1. 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!

Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by BobRyan, Jul 20, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You're still ignoring the phylogenetic tree and using modern evolution equivolents.
     
  2. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Animals very well could have been vegetarians, and would have adapted to eat meat after the Garden was closed. We see in Revelation that in Christ's Earthly reign they will be once again. God said man could eat any fruit, save for the one forbidden. Eating the fruit of a tree doesn't kill the tree. The Bible says there was no death before sin. There are serious implications casting doubt on his word. If I were you, I'd trust it, over my own understanding.
     
  3. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I am not speaking of trees. I am speaking of the animal kingdom and of man. Therefore you are the one that is dodging my question. Where do we see evidence of evolution today such as half man and half ape, taking place today? Point to it.
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We have to be specific when we use the word evolution. Adaptation or natural selection is evolution but it is not speciation. We do not need to be talking past each other just to prove a point. Speciation is not possible natural selection is. And one does not lead to the other beyond all doubt.
     
  5. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Neither am I man did not evolve from the ape. The "tree" which I specified is not a plant.
     
  6. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You don't see "speciation" because 10,000 years of poorly kept records is not enough time to see it. Now if humanity is around for the next 250 million years and records are maintained then you may have a point. However, I assert that you probably will in that time period see evolution as the evolutionist sees it.
     
  7. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I beg to differ. The theory of evolution began with Darwin. Long before that Jacob used the process of natural selection to produce stronger sheep. He knew the mechanics of breeding; what we would today call genetics. This has nothing to do with evolution.
    Adaptation has nothing to do with evolution either. Some evolutionists think it does but they are wrong. Man adapts to his environment. The Bible says that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made." He has made the human body very versatile, so that a person like me, being raised in the far northern parts of Canada living in temperatures of minus 40 could be a missionary and adapt to a nation where temperatures reach 120. Adaptation does not mean that if I stay in the water long enough, swim often enough, that my feet (over a period of time) will eventually become webbed like a duck.
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is completely a sidenote. If there was no physical death before Adam, then how does one reconcile Genesis 3:22 when God says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever". That verse indicates that physical death was not exclusive to a post-sin environment. A post-sin physical death model would seem to downplay the importance of the tree of life, especially given the stress of "he must not be allowed to live forever". This verse actually supports what NT Christian generally accept: that Adam sin imposed a new death penalty, that is, the penalty of spiritual damnation.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    You seem to be afraid of the word "evolution" and it is not reasonable. Natural selection or another phrase adaptation is classified under evolution. When we take up the wrong arguments in order to defend against a lie we lose credibility.

    Natural Selection is also known as Micro-evolution, speciation is known as Macro-evolution. Natural Selection is a result of cirucmstances and dormant DNA. But Speciation is not possible because DNA does not come out of thin air as a result or circumstances nor does it mutate into a completely different type of DNA. It does mutate into a similar DNA but mutation is always negative and works to destroy.

    Time effecting mutation in the positive creating a completely different Creation is pure speculation with no fossil or linking data to support it. So as a result they reason away the fossil links.
     
  10. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    There is no indicators in carnivorous animals that they are able to survive of vegitation. However, fruit is not the only type of food source for herbavours. Grass and Leaves are eaten as well. We see elephants of today tearing up trees and "killing" them to get at leaves. So your assertion there is wrong. The bible says there was no death. Physical or Spritual. I think it means spiritual.
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regardless of one's personal view on the topic, Revmitchell speaks wisely here. It's important to understand what is being spoken of when referring to the topic of evolution. I comment Revmitchell for this observation, and concur with it.
    To be a little more specific, microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes, usually over a few generations, below the species level. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists still deny it, such as Timothy Wallace). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera (plural for genus), etc. New species have been observed (speciation). New genera have not been observed. It has been a common argument for creationists that speciation has not been observed, but that is no longer the case. In order for creationists to be consistent, the argument should be that the development of new genera is not possible, and that speciation still falls within the scope of microevolution. Foster the argument that microevolution is impossible, or that speciation is unobserved, causes credibility issues in the creationst argument.
     
    #111 Johnv, Jul 27, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 27, 2009
  12. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That's what the serpent said. "Ye shall not surely die"...

    The truth is we have no idea what happened in the Garden. You are limiting God, putting him in a box. The lion survived the same way he will survive during Christ's 1000 year reign. I'm guessing there's a good chance you don't believe that, either.
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    It indicates nothing of the sort and you have play mental gymnastics to get there. Silly
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Natural Selection alive and well. Be careful of your arguments lest you discredit other foundations of your position.
     
  15. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Changing the meaning of words to prop up "scientism" (science falsely so-called) is what I am against. I am not against true science. Natural selection is true science. Jacob used it long ago. It is not evolution; has nothing to do with evolution. However Darwin used the term in relation to his theory of evolution, something that has remained a theory to this day. Here is how it goes according to Darwin:
    (From BIOLOGY: A Search for Order in Complexity. CRS [a grade 10 high school text] )

    This is not natural selection. Natural selection is a scientific process in and of itself. The evolutionist wrongly uses and redefines the term for his own predetermined hypotheses. This is not science. This is not natural selection by the farthest stretch of the imagination. There are still giraffes with relatively short necks. It is a matter of genetics--genes which are inherited from generation to generation; just as there are tribes of pygmies in Africa. Genes are inherited. This is not natural selection.

    There is nothing here to discuss if you are going to redefine terms to fit the evolutionary theories.
     
    #115 DHK, Jul 27, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 27, 2009
  16. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    To the verse in question, God expressly states that he does not want man to live forever, and that appears to be true prior to the fall. To your comment, that's a bit insulting. I was expecting a little more in the area of respectful conversation when engaging in open discussions with fellow believers, especially given that this is not a doctrinal issue, but an issue within the scope of liberty, a core Baptist Distinctive.
    By that reckoning, any insistance on any specific view of Genesis has the potential to limit God.
    Let's insult the brethren some more. There are numerous threads on this board with debates on whether it's a literal or figurative 1000 year reign, and whether a rapture will occur, during, or after it. Feel free to go there and insult them if you wish.
     
  17. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    >This is not natural selection. Natural selection is a scientific process in and of itself.

    And your concept of ns IS?????
     
  18. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is no disrespect in that statement. Adam had a choice to live forever in the Garden, and blew it. After that, labor, pain, & death were part of life. There is no verse that indicates spiritual death, it is put to Eve by the serpent.


    No. The insistence is on what Genesis says. My views are not imbued. I go on what is written. Limiting God would be to say "it could not have been done".

    I did not insult him. And what, exactly, is a "figurative 1000 year reign" ?
     
  19. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I think you're putting God in a box because he has to act in accordance with your interpretation of scriptures rather than what is.
     
  20. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    reasonable point.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...