Is this good for Christianity?

[Paul Christensen]

This is what I mean. Your belief is "if evolution is true, then Christianity is false". So why would I try to convince you that evolution is true? You're about as biased as a person can be on the subject! Your whole worldview (and likely emotional well being) is at stake! Are you likely to throw all that away because of fossils and genetic studies?

No wonder you told those people that nothing short of actual pictures would convince you.

But you have your belief system just the same as evolutionists, creationists and atheists. Your belief system involves that no one can know certainly one way or the other about anything.

 

[Justadude]

But you are an agnostic, so how can you know any of this?

What does solipsism have to do with this?

I know that you don't want to provide any proof of evolution because you know full well that there is none that can prove that it is a science, and anything more than just a belief system.

What would happen if someone met your request? Would you have to renounce Christianity?

But you have your belief system just the same as evolutionists, creationists and atheists. Your belief system involves that no one can know certainly one way or the other about anything.

Where did you get that idea?

 

[Paul Christensen]

My bad! Apologies, I shall try to be better in the future.


I totally acknowledge that.
Obviously my views do differ.

You are forgiven. A lot of people spell my name wrong. When I give my name I usually have to spell it out for them, and sometimes make the joke that I am offended if anyone spells my name the Norwegian way. The Swedish version is "Christenson" which is another way that people try to spell it.

I know we have differing views concerning many aspects of the gospel, but I detect that you do respect the authority of the Bible as a historical document, rather than the theistic evolutionist view - correct me if I am wrong about that.

 

[Paul Christensen]

What does solipsism have to do with this?


What would happen if someone met your request? Would you have to renounce Christianity?


Where did you get that idea?

Well, you don't believe in Christianity, because you are agnostic and therefore take the position that no one can know for sure whether it is true or not. You are not an atheist, so you don't have the "there is no God" belief. So your belief system must be "no one can really know for sure" foundation of your faith.

I am confident that no one can provide the proof I am asking for. Not even the leading evolutionist academics can provide it, so if they can't, no one can.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I know we have differing views concerning many aspects of the gospel, but I detect that you do respect the authority of the Bible as a historical document, rather than the theistic evolutionist view - correct me if I am wrong about that.

I don't see any conflict between science and the Bible. Rather it's two different tellings of the same events, each addressing very different aspect in a very different manner.

 

[Justadude]

Well, you don't believe in Christianity, because you are agnostic and therefore take the position that no one can know for sure whether it is true or not. You are not an atheist, so you don't have the "there is no God" belief. So your belief system must be "no one can really know for sure" foundation of your faith.

You know, you could just ask me what I believe instead of telling me what I believe.

I am confident that no one can provide the proof I am asking for. Not even the leading evolutionist academics can provide it, so if they can't, no one can.

I just saw the part at the other forum where someone tried to get you to focus on one thing....that science doesn't deal in "proof", and your answer was "I don't care".

I think that says it all.

Plus, you ignored the questions I asked you again. Are you afraid to answer?

 

[Paul Christensen]

There's your first problem, believing that I think your talking points and sources about evolution are wrong simply because I'm an agnostic. You're ignoring the fact that some of your fellow Christians also think your talking points and sources are wrong.


This is amazing. Over and over and over and over and over and over so many different people, including Christians, tried and tried to get you to stop making two fundamental mistakes: 1) science doesn't "prove" things, and 2) an event doesn't have to be directly observed or replicated in a lab to be scientifically studied. I even tried to get you to understand #2, but obviously I wasted my time.

Did you notice how many times different people speculated that you might be a "Poe"? Do you appreciate what that means? It means they were seriously wondering if you weren't a non-Christian who was just making stupid arguments in order to make Christians look ridiculous. That's how bad your arguments are.

I don't know why you are so impervious to learning even the most basic, fundamental things. Are you afraid? Are you afraid that if you allow someone to change your mind on one tiny little thing, that might lead to changing your mind on bigger things?


You're still repeating the same basic mistake (science = proof).


Because they really thought you were just a troll, and you did nothing to dissuade them from that.


What happens is, you make terribly ignorant arguments about science, then at first some people try and help you by noting your errors and explaining the basics to you. You ignore it all and just keep making the same ignorant arguments. Then you declare victory.

At that point you are inviting people to call you names. It's like the old saying, "If you don't like being called stupid, stop saying stupid things".


There's another mistake. I have absolutely no interest in trying to convince you that evolution is real science. I don't even think such a thing is possible, given the religious implications this has for you.

All I tried to do was help you stop making arguments that are, to put it bluntly, very stupid. Unfortunately you ignored everything I posted to you and just went to a different place and made the same stupid arguments all over again.

That's your choice for sure, but I wonder if you understand just how much damage you're doing to Christianity's reputation when you behave like that. Or maybe you simply don't care.

Like I said before, it makes no difference to me. It's not my faith you're harming.

You are getting to the borderline between fair debate and flaming, and making personal flaming comments are against the rules of the forum. So you will need to step back from the "you" comments, because the issue is in the "light bulb" and not in either you or me. I am not flaming you by commenting that because you are agnostic, your position is that no one can really know about the issue at all. But I have never said that you are stupid or uneducated or anything like that because you choose to take an agnostic position on issues to do with faith and belief.

So, I am adamantly Creationist and my foundation is supported by many eminent scientists, and so I am fairly implacable in my view about evolutionists providing observable proof if they are prepared to say that Creationism is held by ignorant, stupid, uneducated, liars, as has been told to me in the two days of debate I had with atheists on the other forum. All I have asked in reply to these insults, abuse and false accusations is for them to provide actual proof that evolution is true. They have been unable to do so.

 

[Justadude]

You are getting to the borderline between fair debate and flaming, and making personal flaming comments are against the rules of the forum. So you will need to step back from the "you" comments, because the issue is in the "light bulb" and not in either you or me. I am not flaming you by commenting that because you are agnostic, your position is that no one can really know about the issue at all. But I have never said that you are stupid or uneducated or anything like that because you choose to take an agnostic position on issues to do with faith and belief.

I'm talking about the arguments you make, when I use adjectives like "ridiculous" and "stupid", not you. Try and not become your arguments, otherwise you'll start thinking critiques of your arguments are personal.

So, I am adamantly Creationist and my foundation is supported by many eminent scientists, and so I am fairly implacable in my view about evolutionists providing observable proof if they are prepared to say that Creationism is held by ignorant, stupid, uneducated, liars, as has been told to me in the two days of debate I had with atheists on the other forum.

I didn't see anyone say that. I saw a lot of people do what I did...try and help you stop making the same fundamental mistakes. You were pretty dismissive and rude in some of your replies.

All I have asked in reply to these insults, abuse and false accusations is for them to provide actual proof that evolution is true. They have been unable to do so.

Why? Why do you care if people can provide proof? What would happen if they did?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Is Theistic Evolution good for Christianity?
My answer is NO!
There are thousands of reports from all over the world from members of churches that have preached Theistic Evolution, that it has totally destroyed their faith in the authority of the Bible, and therefore has corrupted their faith, and many have left the church and walked away from Christ althogether.

There are literally thousands of testimonies that have shown that when church members have gone to Creation Evangelism conferences, their faith in the authority of the Bible has been restored and their faith in Christ has been repaired and confirmed.

It is sad that many church ministers have tried to block the teaching of Creationism in schools and some have gone to say that Genesis 1 is just a myth and should not be taken literally. One has to wonder how they can be good shepherds of Christian members when they deny the authority of the Bible and compromise the gospel of Christ the way they do.

Paul warned that grievous wolves will invade the flock undermining the faith of good people, and ones will rise even from their very midst teaching perverse things in order to draw disciples away after themselves. This is what we are seeing in many of our churches with ministers teaching or compromising with theistic evolution.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I'm talking about the arguments you make, when I use adjectives like "ridiculous" and "stupid", not you. Try and not become your arguments, otherwise you'll start thinking critiques of your arguments are personal.


I didn't see anyone say that. I saw a lot of people do what I did...try and help you stop making the same fundamental mistakes. You were pretty dismissive and rude in some of your replies.


Why? Why do you care if people can provide proof? What would happen if they did?

Just stop associating those words with the "you" statements and I will stop objecting to them.

 

[Justadude]

There are thousands of reports from all over the world from members of churches that have preached Theistic Evolution, that it has totally destroyed their faith in the authority of the Bible, and therefore has corrupted their faith, and many have left the church and walked away from Christ althogether.

Do you have a link to such a story?

I've seen survey data that shows some young people left the faith because they saw it as too anti-science. So there's that side of the equation.

 

[Justadude]

Just stop associating those words with the "you" statements and I will stop objecting to them.

I'll do my best.

So you've left some questions on the table.

What would happen if someone met your request (for 'proof')? Would you have to renounce Christianity?

Where did you get the idea that being an agnostic = solipsism?

Why do you care whether or not people can provide "proof" of evolution?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Do you have a link to such a story?

I've seen survey data that shows some young people left the faith because they saw it as too anti-science. So there's that side of the equation.

Ken Ham's book "Creation Evangelism" is full of quoted testimonies of Christian people who had their faith destroyed by Theistic Evolution, and had it restored through Creation Evangelism materials. Although you may not going along with Ken Ham, you can't really call the hundreds of people who have testified in this book of being liars or mistaken. I have sat in Court cases when I used to work for the District Court, where a case has been proved on the word of two witnesses, so when there are hundreds of witnesses testifying to the same thing, then one would be blind to assert that what they are testifying to is false.

Also, the principal reason, according to statements made by most young people who have left the church is that the church has failed to provide Biblical answers to the atheistic teaching they were receiving in high school and university; and in many cases, their own ministers were agreeing with it. So their attitude is that "if our own minister doesn't believe the Bible, why should we?" And they have left the church never to return.

So the church is not anti-science, because it recognises true science when the scientific method is used to authenticate a hypothesis. But when the scientific method cannot authenticate a proposition, then it cannot be scientific, such as everything being created out of nothing. Then it has to be viewed as a belief system and not a science. Creationism is not a science in itself but a belief system, but it supported by many scientists who have observed the evidence and have made their own interpretations on it - such as the rock layers in the Grand Canyon that contain the fossil records. Scientists have been able to show that in the 1980s Mt St Helen's eruption, the same type of rock layers were formed within weeks of the eruption, and so because the layers were replicated, it was shown that the rock layers in the Grand Canyon were formed in the same way - through a sudden Cataclysmic event. Scientists also found a complete dinosaur skeleton that had shown that the creature had rolled over and over as it if was being washed along by a torrent of water. Through this observation they concluded that the dinosaur was drowned in a significant flood. Also they found flexible bone marrow which could not have been there for millions of years, and so through observation they concluded that the dinosaur lived in more recent times, and at the same time as a major flood which drowned it.

So the church has never had a problem with observational, operational, or historical science. But it recognises that origins cannot be a science because it cannot be observed, how it operated, or replicated, and these three factors are essential for anything being a true science. Therefore any theory concerning origins has to be a belief system, therefore a type of religion, in the same way as agnosticism, atheism, creationism are religions also, because they are belief systems that people based their personal faith on .

This is why I maintain that evolution is not a fact, but a belief system. But I assert that Genesis 1-3 are facts because we have a historical document that records it, in the same way that we know that the life of Julius Caesar is a fact because we have an associated historical document that records it.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

@Justadude : you see how different mine and Paul's beliefs & approaches are?
Both Christians (believing in Christ) but radically different approaches to things.

 

[Paul Christensen]

@Justadude : you see how different mine and Paul's beliefs & approaches are?
Both Christians (believing in Christ) but radically different approaches to things.

Even the controversy about Genesis 1-3 is irrelevant to the invitation that a person is encouraged to put their trust in the finished work of Christ on Calvary. That is what saves a person and causes them to be born again of the Spirit of God. Once a person is converted to Christ, then the controversy can be dealt with as the believer grows in grace and the knowledge of God.

But I what I oppose is ministers who believe in Theistic Evolution teaching it to their congregations and saying that Adam and Eve were just myths. These are the false teachers who are preventing genuine conversions to Christ, and who are corrupting and destroying the faith of the young people in their churches.

Good, godly ministers, even if they themselves believe in theistic evolution or the Gap theory, will put that on the back burner and will preach the gospel involving that it is important to put their trust in the cross of Christ and be born again of the Spirit of God. But again, the trouble is that liberalist ministers and pastors wouldn't be preaching that gospel anyway, and would be preaching self-improvement and New Age stuff, and not seeking to lead people to Christ.

 

[Justadude]

Ken Ham's book "Creation Evangelism" is full of quoted testimonies of Christian people who had their faith destroyed by Theistic Evolution, and had it restored through Creation Evangelism materials. Although you may not going along with Ken Ham, you can't really call the hundreds of people who have testified in this book of being liars or mistaken. I have sat in Court cases when I used to work for the District Court, where a case has been proved on the word of two witnesses, so when there are hundreds of witnesses testifying to the same thing, then one would be blind to assert that what they are testifying to is false.

I don't doubt that Ham's dishonest propaganda convinces some people. If there were no gullible people there would be no con men.

Also, the principal reason, according to statements made by most young people who have left the church is that the church has failed to provide Biblical answers to the atheistic teaching they were receiving in high school and university; and in many cases, their own ministers were agreeing with it. So their attitude is that "if our own minister doesn't believe the Bible, why should we?" And they have left the church never to return.

Got any actual data to back that up? I Googled "why youth leave the church" and the first article was this survey from a Christian survey group: Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church - Barna Group

Their survey showed:

"Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science.
One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries."​

There you have it. A significant number of young people are leaving Christianity specifically because of the anti-science nonsense from people like Ken Ham.

So the church is not anti-science, because it recognises true science when the scientific method is used to authenticate a hypothesis. But when the scientific method cannot authenticate a proposition, then it cannot be scientific, such as everything being created out of nothing. Then it has to be viewed as a belief system and not a science.

You're not the slightest bit qualified to say what is or isn't scientific.

Scientists have been able to show that in the 1980s Mt St Helen's eruption, the same type of rock layers were formed within weeks of the eruption

Honestly Paul, that's just another argument that's not only wrong, but is laughably absurd. I'd love to help you understand why, but your past history shows you're not open to that.

So the church has never had a problem with observational, operational, or historical science.

Christians have opposed the idea of a moving earth that orbits the sun, the use of lightning rods, and all sorts of other scientific advances and discoveries throughout history. You and your young-earth creationist ilk are just the latest iteration of that.

But it recognises that origins cannot be a science because it cannot be observed

This is what i really don't get. Between this forum and the other, many people have tried to get you to understand two very basic concepts: 1) science can be used to study unobserved events, and 2) science doesn't provide "proof". Yet no matter how much all those people (including myself) have tried to explain it, you still repeat the same two fundamental errors.

Why? Can you help me understand why you are so resistant to learning even the most basic things about science? The only thing I can think of is that you see science as a threat, and so you're afraid to learn about it. If that's not it, then help me understand what's going on.

This is why I maintain that evolution is not a fact, but a belief system.

And you're 100% wrong, in a very fundamental way. Even your fellow Christians have tried to help you understand and stop making such basic errors.

Does being wrong matter to you?

 

[Justadude]

@Justadude : you see how different mine and Paul's beliefs & approaches are?
Both Christians (believing in Christ) but radically different approaches to things.

Yep. So shouldn't you be discussing it with Paul rather than me?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Yep. So shouldn't you be discussing it with Paul rather than me?

Paul and I have had many conversions over the years, and I consider him a friend.

However, your OP here was concerning the "decline of Christianity"-- whose beliefs are you asking about here? Since they are so different in some aspects.

 

[Justadude]

Paul and I have had many conversions over the years, and I consider him a friend.

Okay.

However, your OP here was concerning the "decline of Christianity"-- whose beliefs are you asking about here? Since they are so different in some aspects.

In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Okay.


In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

Again: whose beliefs are you asking about here? Since they are so different in some aspects.