Leaving creationism = leaving Christianity?

[River Jordan]

In another thread, I said I was going to start a new thread with testimonies of people whose abandonment of Christianity was at least in part triggered by investigating young-earth creationism and discovering that much of what they were told wasn't true. But after looking up several of such testimonies, I was struck by something I think is deeply important and gets to the heart of many of the discussions I'm currently involved in here.

The testimonies fall into a general pattern....

--Raised in a conservative, fundamentalist environment, including being taught young-earth creationism

--Told things like "if evolution/millions of years is true, then the whole Bible falls apart"

--Accepts these things and goes out into the world with a firm belief in YEC

--Encounters (often for the first time) contrary points of view, evidence, and beliefs...usually at college or online

--Starts own investigation of YEC and science

--Discovers YEC arguments are oftentimes wrong, and sometimes deliberately deceptive

--Eventually abandons Christianity under the "if evolution/millions or years is true, then the whole Bible falls apart" framework


But there's one common thread among all the testimonies that really stood out to me...the fact that all these ex-creationists had a deep, maybe innate, desire to figure out the truth of the matter. They saw that YEC was saying one thing and science was saying another, knew they both couldn't be true, and set out on their own to figure which one was right.

Not only that, but they were entirely open to the possibility that YEC just might be wrong, and if so, they wanted to know it.

To me, that's the key to this whole thing...a genuine, strong desire to get to the truth of things coupled with an ability to objectively consider what is found. Not everyone has that combination of traits. If a person has the mindset that YEC is what the Bible definitively teaches, and no amount of physical evidence can ever supersede it, then it's very unlikely that such a person will ever go down the path described above. It's just not in their makeup.

And let's be clear...I'm fine with that. If your way of figuring out the truth of this issue is "whatever a literal reading of the Bible says is true, nothing else matters", great. All I ask is that people with that mindset say so up front and from then on be consistent. If the physical evidence doesn't really matter to you, then don't ask people like me to find it, post it, and/or explain it to you. Don't try and argue that the physical evidence supports YEC (especially if you've never actually studied it). Pretending that the physical data is important to you when it really isn't is disingenuous.

 

[Angelina]

In another thread, I said I was going to start a new thread with testimonies of people whose abandonment of Christianity was at least in part triggered by investigating young-earth creationism and discovering that much of what they were told wasn't true. But after looking up several of such testimonies, I was struck by something I think is deeply important and gets to the heart of many of the discussions I'm currently involved in here.

Why would you [noted as "Christian" on your PP] come to a Christian forum and start a thread about people abandoning Christianity regardless of their reasons?...

Eventually abandons Christianity under the "if evolution/millions or years is true, then the whole Bible falls apart"

If I were to investigate the theory of evolution as a believer [and it is only a theory], I would do so based on the bible and not the other way around. If I find that my calculations do not add up then I would have to abandon my search because I know that I am trying to understand something that was created by a divine God whose ways are far higher than our ways and thoughts higher than our thoughts Isaiah 55:9. This same God who counts a day like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day...2 Peter 3:8

Blessings!!!

 

[River Jordan]

Why would you [noted as "Christian" on your PP] come to a Christian forum and start a thread about people abandoning Christianity regardless of their reasons?...

Because in my youth ministry, I see this phenomenon on a sadly regular basis, and IMO it is totally unnecessary and preventable.

If I were to investigate the theory of evolution as a believer [and it is only a theory], I would do so based on the bible and not the other way around.

And as I said in the OP, that's totally fine! But for some reason, a lot of young-earth creationists try and argue the science rather than the scripture.

If I find that my calculations do not add up then I would have to abandon my search because I know that I am trying to understand something that was created by a divine God whose ways are far higher than our ways and thoughts higher than our thoughts Isaiah 55:9. This same God who counts a day like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day...2 Peter 3:8

But not everyone stops there. Some people look at the specific science-oriented arguments made by young-earth creationists, find out they're false, and that starts them down a road to leaving the faith altogether. They figure "If my Dad/my Pastor/Ken Ham/Kent Hovind didn't tell the truth about fossils/genetics/geology/biology, then maybe they're not telling me the truth about all that other stuff!"

That doesn't have to be.

 

[Angelina]

But not everyone stops there. Some people look at the specific science-oriented arguments made by young-earth creationists, find out they're false, and that starts them down a road to leaving the faith altogether. They figure "If my Dad/my Pastor/Ken Ham/Kent Hovind didn't tell the truth about fossils/genetics/geology/biology, then maybe they're not telling me the truth about all that other stuff!"

People use to believe that the world was flat...some still do today. I was disappointed when I found out that Santa did not park his reindeer on the roof of my house and shimmy down the chimney to place pressies under the tree at Christmas time but I did not hold my parent accountable for that...perhaps I should have

I would still not go any further than what I have expressed in the above post because Colossians 2 says;

8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Bless you!

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I am going to summarize my point absolutely as brief as possible (I am a firm creationist)

I believe in science , I believe in the observations a biologist reports about the science they observe ... this is all pretty straightforward and for the most part factual.

It is when scientists step away from science and speculate and assume and teach that evolution explains everything

At that moment they are in the same arena as the religious creationist who has also stepped away from science and speculates and assumes and teaches that creation explains everything.

A lot of the problem comes down to the use and mis-use of the words "evolve" and "evolution"

What the biologist should say is .... we have recently observed an interesting new variety of Goatsbeard plant that cannot cross breed with its parent plant. It appears to be a new strain that nature has modified for reasons yet unknown.

That would be an accurate report , no problem , but they say the plant "evolved" a new variety .... and then also use the same word "evolved" to explain how all other living things came to be on earth.

It amounts to a blatant misuse of the word "evolve" which can have two totally different applications.

The word "evolve" is not required in day to day observable science , the word "change" (etc) is sufficient

The word "evolve" belongs squarely in the theory of evolution which as yet is unproven as an explanation for life on earth.

That is what messes with the minds of children and adults

 

[Suhar]

How can you not leave Creationism if you do not believe in Creator and His Word?

People who become followers of evolution do not become non-religious they become religious. They believe in "god" named Chance, his "prophet" Darving and "holy book" Origin of Species. It takes totally blind religious faith to believe in Evolution. Not once evolutionist was able to answer one simple question - WHAT IS YOUR ONE EXAMPLE PROVING EVOLUTION?

At the same time Christianity is not a religion at all. Christianity did not save one person, Jesus saved many. Christianity is simply a guide to personal Savior! Savior who can be experienced by a person for a FACT without believing words of any men.

 

[River Jordan]

People use to believe that the world was flat...some still do today.

Many of those did so from a literal reading of scripture (an earth with four corners that has a mountain from which the entire planet can be seen). To me, that shows the sort of things that dogmatic hyper-literalism leads to.

I was disappointed when I found out that Santa did not park his reindeer on the roof of my house and shimmy down the chimney to place pressies under the tree at Christmas time but I did not hold my parent accountable for that...perhaps I should have

LOL! Yeah, maybe...but I try and not trivialize the personal trials other people have gone through.

I would still not go any further than what I have expressed in the above post because Colossians 2 says;

8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

I really like that! And when someone insists to me that certain things can't exist or can't be, and then I go out and see those things with my own eyes, I know they're spreading deceptive philosophy.

It is when scientists step away from science and speculate and assume and teach that evolution explains everything

I've never once seen any scientist say "evolution explains everything".

What the biologist should say is .... we have recently observed an interesting new variety of Goatsbeard plant that cannot cross breed with its parent plant. It appears to be a new strain that nature has modified for reasons yet unknown.

That would be an accurate report , no problem , but they say the plant "evolved" a new variety .... and then also use the same word "evolved" to explain how all other living things came to be on earth.

The problem here is that you don't understand what evolution means in different contexts. I and other people have tried to explain it to you, but you don't seem to be willing to try to understand. Is that about right?

How can you not leave Creationism if you do not believe in Creator and His Word?

Because it's not only possible to be a Christian and not be a young-earth creationist, it's what most Christians across the world believe.

People who become followers of evolution do not become non-religious they become religious. They believe in "god" named Chance, his "prophet" Darving and "holy book" Origin of Species. It takes totally blind religious faith to believe in Evolution.

Except for that pesky little fact that most "evolutionists" are theists. So your argument is demonstrably false.

Not once evolutionist was able to answer one simple question - WHAT IS YOUR ONE EXAMPLE PROVING EVOLUTION?

Why are you asking this? If I were to show you documented examples of the evolution of new abilities, traits, genes, and species, would you actually look at it and consider it objectively? Or would you look at it through the lens of "These can't exist, because if they did, Christianity is false"?

 

[Angelina]

I really like that! And when someone insists to me that certain things can't exist or can't be, and then I go out and see those things with my own eyes, I know they're spreading deceptive philosophy.

You have misunderstood the context of this scripture as faith is believing without seeing rather than seeing and therefore believing...the intent is about deceptive philosophy which relies on elemental spiritual forces [spiritual laws or principles] of this world rather than on Christ. Who is above and beyond such things and head over every power and authority including science.

 

[Suhar]

Because it's not only possible to be a Christian and not be a young-earth creationist, it's what most Christians across the world believe.


Except for that pesky little fact that most "evolutionists" are theists. So your argument is demonstrably false.

Why are you asking this? If I were to show you documented examples of the evolution of new abilities, traits, genes, and species, would you actually look at it and consider it objectively? Or would you look at it through the lens of "These can't exist, because if they did, Christianity is false"?

Show me ONE example of evolution. Just ONE I am not asking for much!

Evolutionists are theists indeed! they believe in "god" named Chance!

You either believe that Bible is a Word of God or you call God a liar there is no gray area there!
"examples of the evolution of new abilities, traits, genes, and species"

See that is THE KEY LIE of "evolution THEORY!"

With one word you made gigantic leap of faith only totally blind religious zealot can do! You do not even understand that small variations WITHIN a specie does not amount to one specie becoming another! Sure you can breed a dog into Great Dane and Yorkie but how is it s proof of dog becoming anything other then a dog?

Evolution is about one specie becoming another. Bacteria become fish, fish became lizard, lizard became a mammal.... show me ONE example of one specie becoming another!

 

[River Jordan]

You have misunderstood the context of this scripture as faith is believing without seeing rather than seeing and therefore believing...the intent is about deceptive philosophy which relies on elemental spiritual forces [spiritual laws or principles] of this world rather than on Christ. Who is above and beyond such things and head over every power and authority including science.

I agree with what you said, but I don't see anything in that scripture that has anything at all to do with science.

Show me ONE example of evolution. Just ONE I am not asking for much!

Why won't you answer my question? Why are you asking this? If I were to show you documented examples of the evolution of new abilities, traits, genes, and species, would you actually look at it and consider it objectively?

You either believe that Bible is a Word of God or you call God a liar there is no gray area there!

Not everyone thinks in such black/white extremes.

"examples of the evolution of new abilities, traits, genes, and species"

See that is THE KEY LIE of "evolution THEORY!"

With one word you made gigantic leap of faith only totally blind religious zealot can do! You do not even understand that small variations WITHIN a specie does not amount to one specie becoming another! Sure you can breed a dog into Great Dane and Yorkie but how is it s proof of dog becoming anything other then a dog?

Evolution is about one specie becoming another. Bacteria become fish, fish became lizard, lizard became a mammal.... show me ONE example of one specie becoming another!

First of all, "bacteria", "fish", "lizard", and "mammal" are not species names. Bacteria is a domain, "fish" is a clade, "lizard" is a sub-order, and "mammal" is a class. So you're kind of all over the map here. You're basically saying "Show me a domain becoming a clade".

If you want an example of the observed evolution of a new species, then CLICK HERE, and please....keep the above in mind and try to approach this honestly.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith." (1 Tim 6:20-21)

 

[Suhar]

First of all, "bacteria", "fish", "lizard", and "mammal" are not species names. Bacteria is a domain, "fish" is a clade, "lizard" is a sub-order, and "mammal" is a class. So you're kind of all over the map here. You're basically saying "Show me a domain becoming a clade".

If you want an example of the observed evolution of a new species, then CLICK HERE, and please....keep the above in mind and try to approach this honestly.

Oh I see! Now you are going to pretend to talk down to me and use bunch of very complicated words to hide behind! Tiny variation within one specie even if written in very "scientific" language is still NOT evolution!

Give me ONE example of ONE specie becoming another!

You do not even realize that you just shot your own argument in the foot with double barreled 10ga! Did you notice this part of the article you posted "have undergone genome downsizing"!?!?

Which part of downsizing don't you understand! Evolution is all about genome becoming more and more complex, about genetic information being ADDED not downsized! You posted evidence of devolution as an "evidence" of evolution! It just does not get any better then that!
Keep on going! you are doing GREAT job disproving evolution!

It truly take monumental size, utterly blind, totally fanatical faith to believe in evolution! It is a religion unlike any other!

 

[River Jordan]

Oh I see! Now you are going to pretend to talk down to me and use bunch of very complicated words to hide behind!

No, that's just basic biology. Didn't you learn about domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, genus, species in school?

Tiny variation within one specie even if written in very "scientific" language is still NOT evolution!

Give me ONE example of ONE specie becoming another!

That's exactly what you were given. The newly evolved species is physically unable to interbreed with either of its parent species, but is fully capable of breeding on its own. Not only that, but it's more robust than either of its parent species.

If that's not the evolution of a new species...what exactly do you think is?

You do not even realize that you just shot your own argument in the foot with double barreled 10ga! Did you notice this part of the article you posted "have undergone genome downsizing"!?!?

That was in one of the new species, following polyploidy (in this case, the quadrupling of the parent genomes). So overall, there is a large net gain of genetic material from parent to evolved species.

Which part of downsizing don't you understand! Evolution is all about genome becoming more and more complex, about genetic information being ADDED not downsized!

You're just going to wave your arms and look really hard for any reason to not have to admit that this is the evolution of a new species, aren't you?

Ask yourself this: If I have two populations that are physically unable to breed with each other, but can fully breed on their own, are they two different species?

If your answer to that is "no", then what exactly do you think is the line between species?

 

[Suhar]

You're just going to wave your arms and look really hard for any reason to not have to admit that this is the evolution of a new species, aren't you?

Seriously? I supposed to take your evidence of devolution and believe in new species evolving? What is next? You are going to tell me to believe in Santa or something?

You, literally have no idea what evolution is! Downsizing of genome is the evidence against it!

 

[River Jordan]

Answer the question: If I have two populations that are physically unable to breed with each other, but can fully breed on their own, are they two different species?

Also, how is the quadrupling of genetic content "devolution"?

 

[Suhar]

Answer the question: If I have two populations that are physically unable to breed with each other, but can fully breed on their own, are they two different species?

Also, how is the quadrupling of genetic content "devolution"?

read your own article before you post it! "have undergone genome downsizing"

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

If you want an example of the observed evolution of a new species, then CLICK HERE, and please....keep the above in mind and try to approach this honestly.

It is not a new species .... it is a new hybrid ..... nature has many new hybrids that appear from time to time , or plant scientists can selectively "create" new hybrids from time to time ....

This is old school , elementary plant science that has been around for thousands of years since Ethiopian mountain farmers started selecting and saving certain seeds with certain traits .

Please stop hiding your dishonesty in biological Latin .


Here is part of the link you used with some definitions added by me in blue
..........................................................................................................................
Tragopogon Tragopogon, (also known as salsify or goatsbeard, is a genus of flowering plants in the sunflower family Asteraceae that has over 140 species) ,
mirus and T. miscellus (both 2n = 4x = 24) are recent allotetraploids (An allotetraploid is a hybrid that has a chromosome set 4 times that of a haploid organism. Allotetraploids are created as a result of both chromosome sets of each parents being present in gametes.)

derived from T. dubius × T. porrifolius and T. dubius × T. pratensis (each 2n = 2x = 12), respectively. The genome sizes of T. mirus (mirus=male)

are additive of those of its diploid parents,(diploid = A cell or an organism consisting of two sets of chromosomes: usually, one set from the mother and another set from the father)

but at least some populations of T. miscellus (miscellus = female)
have undergone genome downsizing. To survey for genomic rearrangements in the allopolyploids, four repetitive sequences were physically mapped. TPRMBO (unit size 160 base pairs [bp]) and TGP7 (532 bp) are tandemly organized satellite sequences isolated from T. pratensis and T. porrifolius, respectively. Fluorescent in situ hybridization to the diploids showed that TPRMBO is a predominantly centromeric repeat on all 12 chromosomes, while TGP7 is a subtelomeric sequence on most chromosome arms. The distribution of tandem repetitive DNA loci (TPRMBO, TGP7, 18S-5.8S-26S rDNA, and 5S rDNA) gave unique molecular karyotypes (A karyotype is the number and appearance of chromosomes in the nucleus of a eukaryotic cell. The term is also used for the complete set of chromosomes in a species, or an individual organism.)

for the three diploid species, permitting the identification of the parental chromosomes in the polyploids. The location and number of these loci were inherited without apparent changes in the allotetraploids. There was no evidence for major genomic rearrangements in Tragopogon allopolyploids that have arisen multiple times in North America within the last 80 yr.
....................................................................................................


I fail to see how a new hybrid of a sunflower plant can be used as evidence that helicopter pilots and rats and monkeys and puppies and goatsbeards have a common ancestor.

Sorry , but that's just me.

 

[River Jordan]

Suhar,

You probably don't realize it, but you're demonstrating the point of the OP quite well. It's this sort of unthinking reflexive denial of observed reality being tied to Christianity that drives many away from it.

It is not a new species .... it is a new hybrid ..... nature has many new hybrids that appear from time to time , or plant scientists can selectively "create" new hybrids from time to time ....

Hybridization is one of the mechanisms of speciation.

So same question to you: If I have two populations that are physically unable to breed with each other, but can fully breed on their own, are they two different species?

Please stop hiding your dishonesty in biological Latin .

You're accusing me of lying? Where have I done anything of the sort?

Here is part of the link you used with some definitions added by me in blue

Um....thanks I guess. I know what all those terms mean.

I fail to see how a new hybrid of a sunflower plant can be used as evidence that helicopter pilots and rats and monkeys and puppies and goatsbeards have a common ancestor.

Again you have to throw out a straw man. No one here said this is evidence of universal common descent. Suhar demanded to see the evolution of a new species and that's what I showed.

 

[Suhar]

Suhar,

You probably don't realize it, but you're demonstrating the point of the OP quite well. It's this sort of unthinking reflexive denial of observed reality being tied to Christianity that drives many away from it.

Just because there is a slight variation within a specie it does it mean that it is a new specie. It means it will shortly die off because it cannot breed as well as normal ones! Happens all the time! Your "new specie" is a short term mutation which will shortly die off!

 

[River Jordan]

Just because there is a slight variation within a specie it does it mean that it is a new specie. It means it will shortly die off because it cannot breed as well as normal ones! Happens all the time! Your "new specie" is a short term mutation which will shortly die off!

Why won't you answer the question?

If I have two populations that are physically unable to breed with each other, but can fully breed on their own, are they two different species?