> General Discussions
Mutated Pond Scum or Divine Creations
TimothyVI:
I was happy to see this topic posted, as well as the links.
It couldn't have come at a better time.
My wife and I had jsut watched a show on TV about evolution.
Actually, the only reason that we watched it was that the title
of the show was missleading. It was " was Darwin wrong".
We thought that finally some one was going to show scientific
proof to the world that Darwin's theory was a fallacy. Instead, the entire
show went out of it's way to prove that Darwin was correct.
After the show, my wife felt down, and said that she did not want
to watch that kind of show ever again. She is new to the faith and is
growing in her faith, so is easily sidetracked and confused. I wanted to watch it to see Darwinism rebuked
but that didn't happen. Although I could see loopholes in all of their conclusions.
This thread came the next morning, and the links offered good clear scientific
proof that the entire theory of Darwin is all wet. I shared this with my wife just to show
her that all scientific reasoning did not agree with the writers of that rediculous
" documentary".
Maybe this forum is not the right place for this kind of post,
but I think that God presented it for me at just the right time.
I do not believe in coincedences.
Thanks to the Mods for not deleeting it.
Tim
rrammfcitktturjsp:
To all,
Here is that link to the Evolution vs. Creationism website. You can view the topics as a guest but have to become a member to post anything.
(Sorry but linking to debate Forums is outside the parameters of this Forum, I hope no offense is taken. Joe)
To Timothy,
I am glad that this thread served a purpose. That's good. I hope that all your questions get answered.
Sincerely,
Anne C. McGuire
Pax Vobiscum:
Am I compelled to make a few comments here or am I being compelled? But I guess the free will discussion is elsewhere....
This is indeed a lively discussion of the topic. Personally, I enjoy any discussion as long as the arguments are respectful, authentic and honest.
First, LRS is quoted as saying that Darwin himself did not think his theories were plausible. I wish he would have included a citation, but as close as I can tell he may be referring to the close of Chapter 14 in the Origin of the Species a book written in 1859! Darwin admits that some of his conclusions are unsupported. Now unsupported and not plausible are not interchangeable terms in this context. If this is the basis for LRS's comments, then perhaps we can approach this from a different perspective.
Have you actually ever read any of Darwin?
Darwin's theories were merely a launching point. We have 150 years of scientific knowledge that has plenty to say on this subject. True, if one's launch point is flawed one's conclusion are likely flawed, but this is also one of the major problems with creationism (which has evolved its argument to intelligent design!).
Now we get to Paley's "watch and the watchmaker" type analogies. His famous treatise has mutated into the dollar coins standing on-edge, mousetrap in the forest, and the monkey typing Hamlet's famous soliloquy by chance (this poor monkey has been said to have tried the Declaration of Independence also!). Clever, yet flawed (especially the monkey typist -- or should we evolve that to word processor?!). Biology doesn't claim to work that way, but there's not enough time for that now.
To say that genes don't mutate is a flat-Earth argument. Genes mutate. So rather than try to deny that they mutate, let's find out why and how. Whether entire organisms mutate is still unsupported, but is pausible based on the evidence. So, did you get your flu shot? I did. Why? Because H. flu mutates and I don't want to get this year's flu! Ask my wife, a breast cancer survivor, if genes mutate. Ask a person of European decent with hemochromotosis or a person of African decent about sickle cell anemia. How about the Jew with Tay-Sachs? List list is sadly impressive. Get the flu shot, please.
The biggest flaw of this whole discussion (not just here, but worldwide) is that disproving the Theory of Evolution does not make Intelligent Design Theory any "right-er!!"
Two people are looking at what we call a grapefruit. One person claims it is an orange (Mr. O)and the other claims it is a lemon (Ms. L). Mr. O makes big talk about how it looks like an orange, grows where oranges grow, looks like an orange, grows on a tree like an orange, looks like an orange, feels like an orange, and finally, looks like an orange. Ms. L acknowledges that this fruit meets many of Mr. O's criteria, but maintains that it is not an orange (a completely different argument than it is a lemon: It does not smell like an orange, it does not grow on orange trees, it does not taste like an orange, therefore, it must be a lemon. Mr. O counters in much the same way concluding that only a fool would call it a lemon. They are both correct only as far as disproving the other! Mr. O is correct saying that the fruit is not a lemon and Ms. L is correct concluding that the fruit is not an orange. Moreso, they are both incorrect because they are not presenting an argument, they are promoting an agenda! This puts their entire argument (even the "correct" parts) into doubt.
Conviction is a psychological state often presented as "truth."
(Deep Breathe....)
It pains me when I read of the poor wife whose faith was rattled by a television show which presented something other than what she believed. I am sure that the people who produced the show were just as convinced that they were correct. Don't hang your faith on esoterica, dear woman. Stick to the glorious Good News of God's presence in our lives!
Along those lines, the wisest thing I have read in this thread was from Andrevan who said, "[w]e don’t need evolution in Christian theology/doctrine..." It is not necessary to the faith or the promise. Nicely put.
In short, some day we will all know which parts of Scientism were correct and which sections of Creationism were correct. In the mean time, let's have fun trying to figure out this Gordian Knot -- knowing that we never will understand it all.
Peace
hillsbororiver:
There is no doubt that genes mutate, but the mutation degenerates the cell or creature. Show me a birth mutation that is not a birth defect. Has anyone witnessed a birth mutation where the creature is born improved over the relative condition or potential of the parents? It is true that a one legged man and a woman who had been partially paralyzed from polio can have "normal" healthy children (I am the result of a union such as this) but are we to believe that an uncaused or uninfluenced series of mutations results in an improved species? Where else in any observable form does this happen in life, what about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy? Things that are not positively influenced or maintained tend to degenerate, this is true of inanimate objects as well as living creatures.
Would cancer or sickle cell be considered a positive or negative situation? I think we know the answer to that.
His Peace and Wisdom to you,
Joe
Pax Vobiscum:
I knew I should have stuck with the NT!
But since I am in this deep...
I absolutely agree that entropy is the biggest hurdle in the Scientists' way.
Also, I would say that the viral/bacterial adaptations which allow for survival of the species is a positive. How about the darkness of the skin for those in harsh sunlight (or lightening of the skin for those in middle climes -- I am not sure which is the "mutation"? How about the camel conserving water?
AND....
If Evolution Theory is wrong, what makes Intelligent Design the correct alternative? It has as many (if not more) hurdles to jump.
My only gripe here is the strong rhetoric of the arguments. My personal position is that they are both woefully wrong, if that wasn't clear.
Peace
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version