Why Believe In Evolution?

Discussion in 'Faith & Religion' started by Joseph Carl, Sep 15, 2019.

  1. Joseph Carl

    Joseph Carl Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 26, 2019
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    334
    Depending on poll questioning methods, 57-81% of Americans believe in evolution, with 2/3rds of those believing that God oversaw the process in some way. Only a minority (38%) now accept the Bible's Genesis account as accurate and that number is declining each decade.

    For the past 60 years or so, we have been taught evolution in the educational system, through the media, museums, and public displays. It's no surprise then that today, most people associate creationism as a philosophy based upon blind faith and evolution as a fact based upon science. And why shouldn't they, since the evidence for it today is obvious isn't it? There are many videos, books, and articles covering this evidence in detail, but for a forum post, let's just touch briefly on the most popular misconceptions:

    The big bang model explains the natural origin of the universe, right?

    No, not at all. The big bang model is constantly being revised by Cosmologists in an attempt to make it work. To date, no amount of physics or math can create an ordered universe out of nothing through natural processes. It goes against our known scientific laws, such as the well established first and second laws of thermodynamics. Apparently, it takes a supernatural creator, something beyond time, space, and matter, to produce our known universe, world, and life as we know it.​

    Stanley Miller's experiment proved that life can be created through natural chemical processes, right?

    No, not at all. His 1953 experiment used primordial earth conditions that scientists today unanimously reject, only to produce an amino acid that couldn't survive on its own, yet alone develop into a much more complicated protein essential for a living cell. Even if the experiment were to be done using an accurate atmosphere, one would not create amino acids but, rather, organic molecules toxic to life development. The well established scientific Law of Biogenesis remains valid today - that life only comes from life.​

    The geologic record shows simple life evolving into complex life like Darwin's tree of life, right?

    No, not at all. In fact, the Cambrian layer shows just the opposite - that life developed suddenly with its fully formed various kinds, and those kinds remain unchanged til today or extinction. Darwin's tree of life that is still shown in textbooks today serves as a picture of his unproven theory, but it does not accurately reflect what we find in the real world environment.​

    The fossil record supports evolution with evidence of transitional species, right?

    Well, no, in fact it's the opposite. With millions of species existing throughout history, there should be countless transitional species found in the fossil record, giving us abundant clear examples of one species evolving into another. What we consistently find though are fully formed species, staying the same throughout the geologic record. To date, we have few if any good fossil examples of transitional species, yet alone taxonomic family kinds evolving into other family kinds. By Darwin's own admission, this is a finding that should negate his own theory of evolution.​

    What about the archaeopteryx and other known discoveries of transitional species?

    Since the discovery of archaeopteryx in 1861, evolutionary books have featured this half bird, half reptile specimen as a prime example of transitional species. In truth, the archaeopteryx is a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways – their breeding system, bone structure, lungs, and distribution of weight and muscles. Most Paleontologists agree today that the archaeopteryx is not a reptile ancestor of modern birds but rather, a member of an extinct group of birds. In 1999 National Geographic published an article about a fossil purchased at a mineral show. They labeled it as an archaeoraptor, claiming it as a missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could fly. A Chinese paleontologist later proved that it was a fraud, showing that someone had glued a dinosaur tail to a primitive bird. Other examples are still used today to suggest that certain fin-like, wing-like, or other structures were limbs in transition, but its all based upon conjecture, not scientific evidence. With time, each example eventually fails as new evidence is found showing the viability of the structures in question. In essence, there's no good, undisputed examples of transitional species in the fossil record - and there should be millions of them if evolution really occurred.​

    What about Piltdown Man, Lucy, and other ape to human examples scientists have found?

    Piltdown man was hailed for 40 years as a missing link between apes and humans, but eventually deemed a fraud by the scientific community. Someone had put together a human cranium and orangutan jaw with filed, stained, teeth in order to make it look ancient. Today, Lucy serves as the prime example in textbooks and museums as a transitional ape to human species. The upright, hairy, white eyed models show an expected blend of human-ape characteristics, however they are based on very few bone pieces and more so on artistic evolutionary preconceptions. An unbiased assessment of the actual bone fragments reveals that the skull, inner ear, locking wrists, and curved legs are more indicative of a 3 1/2 foot, 55 pound ape that fell and died out of a tree, not an upright human. One must recognize that scientists are rewarded with fame and financing for claiming discoveries of human ancestory from primeval species. That incentive encourages extreme liberalism in extrapolating evidence from found bone pieces, but to date we have no firm examples of any such transitional species between man and apes.​

    What about the vestigial organs that humans and animals have from past ancestors?

    Although wings and fins are often cited for animals, the appendix and coccyx are most often cited for humans as examples of vestigial organs resulting from evolution. It's claimed that such organs serve no purpose today and that they must be leftovers from earlier transitional species. Such is not the case though, since purpose has been found for these and other claimed vestigial organs. For example, it's now known that the appendix plays an important role in the digestive and immune systems, and the coccyx is an important anchor point for muscular skeletal tissue. Even if non-functioning organs did exist, there's no evidence to conclude that they arose from evolutionary ancestors.​

    What about comparative anatomy showing many organisms share a common ancestor?

    Public museums and textbooks give special attention to the similar function of certain joints, limbs, and organs among various species. Such homologous and analogous features, such as the similar bone structures of a bat's wing, porpoise's flipper, horse's leg, and human's hand, are indicated as evidence for evolution and common ancestry. It's equally likely however that similarity of structures indicates a creator designing organisms for a variety of uses within a commonly shared environment. A simple example of this would be our using of a wheel for many different types of structures or vessels.​

    What about Haeckel's early studies showing developmental similarities in different embryos?

    Haeckel's 19th century embryo drawings of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit, and human are still shown in textbooks today to support similar ancestry and evolution. Haeckel's drawings were proven to be fraudulent and no legitimate biologist today gives any credence to his work. First, Haeckel faked his drawings by using the same woodcut to print embryos from different classes. Second, he doctored the drawings in order to make them look more similar than they really are. Third, he cherry picked the examples by selecting certain animal classes that came closest to fitting his idea. And fourth, he misrepresented the midpoint development as the early stage development in order to support Darwin’s claim of early stage similarity. In fact, the various classes of vertebrate embryos start out looking very different in the early cell division stages.​

    What about the evolution we see with Darwin's finches, moths, and other studies?

    We have numerous examples of adaptation within a species, with known genetics even allowing adaptation within each family kind. Thus, it's possible that all kinds of dogs came from a common ancestor, as did cats. But, we see no evidence of dogs changing into cats or any other kind of organism changing into an entirely different kind of organism. The ability of organisms to change biologically via inherited gene transmission seems to have firm limitations, allowing for micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. And it is macro-evolution theory that prevails today, though we see no examples of it occuring anywhere past or present.​

    Enough - for one post. Do you recognize a problem here?

    There may be other scientific evidence influencing people to believe in evolution, but the above examples represent the most common reasons people cite and that textbooks and museums continue to promote. At best, the evidence is weak, and in truth, it's surprisingly absent. What this post won't detail, is the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports creation and purpose by a supernatural, intelligent, personal being. When the unfounded claims and circular reasoning assumptions of evolution are replaced with real scientific evidence, we find God and science being fully compatible. The founders of our related science disciplines were right in believing that the study and discoveries of science lead us closer to God, not away from him.

    So why do the majority of scientists today readily accept evolutionary theory if the evidence for it is so inadequate? A little research will show that the vast majority of them are Atheists. Like all Atheists, their world view requires them to support naturalistic processes regardless of the evidence, and in the liberal academic field, not doing so can be ruinous to your career. For other Atheists or non-believers, it relies on a will of the heart rather than an honest assessment of the evidence; they refuse to acknowledge a Creator that might exert control over their lives.

    While the Atheists irrationally reject the scientific evidence favoring creationism over evolution, at least they're being consistent with their faith. Many professing Christians however fail on both accounts. They ignore the abundant scientific evidence AND reject the holy scriptures that serve as the foundation of their faith. They believe they can reconcile science and the Bible by discounting Genesis and proposing that both God and evolution are true - that he guided the process somehow. Although this theistic evolutionary theory is now quite popular among believers, it's as wrong as evolution itself is. It's simply not possible for God, who created the incredibly ordered universe and purposeful life as we know it, to do so in a disorderly fashion relying on naturalistic chance processes. The definition of evolution does not allow God or any supernatural process into the equation! And if such logic weren't enough, there's no reconciling the Genesis creation account with evolutionary theory. The timing and order of events are different and theological doctrines (like death entering the world) are entirely negated. Christians need to wake up and understand that evolution opposes Christianity (as well as Judaism and Islam); they are not compatible belief systems.

    So what do you believe and why? Any non-believer can continue to ignore the facts, accept evolution, and take comfort in suppressing any religious truths or values. But Christians need to recognize the lie that's plaguing our country. It's no small matter, given the acceptance of evolution's impacts upon society and it's huge contribution towards America's secularization. If you care about your faith, the country, and others, the issue matters immensely.

    (note: It's a big topic, intentionally limited to evolutionary evidence and beliefs. The evidence for creation will be a different post)
     
    #1
  2. Lon Tanner

    Lon Tanner Supreme Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    5,314
    I believe in Evolution simply because there is more Logic to support it.
     
    #2
  3. Beth Gallagher

    Beth Gallagher Supreme Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2018
    Messages:
    20,311
    Likes Received:
    42,316
    Yep.
     
    #3
  4. Shirley Martin

    Shirley Martin Supreme Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    55,669
    Likes Received:
    23,301
    Yep.
     
    #4
    Joe Riley likes this.
  5. Bess Barber

    Bess Barber Veteran Member
    Task Force Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Messages:
    3,760
    Likes Received:
    7,600
    I'm good with whatever anyone else feels more comfortable to believe in.
    I never try to convince anyone differently because each person has their own reasons for believing the way they do.
    I don't get into the science of either. I just believe God made me in His image because He said so.
    For me, I am a spirit, with a soul (will), housed in a body (my earth suit). This works for me. :)
     
    #5
  6. Bob Kirk

    Bob Kirk Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2019
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    690
    Science continues to look for answers. Feb of this year this surfaced.


    Turns Out The Fearsome T. Rex Evolved From a Ridiculously Tiny Ancestor
    MICHELLE STARR22 FEB 2019
    Is there any dinosaur more iconic than Tyrannosaurus Rex? Its mighty jaws and fierce mien ignite the imaginations of four-year-olds everywhere. It's the dinosaur poster child - yet this fearsome beast's beginnings were, new evidence suggests, quite humble.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/the-legendary-tyrannosaurus-rex-evolved-from-a-teeny-tiny-ancestor

    This has been available for awhile just overlooked as a recognition of evolution.

    Numbers of Insects (Species and Individuals)
    It has long been recognized and documented that insects are the most diverse group of organisms, meaning that the numbers of species of insects are more than any other group. In the world, some 900 thousand different kinds of living insects are known. This representation approximates 80 percent of the world's species. The true figure of living species of insects can only be estimated from present and past studies. Most authorities agree that there are more insect species that have not been described (named by science) than there are insect species that have been previously named. Conservative estimates suggest that this figure is 2 million, but estimates extend to 30 million. In the last decade, much attention has been given to the entomofauna that exists in the canopies of tropical forests of the world. From studies conducted by Terry Erwin of the Smithsonian Institution's Department of Entomology in Latin American forest canopies, the number of living species of insects has been estimated to be 30 million. Insects also probably have the largest biomass of the terrestrial animals. At any time, it is estimated that there are some 10 quintillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) individual insects alive
    https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/bugnos


    Old but interesting
    How many species on Earth? About 8.7 million, new estimate says
    Date:
    August 24, 2011
    Source:
    Census of Marine Life
    Summary:
    About 8.7 million (give or take 1.3 million) is the new, estimated total number of species on Earth -- the most precise calculation ever offered -- with 6.5 million species on land and 2.2 million in oceans. Announced by the Census of Marine Life, the figure is based on a new analytical technique. The number of species on Earth had been estimated previously at 3 million to 100 million.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm

    Not typically questioned is

    Why would a benevolent supernatural being create that massive amount of life & only give mankind life everlasing?

    Or is that supposed created life of 3.5 billion years
    The age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years; the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago. There is evidence that life began in the earlier part of this one billion year range.
    Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Earliest_known_life_formsaccumulating
     
    #6
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  7. Bob Kirk

    Bob Kirk Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2019
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    690
    It did come down to why going from believing there is a super natural being that would have to be 3 1/2 billion years old that created all life on earth to seeing scientific progression in unraveling the origin of life.

    Species evolving can't be denied. The bible is the source for most of the belief people have. Yet there is this.

    The Two Creations in Genesis

    The Bible opens with two different creation stories. The accounts are similar in that they both describe the creation of animals, plants, and humans. But they are distinct in several ways and even contradict each other on key issues.
    For example, though the stories describe some of the same events, they order them differently. InGen 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Gen 2, God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male. Additionally, the two stories employ different names for the deity. The first account uses the Hebrew word Elohim, meaning “God,” whereas the second uses the tetragrammaton, YHWH (often represented by “Lord”). https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis

    Note that animals, plants & humans are all life forms that the bible doesn't distinguish as not deserving everlasting life.

    We as humans know plants are sentient life forms

    Plants don't have brains or central nervous systems like humans; therefore, they can't have emotions or reasoning capabilities . They are, however, sentient life forms and they do have "tropic" and "nastic" responses to stimuli. ... From scientific study, we have learned that plants respond to light, gravity, and water.Mar 5, 2018 Do Plants Have Feelings? | Owlcation
    https://owlcation.com › stem › Do-Plants-Have-Feelings-In-a-Sense-Yes

    We as humans know animals think & feel.

    Yes, Animals Think And Feel. Here's How We Know
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com › news › 2015/07 › 150714-animal-d...

    A good christian
    Our God is a Merciful God
    By: Michael Bradley
    Last updated on: August 28, 2018

    The very first thing you will really have to grasp is how good and merciful God and Jesus really are. Every time God decides to heal someone, He is showing incredible mercy, love, goodness, and compassion towards that person. So the first thing you will need to grasp from Scripture are the specific verses that will show us how merciful, kind, and compassionate God the Father really is.

    The bible has this to say without separating the life forms of plants, animals or humans.

    “… But You are God, ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abundant in kindness …” (Nehemiah 9:17)
    “The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in mercy.” (Psalm 103:8)
    “But You, O Lord, are a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in mercy and truth.” (Psalm 86:15)
    “Return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness …” (Joel 2:13)
    “The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and great in mercy. The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works.” (Psalm 145:8)
    “The Lord is good; His mercy is everlasting …” (Psalm 100:5)
    “For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great is His mercy toward those who fear Him … But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him.” (Psalm 103:11,17)

    https://www.bible-knowledge.com/merciful-god/
    ****************************************
    Does God exclude plants & animals from his mercy? Never thought about because the religious discussions don't include considering that as created life.

    I certainly am NOT trying to change what others believe. I took the time to present why my faith gave way to not having blind faith in bible stories. What a person believes or doesn't is personal.

    So are plants & animals included in the heaven & hell placement upon death or don't those have value enough to warrant consideration ?
     
    #7
    Beth Gallagher likes this.
  8. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Senior Staff
    Staff Member Senior Staff Greeter Task Force Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    24,327
    Likes Received:
    42,631
    Most discussions about evolution versus creation are flawed because there is seldom a differentiation between microevolution and macroevolution. Most people believe that species adapt to changing environments over time. That's microevolution. Not as many believe that one species can turn into another one, which is macroevolution.
     
    #8
  9. Bob Kirk

    Bob Kirk Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2019
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    690
    The term "macroevolution" refers to a change of an evolutionary nature in a species. A species that splits into two, or a species that changes into another species over a given time are examples of macroevolution. These changes can be a result of species selection, independent evolution (also called vicariance), historical constraints or developmental constraints.

    Understanding Macroevolution
    The macroevolution of a species can be determined through research of the background of the species, testing the species, and observing, comparing and analyzing fossils.

    Macroevolution can explain the existence of various types of plants, mammals, insects, sea creatures and other living things. It is believed to have happened in the past and is currently happening.

    Examples of Macroevolution

    https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-macroevolution.html

    To many examples to list. The examples open the door to understanding why evolution vs. creation is interesting to post about.
     
    #9
  10. Joseph Carl

    Joseph Carl Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 26, 2019
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    334
    Bob, you ask a plethora of questions, with most not even relating to this post. But, I thank you for showing interest and will briefly address your points.

    The linked dinosaur discovery article draws evolutionary conclusions based upon little to no evidence - in this case, a few teeth found that may or may not look similar between two species. Even if the two dino species shared similar teeth structure, that doesn't indicate common ancestry any more than a common designer. Thus, it's essentially inconclusive evidence at best, but the science magazines will continue to tout it as viable evidence of evolution because they have a bias and mandate to do so.

    The impressive number of insect species God created is outdone by the trillions of stars he created. As the Bible says, he created it all to show his glory to us, and science now indicates that he gave us the scientific laws and ability to discover these things so that we can know him better.

    Why would a benevolent supernatural being create that massive amount of life & only give mankind life everlasting? Because man was made in God's image. The entire universe, including our numerous insects, animals, and plants, was created specifically for us. Yes, we are unique, special, and valuable above all other life forms - contrary to what evolution teaches.

    All of your age accounts are speculation based upon evolutionary assumptions - particularly the circular reasoning assumptions used in the uniformitarian geologic column. Just because such numbers are routinely given these days does not change their premise from theory to fact. One is free to believe long time frames and evolutionary theory, but science has certainly not proved either one to be true yet. In fact, the scientific evidence for creation over evolution is overwhelming, with the scientific evidence for a young earth versus old earth also compelling.

    Don't assume that God is 3 1/2 billion years old in order to accommodate the earth's evolution. First, evolution is an unsubstantiated theory. Second, there is as much scientific evidence to indicate a 6000 year old creation as there is for an alledged multi-billion year old one. And third, time is a physical parameter of the universe which God created. In order for him to create time, space, and matter that we know exists, he has to be beyond, or outside of, such physical parameters. He's not super old; he's eternal - as our souls will be too when we leave these earthly bodies.

    Your accusation of Genesis 1 and 2 being contradictory is a common one among people not understanding the Bible. Genesis 1 is an account of the whole creation, while Genesis 2 is an account of man's 6th day in the garden. I haven't checked all of the Bible versions, but the NIV uses correct and careful wording to allow for reasonable compatibility between the two accounts. It'd be a shame to lose one's faith over such an unfounded issue.

    You say species evolving can't be denied. That depends on what you mean by evolve. As indicated clearly in my OP, species incur change within their own kinds, but we never see one kind changing into another kind. That would be true macro evolution as is accepted today - of which there's no sound evidence for.

    My OP remains pretty well undisputed, with no one offering any good counter points or specific support for their evolutionary beliefs - except for your final macro evolutionary article link. I must confess that it'd take a year to disect that long list of claims and unheard of names. My first response though is that the specific examples only prove that genes within existing species can be manipulated by an intelligent designer to create a defective species that can't breed - thus classifying them as a different species. In any case, we certainly do not have a taxonomic family kind changing into another family kind - which is what macro evolution entails. The fossil examples listed as transitional species are entirely unsubstantiated and not worth my time to disect.

    Remember, true macro evolution requires the initiation of life from non-life and the development of simple life forms into more complex life forms via natural processes. The nation's leading evolutionists and biologists concede that they have no idea how life first evolved, but they claim that the evolutionary progression of that mysterious life occured by gene mutation. This is an incredulous claim, since gene mutations result in a loss of information, not a gain of information - which is what macro evolution would require.

    It's certainly not logic to believe in naturalistic chance processes that defy all mathematical probabilities and known laws of science. As I said, it seems to be a will of the heart to defy a Creator, regardless of the evidence.
     
    #10
  11. Joe Riley

    Joe Riley Supreme Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,934
    Likes Received:
    22,555
  12. Bob Kirk

    Bob Kirk Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2019
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    690
    Cute but exceeds the bible span of creation of life of 6000 years. The variety defies the logic and destruction of all living things except what was deemed worthy when Noah loaded up his Arc.
     
    #12
    Beth Gallagher likes this.
  13. Bob Kirk

    Bob Kirk Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2019
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    690
    Joseph Carl I appreciate your taking the time to offer your opinion on why creation rather than evolution is why life is abundant on planet earth. My opinion falls into the category of as science progresses demonstrating conflicting evidence between creation & evolution I lean to the discoveries and methods science has developed. To each their own.

    One thing I feel I should say about being taught as a child that there is a supernatural being watching over & judging me is I no longer fear what will happen when I die. I am comfortable knowing when I die that's it there is no more.

    There is this though that must be true since the Pope is the official on earth representative of that supernatural being.
    149. Do Atheists Go to Heaven? Pope Francis Says Yes
    May 1st, 2018
     
    #13
  14. Joseph Carl

    Joseph Carl Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 26, 2019
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    334
    Bob, I appreciate your interest and the positive feedback from some other readers. It's OK for us to disagree, but for the benefit of everyone interested, let me counter two points you just made.

    First, It's ironic that you'd support your anti-theistic views based upon a claim that progressing science demonstrates conflicting evidence between creation and evolution. Why? Because it's been the scientific discoveries of the recent decades that have done just the opposite - with two prime examples involving cosmology and biochemistry. We now know over 30 parameters of physics defining the extraordinary fine tuning of the universe - to unimaginable precision levels. Even ardent Atheists admit that it looks like fine tuning by an intelligent designer. Since Darwin's day, we've also discovered DNA and the extreme complexity of the cell. To date, no amount of evolutionary theory has been able to overcome the mathematical impossibility of chemical processes lining up to create the necessary proteins that make up a single living cell, yet alone create tissues, organs, and living beings.

    It is the amazing, recent discoveries in biology and biochemistry that ultimately changed the mind of one of the country's most famous, leading Atheists, Antony Flew. He shocked the Atheist world when he conceded that the evidence for intelligent design, specifically God, was too apparent to disregard any longer. To suggest that advancing science disproves God couldn't be more wrong, since the amount of scientific evidence supporting creationism by a supernatural being only increases with time. I think the misconception occurs not from the evidence being revealed, but because of the evolutionary conclusions being promoted by strong secular forces prevalent throughout the culture today.

    In this country, anyone's free of course to maintain a secular world view and favor the scientific conclusions that favor one's belief system. The scientific evidence however does not support evolution; the more one studies it without the premise of excluding anything supernatural, the more compatible science and religion become evident.

    Second, concerning the Pope. While your post is clearly off topic, you make a statement that needs to be countered. It is true that the new Pope has made several doctrinal statements implying that Atheists, as well as Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, may very well go to heaven. His statements specifically counter previous, written Roman Catholic Church statements and Christian doctrines, and have caused a flurry of objections and articles among Catholic scholars and laity. I won't detail here how his radical views not only oppose traditional church doctrine and the Bible. But, I will clarify that much of the world's Christian population does NOT hold the Pope as a sole representative or spokesman for God. In fact, most learned Protestants legitimately oppose the church's claims of apostolic authority through the Pope, as well as its numerous unbiblical church doctrines and teachings.

    Should you be wrong in your unbiblical beliefs, I wouldn't count on the Pope's statements saving your soul. There's only one way for that, and his name is Jesus.
     
    #14
  15. Joe Riley

    Joe Riley Supreme Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,934
    Likes Received:
    22,555
    [​IMG]
     
    #15
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2019
    Lois Winters and Joseph Carl like this.

Share This Page