Another Doubting Christian

[JLAfan2001]

Hello, All
Long time stalker, first time poster here. I have felt compelled, lead or pushed to post on this site for a while concerning doubts of my faith. The biggest reason for these doubts is evolution, that great God killer. I was lead to believe that evolution was only a theory and hasn’t actually been proven but I was hearing “evolution this and evolution that” all over the TV so I decided to look into it. It turns out that it’s not just a theory but fact. Evolutionists claim up and down that there is overwhelming evidence for it. It seems that there is.
I have heard creationists say that there are no transitional fossils but there are like Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Homo Erectus just to name a few. There are also transitional forms for a wolf like creature to whales.
Also, we share DNA with all living creatures which would suggest common ancestry. They also found Chromosome # 2 which was fused from our ape cousins.
Creationists have also said that there are no “good mutations” but the evolutionists say that there are good, bad and neutral mutations which are then selected through natural selection.
Don’t these three examples alone prove evolution? If so, then there is likely no God. I am not looking to turn this thread into a debate between ideas because the web is full of them. I just wanted to know we can keep believing God exists if science has proven the descent of man through evolution.

[PaulSacramento]

Have a look here:
www.biologos.org
The whole site is about reconciling evolution with Christianity.
While there is MUCH evidence for evolution, what has NOT been "proven" is the driving force of evolution to be "natural selection".
Or at least not like so many atheist like to view it.
We KNOW that living organisms adapt to their environment, that they are equipped to do just that.
Now ask WHY are they equipped to do that? to change ( evolve) to meet the imposed demands of their environment?

[inlovewiththe44]

I do have one thing to say: I've never understood why sharing DNA would mean we had to evolve. If we all have a common creator, God, then it would make sense for us to have at least SOME traits in common.

[jlay]

If you were designing an eye for a human, why would you use 100% different materials and blueprints if you were designing one for a chimp or a turtle.

Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Homo Erectus just to name a few.

I guess dead and extinct equals transitional. There is absolutely no evidence that any of these creatures evolved from some more primitive life form into a more advanced lifeform. None. It is pure speculation based on a question begging fallacy. The only evidence these creatures support is that they all either died, went extinct, or both.

In fact artists renderings of Archy have been intentionlly embellished to make it look 'transitional,' whatever that means.

[Tpatt17]

For evolutionists they have Darwin to thank, but their arguments are pretty refutable. First Think of the entire universe: There was not one thing in the beginnig that would have caused a big bang. But we turn to the question of dead materials becoming living, then the entier long history of evolving. If a creature evolved on a Macro-evoluion scale there would have to many minor adaptions in between, but when did everying about that creature become one ( like humans, when did we evolved lungs, brains, eyes to wrok perfectly together at one point in time ?) And the famous monkey to man chart: Nothing, assumptions that have been shown to be false, one model was buit froma pigs tooth, one was a modern chimp... The point is, no matter how many times they say they have evidence fo Macro-Evolution, the evidence comes up short. Why would God use evolution, there is notinh but survival of the fittest, death etc. His creation was perfect at first. Plus, if there is doubt about Adam's existence, then Jesus didn't need to die for sin: Adam brought sin itno the world, and Jesus saved us from it. The New testament letters by paul tell about this issue, I believe in Romans. The point is Jesus believed in Creation (he was there) Paul, and the apostles did. Look into the Book "IN SIX DAYS"

[narnia4]

Let's assume for a moment that evolution is basically true, but that God guided the process. How does this indicate that God doesn't exist? I know many think its the "god killer", but why?

I believe in many cases its simply presupposed that evolution and God cannot co-exist, and so when a person is convinced the so-called macroevolution is true they also become convinced that God. If you look at the issue beyond a superficial level, however, its clear that there's no conflict between theism and evolution. There's no reason why you can't have faith in Jesus and believe that evolution is true. In interpretation of texts it gets more complicated. But if you're faith in God depends on evolution not being true, then I'd say there's an issue.

Should also be mentioned that "evolution" is a very loaded term. For many Christians I know its really a stand-in for naturalism and materialist dogma when the very general sense of the word is something that many accept in varying degrees.

[Tpatt17]

My faith in God does not depend on Evolution, whether true or false. I question why God would use Evolution; when he could have just as easily created man as described in Genesis. There is no General conflict between theism and evolution, But I have researched both sides, and I have found my view for Creation, and your research has landed on Evolution. I know natural Selection and micro-Evolution are observeable, but I see no evidence for Macro-Evolution. Natural selection amoung animals is also observable, so I wouldn't deny what is observed. I always say that Faith in Christ is more important than the Creation-Evolution debate, although it is stimulating conversation.

[koopa184]

In addition, I'd like to say that the likelihood of abiogenesis (life never starting) is completely overwhelming. If evolution is true, it's still WAY more likely that God caused it than some naturalistic process.

[mandelduke]

All the evidence for evolution is outright false. Refuting evolution is easy if you look for the evidence.


Philippians 4:8-9
8 Summing it all up, friends, I'd say you'll do best by filling your minds and meditating on things true, noble, reputable, authentic, compelling, gracious - the best, not the worst; the beautiful, not the ugly; things to praise, not things to curse. 9 Put into practice what you learned from me, what you heard and saw and realized. Do that, and God, who makes everything work together, will work you into his most excellent harmonies.

http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/evidence_of_design.htm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbl4EmoH ... re=related

http://www.booktv.org/Watch/10707/Signa ... esign.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFsZmLqy ... ure=relmfu

http://www.booktv.org/Watch/10707/Signa ... esign.aspx

[PaulSacramento]

Some tend to confuse evolution with "darwinisim".
Evolution means that living organisims change ( evolve) to adapt to imposed demands of their environment.
We see examples of it "every" day.
Darwinisim is the view that these changes are "random" and "unguided" by anything other than "natural selection".
Or something like that.

[MAGSolo]

http://youtu.be/K7tQIB4UdiY

[Callisto]

Some tend to confuse evolution with "darwinisim".
Evolution means that living organisims change ( evolve) to adapt to imposed demands of their environment.
We see examples of it "every" day.
Darwinisim is the view that these changes are "random" and "unguided" by anything other than "natural selection".
Or something like that.

Agree. In any case evolution still points toward a Designer. And atheistic naturalism has never solved the problem of biogenesis and can't. We can't take non-life and make life out of it, we can only take life and make more life out of it. Anything that would be done in a test tube would be of that sort.

[Beanybag]

I don't understand why belief and evolution (even abiogenesis) are incompatible with belief. It seems conceivable that they are - perhaps god just elegantly works through the forces of nature and that's his way of being artistic? In any case, yes, evolution is very solidly understood among the scientific community (abiogenesis, not so much).

[PaulSacramento]

Some tend to confuse evolution with "darwinisim".
Evolution means that living organisims change ( evolve) to adapt to imposed demands of their environment.
We see examples of it "every" day.
Darwinisim is the view that these changes are "random" and "unguided" by anything other than "natural selection".
Or something like that.

Agree. In any case evolution still points toward a Designer. And atheistic naturalism has never solved the problem of biogenesis and can't. We can't take non-life and make life out of it, we can only take life and make more life out of it. Anything that would be done in a test tube would be of that sort.

The core difference between evolution as it is presented by science and evolution as a term used to describe one of the methods God uses in the ONGOING creation process is that of "driving force".
Science states that, possibly, the driving force is natural selection/survival of the fittest.
Evolution as part of Gods divine process states that God gives each living organisim the ability to adapt to its environment and survive.
It is the degree of involvment of God that is at issue when Design is mentioned.

[bippy123]

Hello, All
Long time stalker, first time poster here. I have felt compelled, lead or pushed to post on this site for a while concerning doubts of my faith. The biggest reason for these doubts is evolution, that great God killer. I was lead to believe that evolution was only a theory and hasn’t actually been proven but I was hearing “evolution this and evolution that” all over the TV so I decided to look into it. It turns out that it’s not just a theory but fact. Evolutionists claim up and down that there is overwhelming evidence for it. It seems that there is.
I have heard creationists say that there are no transitional fossils but there are like Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Homo Erectus just to name a few. There are also transitional forms for a wolf like creature to whales.
Also, we share DNA with all living creatures which would suggest common ancestry. They also found Chromosome # 2 which was fused from our ape cousins.
Creationists have also said that there are no “good mutations” but the evolutionists say that there are good, bad and neutral mutations which are then selected through natural selection.
Don’t these three examples alone prove evolution? If so, then there is likely no God. I am not looking to turn this thread into a debate between ideas because the web is full of them. I just wanted to know we can keep believing God exists if science has proven the descent of man through evolution.

JLA, this pretty much debunks the whale macroevolution theory

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... antartica/

Even experiments that they tried in producing macroevolution in fruit flies, which should be teh easiest to do so have failed.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte ... ticle=2501

But since when does evolution conflict with belief in God?
It doesnt conflict with it, only in the minds of scientists who have an atheistic/materialist view

Here Stephen meyers explains why Chemicals alone cant account for the formation and function of DNA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLeWh8Df3k8