these things end up getting heated and disrespectfully arguementative. I don't wish that to be the case here. And in no way do I mean that u have been uncivil or disrespectful in the past.
My fear is that, sometimes, theistic evolutionists get lumped in with evolutionists who do not believe in intelligent design. There appears to be a vast difference between these two groups...but it does lead me to ask the question of whether you give any consideration to what theistic evolutionists believe in regards to intelligent design? so...Darwin was right in his theory of evolution but Pasteur was wrong in this theory of biogenesis? What if it was the other way around? Whose to say Pasteur was wrong, since we have no evidence that life came from non life?
Ok....I understand what u are saying but....according to the evolutionary process, bees evolved from wasps and yet wasps are predators and bees are pollen collectors and have a symbiotic relationship with plants. Would this not imply that bees are "lower" than their predator ancestors? Also, aren't there pollinating wasps who perform the same pollinating process as bees? Why would evolution be necessary if both currently still exist?
The platypus doesn't look like a collection of different species combined into one animal....it is a collection of different species combined into one animal. It lays eggs like a reptile; it suckles it's young like a mammal; has a single ventral opening for elimination, mating and birth, as well as claws like a reptile; it can detect electrical currents like some fish; it has a bill similar to that of a bird; webbed forefeet like those of an otter; a flat tail like a beaver; it can inject poisonous venom like a snake. All these characteristics being in one animal doesn't merely suggest a collection but scientifically proves a collection into one organism.
I would be interested in watching the videos u r talking about, but I can't promise I will get to watching them anytime soon, so don't kill yourself looking for them. Whenever u get around to it u can just pm me the link, if u want
H
i wasn't asking that question to stump anyone. I was just wondering how u get around that. I agree that no one is immune to mistakes...i was just interested in hearing the reason why creation scientists are discredited as not knowing what they are talking about. There is a reason why these creationists believe in intelligent design....and it is usually not because they are ignorant or presuppose these things. It can be after a lifetime of research and study that they come to these conclusions.
I have been involved in the defence of evolution on this forum, and others, along with theistic evolutionists and their views proved identical to my own, so much so that other Christians accused them of being atheists. Intelligent design is not evolution. Theistic evolutionists do not accept intelligent design.
I have read The Language of God, written by the theistic evolutionist Francis Collins, and his views on evolution were indistinguishable from my own. I would argue that most biologists who are Christian are theistic evolutionists and hold views on evolution identical to that of any atheistic evolutionist. Oh, they might think that God guided evolution, but they know this is a point of faith that is devoid of evidence. They will never say, "Oh, here we see evidence of God intervening."
I have read The Language of God, written by the theistic evolutionist Francis Collins, and his views on evolution were indistinguishable from my own. I would argue that most biologists who are Christian are theistic evolutionists and hold views on evolution identical to that of any atheistic evolutionist. Oh, they might think that God guided evolution, but they know this is a point of faith that is devoid of evidence. They will never say, "Oh, here we see evidence of God intervening."
Both Darwin and Pasteur were correct. Do you fully understand what Pasteur demonstrated? Since antiquity it was believed that organisms, such as maggots, spontaneously arose on decomposing organic matter. Pasteur proved that even in the case of broth that the liquid needed to be exposed to the open air for spoilage to occur. Only a few short years later Germ Theory was established.
biogenesis = life arising from preexisting life
abiogenesis = generation of life from non-living material
Pasteur demonstrated that in the case of spoilage preexisting organisms were involved. He did not demonstrate that new life cannot spontaneously arise on a young Earth, given sufficient time and the correct conditions. He did not provide conditions that biologists think necessary for the rise of new life. That is not what his experiment was meant to demonstrate. His experiments have no bearing on your argument.
biogenesis = life arising from preexisting life
abiogenesis = generation of life from non-living material
Pasteur demonstrated that in the case of spoilage preexisting organisms were involved. He did not demonstrate that new life cannot spontaneously arise on a young Earth, given sufficient time and the correct conditions. He did not provide conditions that biologists think necessary for the rise of new life. That is not what his experiment was meant to demonstrate. His experiments have no bearing on your argument.
H
"We at biologos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today. While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism. Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created all life. "
"Those who hold the biologos view also believe in Intelligent causation. The universe and all that is in it has been created and is being sustained by God."
Theistic evolutionists do believe in intelligent design....their understanding of intelligent design might differ slightly from the "traditional" view, but they absolutely believe that God is the designer behind everything created. Theistic evolution just supposes God's design for creation didn't happen instantaneously. Evolution was the process God used to create.
I would say that they differ greatly from atheistic evolutionists who think that nothing guided evolution, even though they fail to recognize that this too is a point of faith devoid of evidence.
"Those who hold the biologos view also believe in Intelligent causation. The universe and all that is in it has been created and is being sustained by God."
Theistic evolutionists do believe in intelligent design....their understanding of intelligent design might differ slightly from the "traditional" view, but they absolutely believe that God is the designer behind everything created. Theistic evolution just supposes God's design for creation didn't happen instantaneously. Evolution was the process God used to create.
I would say that they differ greatly from atheistic evolutionists who think that nothing guided evolution, even though they fail to recognize that this too is a point of faith devoid of evidence.
My pleasure.
Keep in mind what his intent was. He was looking to explain why beverages such as wine, beer and milk spoiled. These spoilages resulted in huge economic losses in his era and, unless my memory is faulty, I think he'd been hired by someone in the wine industry to solve the problem. He performed the wrong experiments to address the matter of abiogenesis on an early Earth. He only set out to prove that the spoilage of these liquids was caused by microscopic organisms, and he succeeded.
Keep in mind what his intent was. He was looking to explain why beverages such as wine, beer and milk spoiled. These spoilages resulted in huge economic losses in his era and, unless my memory is faulty, I think he'd been hired by someone in the wine industry to solve the problem. He performed the wrong experiments to address the matter of abiogenesis on an early Earth. He only set out to prove that the spoilage of these liquids was caused by microscopic organisms, and he succeeded.
H
I wasn't providing an arguement. I was replying to another poster who implied that Pasteurs reasoning was flawed, and I was interested to know on what grounds he could say that.
I had asked u what you would say to Pasteur, who was a creationist and yet obviously a highly intelligent man, if he were here today.
I had asked u what you would say to Pasteur, who was a creationist and yet obviously a highly intelligent man, if he were here today.
"We at biologos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today. While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism. Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created all life. "
"Those who hold the biologos view also believe in Intelligent causation. The universe and all that is in it has been created and is being sustained by God."
Theistic evolutionists do believe in intelligent design....their understanding of intelligent design might differ slightly from the "traditional" view, but they absolutely believe that God is the designer behind everything created. Theistic evolution just supposes God's design for creation didn't happen instantaneously. Evolution was the process God used to create.
I would say that they differ greatly from atheistic evolutionists who think that nothing guided evolution, even though they fail to recognize that this too is a point of faith devoid of evidence.
"Those who hold the biologos view also believe in Intelligent causation. The universe and all that is in it has been created and is being sustained by God."
Theistic evolutionists do believe in intelligent design....their understanding of intelligent design might differ slightly from the "traditional" view, but they absolutely believe that God is the designer behind everything created. Theistic evolution just supposes God's design for creation didn't happen instantaneously. Evolution was the process God used to create.
I would say that they differ greatly from atheistic evolutionists who think that nothing guided evolution, even though they fail to recognize that this too is a point of faith devoid of evidence.
I must say that the following strikes me as totally contradictory: "We at biologos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today. While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism." I believe they are being devious. They, in fact, emphatically reject evolution. Do you see what they are doing? They are attempting to muddy the water.
You know what? I am going to say that these folks are deliberately attempting to change the meaning of evolution to suit their own ends. They are being devious and dishonest. Don't trust them.
H
My pleasure.
Keep in mind what his intent was. He was looking to explain why beverages such as wine, beer and milk spoiled. These spoilages resulted in huge economic losses in his era and, unless my memory is faulty, I think he'd been hired by someone in the wine industry to solve the problem. He performed the wrong experiments to address the matter of abiogenesis on an early Earth. He only set out to prove that the spoilage of these liquids was caused by microscopic organisms, and he succeeded.
Keep in mind what his intent was. He was looking to explain why beverages such as wine, beer and milk spoiled. These spoilages resulted in huge economic losses in his era and, unless my memory is faulty, I think he'd been hired by someone in the wine industry to solve the problem. He performed the wrong experiments to address the matter of abiogenesis on an early Earth. He only set out to prove that the spoilage of these liquids was caused by microscopic organisms, and he succeeded.
H
Hmm......
two things about that....
1) I don't see this as muddying the water at all. They believe in the process of evolution but...as it has even been said on this thread...evolution is not the study of how life began but how it evolved. Biologos rejects atheistic evolution that says there is no intelligent designer, but instead God used evolution as His process of creation. They are not trying to change the meaning of evolution, they are just asserting that God started the natural process of evolution.
2). The founder of BioLogos is Francis Collins
two things about that....
1) I don't see this as muddying the water at all. They believe in the process of evolution but...as it has even been said on this thread...evolution is not the study of how life began but how it evolved. Biologos rejects atheistic evolution that says there is no intelligent designer, but instead God used evolution as His process of creation. They are not trying to change the meaning of evolution, they are just asserting that God started the natural process of evolution.
2). The founder of BioLogos is Francis Collins
The proof my friend is that life exists on this world in the absence of any evidence of the existence of a deity (a typical atheist response).
That said, you are probably familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment that succeeded in producing more than 20 of the essential amino acids that life requires. The point of this experiment, and others that followed, was to demonstrate that complex organic molecules necessary to life could form under natural conditions. It is thought now that fewer than these may have been required to produce the first life.
Do biologists understand yet how the first self-replicating molecules formed? No. You know that. My question is, what will you say when they succeed?
That said, you are probably familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment that succeeded in producing more than 20 of the essential amino acids that life requires. The point of this experiment, and others that followed, was to demonstrate that complex organic molecules necessary to life could form under natural conditions. It is thought now that fewer than these may have been required to produce the first life.
Do biologists understand yet how the first self-replicating molecules formed? No. You know that. My question is, what will you say when they succeed?