For those who have a good grasp of the theory of evolution as well as the gospel...

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

DoveSpirit05

Active Member
Jul 19, 2019
660
220
43
42
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Please don't say "it's just a theory." A theory is actually a very different thing than an idea or a guess. What a scientific theory is is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

A theory is a system of ideas but anyway what test's of evolution have u substantiated then?
 

DoveSpirit05

Active Member
Jul 19, 2019
660
220
43
42
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I find it better 2 debate an (a "theist") in person then online, notice what I just did there "a theist"
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Please don't say "it's just a theory." A theory is actually a very different thing than an idea or a guess. What a scientific theory is is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Theories are a framework to place evidence, data, etc. so we can make sense of the world around us. They are essentially and effectively no different than mythologies. What most people fail to comprehend is that the framework itself is a Given. In other words, it is no different than the first words of the bible which state, "In the beginning God said..." The bible doesn't prove God's existence. It is a Given. The theory or myth of evolution does the same thing. It assumes some things that are never proven.

The problem with the theory of Evolution is that we have reached a point where this incredibly vast and beautiful framework is no longer able to contain the evidence. The evidence doesn't fit the framework, and therefore the framework must be abandoned. Sad, but true for anyone who is ready to look at the evidence rather than sit and admire the framework.

A true scientist has no problem eagerly embracing any and all evidence that may destroy the cherished theories or mythologies of the past. Darwin has already joined the growing pantheon of discarded gods, and the TofE is well on its way as well.
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A theory is a system of ideas but anyway what test's of evolution have u substantiated then?

In science, "theory" has a very specific definition. It is an idea or group of ideas that have been repeatedly verified by evidence. A theory begins as a hypothesis, which is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon.

Darwin observed the diversity of life, and proposed a hypothesis that living populations change over time. His hypothesis had these predictions.
1. more are born than can survive
2. every organism is somewhat different than it's parents
3. some of these differences affect the chances of the organism to survive long enough to reproduce.
4. favorable differences tend to increase and unfavorable differences tend to disappear
5. these differences accumulate and will eventually produce new species of organisms.

Over time, these predictions have been repeatedly confirmed by observation, and so his theory is confirmed. Notice that a hypothesis must be testable.

A theory is stronger than a law; laws merely predict what will happen under specific circumstances. Theories predict and explain what happens.

Hence, Kepler's laws describe how planets orbit the Sun, while Newton's theory of gravitation explains why they move that way, and extends the understanding to motion of moons, galaxies, the tides, and apples falling from trees.

Since the definition of evolution from Darwin was "descent with modification", his theory was confirmed by observing changes in populations over time. The modern definition,incorporating genetics, "change in allele frequencies in a population over time", is a restatement of Darwins definition. And yes, that too is confirmed.

Speciation has been repeatedly confirmed as well; most creationists now acknowledge speciation, arguing that it's "not really evolution." But as you see, they have to alter the scientific definition to reach that conclusion.

Usually, creationists say that they object to evolution, when it's really common descent that bothers them. And there is considerable evidence to support common descent. Would you like to talk about that?
 

DoveSpirit05

Active Member
Jul 19, 2019
660
220
43
42
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
In science, "theory" has a very specific definition. It is an idea or group of ideas that have been repeatedly verified by evidence. A theory begins as a hypothesis, which is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon.

Darwin observed the diversity of life, and proposed a hypothesis that living populations change over time. His hypothesis had these predictions.
1. more are born than can survive
2. every organism is somewhat different than it's parents
3. some of these differences affect the chances of the organism to survive long enough to reproduce.
4. favorable differences tend to increase and unfavorable differences tend to disappear
5. these differences accumulate and will eventually produce new species of organisms.

Over time, these predictions have been repeatedly confirmed by observation, and so his theory is confirmed. Notice that a hypothesis must be testable.

A theory is stronger than a law; laws merely predict what will happen under specific circumstances. Theories predict and explain what happens.

Hence, Kepler's laws describe how planets orbit the Sun, while Newton's theory of gravitation explains why they move that way, and extends the understanding to motion of moons, galaxies, the tides, and apples falling from trees.

Since the definition of evolution from Darwin was "descent with modification", his theory was confirmed by observing changes in populations over time. The modern definition,incorporating genetics, "change in allele frequencies in a population over time", is a restatement of Darwins definition. And yes, that too is confirmed.

Speciation has been repeatedly confirmed as well; most creationists now acknowledge speciation, arguing that it's "not really evolution." But as you see, they have to alter the scientific definition to reach that conclusion.

Usually, creationists say that they object to evolution, when it's really common descent that bothers them. And there is considerable evidence to support common descent. Would you like to talk about that?

ok but 1st let me just add I agree wiv newtons 3rd law!! I don't believe the universe came from nothing!! 2nd he claims 2 have had revelation from God so dats fine wiv me which strengthens Gods position even tho! I'm not arguing evidence right now and the fact dat every law has a law giver dat again strengthens the position 4 a intelligent being and creater and dis is coming from one of the most influential scientists of our time!!

scientists wont denounce newton coz hes so highly acclaimed so the'll just give the (every law has a law giver) law instead coz it refutes their position. so whats ur doctrine!! are u a evolutionist?
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
ok but 1st let me just add I agree wiv newtons 3rd law!!

For every reaction, there's an equal and opposite reaction?

I don't believe the universe came from nothing!!

I don't get how you go from Newton's 3rd law of motion to your idea that the universe was not created from nothing. Personally, I am very sure that He did create it ex nihilo, and I don't see what Newton's 3rd law has to do with it.

2nd he claims 2 have had revelation from God so dats fine wiv me which strengthens Gods position even tho! I'm not arguing evidence right now and the fact dat every law has a law giver dat again strengthens the position 4 a intelligent being and creater and dis is coming from one of the most influential scientists of our time!!

Newton wasn't of our time. And he did not believe Jesus is God. He believed that scripture had been altered at some point to make it appear so.

scientists wont denounce newton coz hes so highly acclaimed so the'll just give the (every law has a law giver) law instead coz it refutes their position.

His theory of gravitation had to be corrected a bit to account for relativistic effects, but NASA still uses it (with those corrections) to navigate spacecraft around the solar system.
 

DoveSpirit05

Active Member
Jul 19, 2019
660
220
43
42
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
For every reaction, there's an equal and opposite reaction?



I don't get how you go from Newton's 3rd law of motion to your idea that the universe was not created from nothing. Personally, I am very sure that He did create it ex nihilo, and I don't see what Newton's 3rd law has to do with it.



Newton wasn't of our time. And he did not believe Jesus is God. He believed that scripture had been altered at some point to make it appear so.



His theory of gravitation had to be corrected a bit to account for relativistic effects, but NASA still uses it (with those corrections) to navigate spacecraft around the solar system.

wether he believed jesus was God or not is irrelevant, God still used him 2 bring about one of the best theories of all time!! and wether he believed in scripture or not, all speculation and still irrelevant.

So wheres ur big talk on evolution? and u still aint answered my question yet, whats ur doctrine, atheism what?
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
wether he believed jesus was God or not is irrelevant, God still used him 2 bring about one of the best theories of all time!! and wether he believed in scripture or not, all speculation and still irrelevant.

Nope. If he wasn't an Arian, he was very, very close:

Newton became an Arian around 1672. First let us explain the Arian doctrine. It is a Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian Arius which, based on a study of the Bible, stated the belief that Jesus was more than man, but less than God. In other words Arians do not believe in the identification of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, so they do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Newton came to believe that the Roman Catholic Church was misguided in its interpretation of Christianity, and had returned to idolatry. Although he partly approved of the Protestant Reformation, he felt it had not gone nearly far enough to return Christianity to its original state. Now if Newton did not believe in the Trinity, he had to consider the First Epistle of John Chapter 2, verse 7, which reads (in the King James version):-
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Now Newton, who felt that his mission was more to study religion than science, certainly did not stop at reading the King James version of the Bible, but rather read all original versions he could, learning the necessary ancient languages. He discovered that the final phrase 'and these three are one' was not present in any Greek version that he studied. Newton came to the conclusion that it was a deliberate addition to the text to provide justification for the doctrine of the Trinity. He wrote down a list of twelve reasons why he was an Arian. Now of course it was not acceptable for people to hold views considered heresy by the Church, so after Newton's death this list, and his other theological writings, were marked "Not fit to be printed". They were stored and were not read by anyone until Keynes acquired them in 1936.

Newton's Arian beliefs

So wheres ur big talk on evolution?

As you learned, evolution is directly observed. Can't do better than that.

and u still aint answered my question yet, whats ur doctrine, atheism what?

Trinitarian Christian. Note the avatar. Since you deny that the universe was created from nothing, what is your faith?

but anyway what test's of evolution have u substantiated then?

Directly observed evolution.
Directly observed speciation.
Numerous predicted transitionals have been found (and there are no transitionals that evolutionary theory says should not be there)
Genetics and DNA analysis (we know it works because we can test it on organisms of known descent)
Biochemistry, showing organic molecules from dinosaurs are more like those of birds than they are like those of other reptiles

Stuff like that.
 

DoveSpirit05

Active Member
Jul 19, 2019
660
220
43
42
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Nope. If he wasn't an Arian, he was very, very close:

Newton became an Arian around 1672. First let us explain the Arian doctrine. It is a Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian Arius which, based on a study of the Bible, stated the belief that Jesus was more than man, but less than God. In other words Arians do not believe in the identification of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, so they do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Newton came to believe that the Roman Catholic Church was misguided in its interpretation of Christianity, and had returned to idolatry. Although he partly approved of the Protestant Reformation, he felt it had not gone nearly far enough to return Christianity to its original state. Now if Newton did not believe in the Trinity, he had to consider the First Epistle of John Chapter 2, verse 7, which reads (in the King James version):-
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Now Newton, who felt that his mission was more to study religion than science, certainly did not stop at reading the King James version of the Bible, but rather read all original versions he could, learning the necessary ancient languages. He discovered that the final phrase 'and these three are one' was not present in any Greek version that he studied. Newton came to the conclusion that it was a deliberate addition to the text to provide justification for the doctrine of the Trinity. He wrote down a list of twelve reasons why he was an Arian. Now of course it was not acceptable for people to hold views considered heresy by the Church, so after Newton's death this list, and his other theological writings, were marked "Not fit to be printed". They were stored and were not read by anyone until Keynes acquired them in 1936.

Newton's Arian beliefs



As you learned, evolution is directly observed. Can't do better than that.



Trinitarian Christian. Note the avatar. Since you deny that the universe was created from nothing, what is your faith?



Directly observed evolution.
Directly observed speciation.
Numerous predicted transitionals have been found (and there are no transitionals that evolutionary theory says should not be there)
Genetics and DNA analysis (we know it works because we can test it on organisms of known descent)
Biochemistry, showing organic molecules from dinosaurs are more like those of birds than they are like those of other reptiles

Stuff like that.

1st off where did u get the information dat arian was a heretic? let me guess, Council of Nicaea bias views dot.com some article on stitch up arian.com, so because the multitude say it that means its true!!

you have miss information man, I suggest you do some more research on dat one!!

like I mentioned b4 its irrelevant 2 this discussion what newtons religion was, I don't know why u keep bringing it up, its apples and pears, what matters is God used him 4 a purpose that's all that matters!! God uses all kinds of people 2 do different things as shown in the bible. lots of people get revelation from God.
 

Truth OT

Active Member
Oct 24, 2019
424
68
28
44
Cypress
Faith
Agnostic
Country
United States
every law has a law giver

What? Do you understand that what we have termed natural laws are vastly different from civic legal laws which are constructed by people to help govern a land or an institution? Your statement is an example of a non-sequitur.
 

DoveSpirit05

Active Member
Jul 19, 2019
660
220
43
42
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
And you won't convince anyone about the reality of Jesus Christ with a theory. Only the Holy Spirit can do that and if he is not at work, no conversion.
And you won't convince anyone about the reality of Jesus Christ with a theory. Only the Holy Spirit can do that and if he is not at work, no conversion.

Amen!!
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Over the years of debating things like the gospel and evolution, I've noticed some striking similarities between the gospel and the theory of evolution. Most notably that the Mechanism of evolution is strikingly similar to the Spirit.

"The Spirit breathes where he wills, you hear the sound of his voice, but no not where it comes from or where it goes, so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" John3:8
The haphazard nature of stochastic shuffle, variation of species, etc. seems quite similar to me.

Steven Hawking pointed out that from a scientific biological point of view, we probably don't have free will. I see this as similar to Paul's doctrine of election, and his references to foreknowledge and predestination.

The more I look at these two different ideas, the more I see how similar they are. I find this an amazing idea in that the theory is not only readily understandable by those who are familiar with it, but presents us with this opportunity to spread the gospel through using the theory itself.

I suspect that there are probably those who would not be pleased with these comparisons, mostly those of the atheist, or skeptic variety, but I can also see how some might actually see how the gospel makes sense as well.

What other similarities do you see between these two ideas?
We should not use the false teachings of man, contradictory to Scripture, to try and somehow spread the Gospel. We need to preach truth and evolution (macro) is not truth. It is in direct conflict and defiance of Scripture.
 

marksman

My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Feb 27, 2008
5,578
2,446
113
82
Melbourne Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
We should not use the false teachings of man, contradictory to Scripture, to try and somehow spread the Gospel. We need to preach truth and evolution (macro) is not truth. It is in direct conflict and defiance of Scripture.

I am not aware that I have ever used evolution to spread the gospel.