bible-truths.com/forums
=> Off Topic Discussions => Topic started by: David on April 14, 2008, 01:39:24 AM
-
I watched a program that's shown on BBC in the early hours called hard talk. The guest was Professor Richard Dawkins. He was asked this very profound question. (wording may not be exact, I'm paraphrasing from memory) "If as you say, our brains and thought pattern's are the result of Darwinian evolution, subject only to the laws of natural selection, that we have evolved from various primitive pre human species into modern man, that our concept of morality and society is based on Darwinian utility, then surely if religion is a myth, the laws of evolution would have reasoned and evolved such foolish thinking out of our modern psyche? How then do you explain that at no time in human history have there been more Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindu's and people of other faiths than at this present time, when human understanding and knowledge is at its highest ever?"
Well, Dawkins looked positively shaken by this concept, and his answer......"You would have to put that question to a Psychologist, I'm a biologist."
Sure does punch a big hole in the atheistic hypotheses, they argue we are evolving, more advanced with each generation, yet more of us believe in a God than at any other time in history.
-
That displays a principle I have noticed about this particular kind of atheist: They attack God with such a fervency that you would swear that they believed in Him.
If there is no God, why attack Him and those that believe? Why bother? Imagine wasting all of that energy hating something that they dont even acknowledge exists.
It's like me declaring war on the tooth fairy, writing a book about it, going on radio and TV, being a Mr Big Shot VIP in the anti-tooth fairy movement; all because some young kids believe in it.
-
Misery loves company :(
Craig
-
It's like me declaring war on the tooth fairy, writing a book about it, going on radio and TV, being a Mr Big Shot VIP in the anti-tooth fairy movement; all because some young kids believe in it.
:D They sound even more stupid when you put it that way ;D
-
Actually, many atheists are not attacking God as much as they attack the theology and goals of some Christians.
The Question that stumped Dawkins typically is the cornerstone of Christians who wish to remove evolution from classroom teaching and stick God in every place that science does not have an answer for.
-
That displays a principle I have noticed about this particular kind of atheist: They attack God with such a fervency that you would swear that they believed in Him.
If there is no God, why attack Him and those that believe? Why bother? Imagine wasting all of that energy hating something that they dont even acknowledge exists.
It's like me declaring war on the tooth fairy, writing a book about it, going on radio and TV, being a Mr Big Shot VIP in the anti-tooth fairy movement; all because some young kids believe in it.
If there is no God, why attack Him and those that believe? Why bother? I'll tell you why they bother; because Atheists believe in Science, education, and rational thinking. Thus they view 'God believers' as irrational and delusional, and it's all due to their belief in "God". They want a world in which people believe only in things that are proven, and rational.
Also, what you said about the tooth fairy is a bad comparison. Firstly, because those are kids, and secondly; you are just putting yourself down, by comparing your beliefs to those of kids'. A better comparison would be if grown men still believed in the Tooth Fairy, wouldn't you find that stupid and irrational? Now, when you look at it from that point of view, you are more in line with the way Atheists view religious people.
-
Gentle folks of the forum,
In my youth I was one to observe the mistakes of others and comment upon them in order to make myself feel better.
When a person is picked upon in school or the play yard, it is tempting to say things such as you're MORE stupid or you're ugly etc.
I think when people observe the hypocrisy of their Christian neighbors, it is easy denigrate their beliefs as dumb and stupid and of no practical value. It is important to remember that the atheist are just as deceived as the nominal Christian or the nominal Jew who has never studied the teachings of their own faith or cracked open a Bible. What the atheist may be saying is that Christians they are familiar with are believing in fairy tales very similar to the tooth fairy and they, the atheist, aren't falling for it.
How many Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and yet their church teaches that he spent the three days in the "hell" teaching sinners of the gospel? They learn that sinners who drink alcohol to excess are going to burn in "hell" until they attend the funeral service to discover that the same drunk has been forgiven by the pastor and is now looking down from heaven upon the service in his honor.
It may be that we need to think of atheist in the same forgiving manner that we do deceived Christians.
Some of them at least are being intellectually honest in their observations of Christian conduct and beliefs.
Just something to consider.
Indianabob
-
If there is no God, why attack Him and those that believe? Why bother? I'll tell you why they bother; because Atheists believe in Science, education, and rational thinking. Thus they view 'God believers' as irrational and delusional, and it's all due to their belief in "God". They want a world in which people believe only in things that are proven, and rational.
I also believe in science, education, and rational thinking. But I am not an atheist.
If they dont want to acknowledge that Christians aren't irrational or delusional, there is nothing I can say to them to change their minds, because their minds are already made up.
What makes them think they can change another persons beliefs and worldview, any more than you or I can? In a way, it is like finding Rays' site. The truths expressed resonated with me. I found what I was looking for after many false starts and a lot of errors. But if someone sent me a link, and I wasn't ready for it, I wouldn't have bothered reading anything.
Also, what you said about the tooth fairy is a bad comparison. Firstly, because those are kids, and secondly; you are just putting yourself down, by comparing your beliefs to those of kids'.
I am not putting myself down, I just say what this kind of atheists would say about me. To them, I am like a kid, a rather stupid kid at that. And, I dont care. It's all a part of the persecution we all face. I wont change to make myself acceptable to them, and I bet no one here would do that either.
You know what scripture says about them, and what God thinks of their "philosophies".
-
Hi
That displays a principle I have noticed about this particular kind of atheist: They attack God with such a fervency that you would swear that they believed in Him.
I have often had that thought myself about Dawkins.
Dawkins is revered here in the UK ,he has a free reign with the BBC and the media , and is dubbed as the nation's 'favorite atheist'. Usually he is wheeled out when there is some controversy regarding creation.When he is on TV or the radio ,he is very rarely pitted against any scientist , but usually ends up debating with some hapless cleric who hasn't a clue.
It makes absolute sense if evolution was true ,to evolve a species that didn't have the ability to have differing ideas thoughts and philosophies. what with all the wars and conflict going on ,one would have thought any selfish gene would have sorted that out first if the species is to survive.
It's a good question , and one I have often pondered on myself.
Dave UK
-
Yes.
I'd think that if there was evolution, we'd finally have the ability to get along after all these millions of years. But we are as deadly as ever, with just a thin veneer of civilization that is easily removed at the drop of a hat >:( or for no real reason at all.
-
Thus they view 'God believers' as irrational and delusional, and it's all due to their belief in "God". They want a world in which people believe only in things that are proven, and rational.
By and large most athiests are fearful of fundamentalist christians who say athiests are evil and want Gods wrath to come down upon them and would be happy to see God torture and destroy some unrepentant atheist that didn;t listen to them.
Most forums I have been in when a faith in God does not point the finger at them to repent or burn in hell forever they don't have much to say in hatred. there still are some, I am sure, but not the majority.
Universalists / no free will christians are not trying to push bad science into the classroom, the fundamentalists are.
It really is Christian theology and angendas that Atheists are against when it comes right down to it.
-
I started reading Dawkins' "The God Delusion". Let me first state, that I agree with about 90% of what the man says. The only things that I don't agree with are that there is no God and that evolution is a theory backed up by strong, unquestionable evidence. People like Dawkins are doing God's people a service. They are showing little bits of evidence, and proving their God (maybe Satan) given blindness by emphatically claiming that it removes a need for a designer. It is a miracle that people of such intellect can't see the giant holes in their theory while I can.
But as far as Dawkins, I agree with him about the irrationality of most religious people. I agree with him, that one (out of fear of some hell) can attend church every Sunday, swear belief on a stack of bibles, do whatever rituals the church members suggest, and that person may still not believe in God. He all but proves that people have to be called to belief. Neither Dawkins nor I understand why Muslims get so upset when somebody insults their beliefs by making an image of Mohamed. The point is, is that there are smart and dumb theists as well as atheists. What makes one a staunch believer in one or the other?
And as far as evolution, I think it's a big mistake to keep it's teaching away from children. How are people going to defend their faith when they really don't understand evolution? They can call me ignorant if they like. But I can at least tell people what problems I see in the hypothesis of evolution. Afterall, I know what evolution is. I also realize that the cosmic origins have nothing to do with the hypothesis of evolution. Many of the evolution believers don't realize this.
-
By and large most athiests are fearful of fundamentalist christians who say athiests are evil and want Gods wrath to come down upon them and would be happy to see God torture and destroy some unrepentant atheist that didn;t listen to them.
Isn't it interesting that James and John before they were converted behaved in a manner very similar to what the fundamentalists (and others) tend to say (or privately hope) about those who do not share their beliefs?
Luk 9:51 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,
Luk 9:52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
Luk 9:53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did?
Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
Peace,
Joe
-
Amen! Thank you. 8)
-
And as far as evolution, I think it's a big mistake to keep it's teaching away from children. How are people going to defend their faith when they really don't understand evolution? They can call me ignorant if they like. But I can at least tell people what problems I see in the hypothesis of evolution. Afterall, I know what evolution is. I also realize that the cosmic origins have nothing to do with the hypothesis of evolution. Many of the evolution believers don't realize this.
The problem is that in schools they do not teach evolution as a theory they teach it as if it is fact.
-
Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.
Joe[/color]
Someone I know likes to say "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing". So I suppose if we keep the main thing the main thing we wont get tangled into this whole facts vs fairy tale tale
-
When I think of athiests arguing with christians, I think of the world as a painting and God is the painter. God is teaching us to paint, but some believe that the painting got there itself through pure chance, whilst arguing with those that can only fingerpaint with ketchup.
-
After reading his book and seeing many of his lectures and interviews, I find Dawkins to be guilty of the very thing he seems to abhore in certain religious people, he's irrational and borders on the fanatical. His objections to religion and scripture are spurious. He's a brilliant man, no doubt about it, but he often catches himself out with his own arguments. His intellectual vanity is easily stroked when debating most people defending Christianity and the scriptures, because they don't understand their own faith and religion.
I don't think the problem is with the understanding of science or evolution, its all down to the understanding of God on both sides of the debate. Both sides of the debate have God as a white haired old man sitting on a cosmic cloud surrounded by legions of winged angels with lightening bolts coming from His fingers, and a God that just waved his hand and the universe and everything in it just appeared in 6 24 hour days.
He also has this stupid notion that the world is full of Christians, Muslims and Jews that want to reject science completely, reject progress and return to the dark ages. There may be some nut jobs in the world that would support such a crazy idea, but thankfully they are few enough to be completely ignored.
-
And as far as evolution, I think it's a big mistake to keep it's teaching away from children. How are people going to defend their faith when they really don't understand evolution? They can call me ignorant if they like. But I can at least tell people what problems I see in the hypothesis of evolution. Afterall, I know what evolution is. I also realize that the cosmic origins have nothing to do with the hypothesis of evolution. Many of the evolution believers don't realize this.
The problem is that in schools they do not teach evolution as a theory they teach it as if it is fact.
I'm sorry, but evolution should not be considered a theory. A scientific theory is a hypothesis with well supported scientific evidence. There is so much evidence against evolution that it should have been reduced back to a hypothesis a long time ago (at least in the last 20 years). The best way to argue the position of creation is to call evolution a hypothesis and not a theory. Then tell them why.
Again, we should not be afraid to learn what evolutionists are fully claiming. If they want to call it a fact, let them. I've talked to enough Christians who don't have a clue of what evolution implies. They just know that they hate it. They don't even know the difference between micro and macro evolution. I say let kids learn as much as they can about it so that they will know what they are dismissing later.
-
My mistake musicman I should have called it a hypothesis. I had a history teacher who was a liberal admitted he was a liberal yet gave equal political arguments to different sides of history. He lets us use facts to form our own opinion.
-
And as far as evolution, I think it's a big mistake to keep it's teaching away from children. How are people going to defend their faith when they really don't understand evolution? They can call me ignorant if they like. But I can at least tell people what problems I see in the hypothesis of evolution. Afterall, I know what evolution is. I also realize that the cosmic origins have nothing to do with the hypothesis of evolution. Many of the evolution believers don't realize this.
The problem is that in schools they do not teach evolution as a theory they teach it as if it is fact.
Thats because theorys can be fact. I have a transmission repair manual that has a section "Theory of Operation". I would be hard pressed to take the theory argument and say that I do not believe this transmission works because it is only a theory.
So why does it not say "fact of operation"? Because scientifically, while it is demonstrated that this transmission can work this way, it is not necessarily the only way a transmission can work.
By and large, most aspects of Evolution taught in schools are indeed observable fact. Evolution does happen in the genome.
Scientifically Evolution is the best explanation that can be scientifically promoted. Theories of Creation that say god did it lack one scientifically sound aspect. You cannot scientifically demonstrate that a God is the cause.
The argument lies in whether the observable aspects of evolution are enough to allow for common descent. Most recent arguments are that there is no known barriers to prevent it.
What hinders more honesty in this area of science is because of CHRISTIANS. They want to remove everything associated with the term evolution. They want to say that since evolution can be shown to have problems that automatically means God did it. That is BAD science.
-
And as far as evolution, I think it's a big mistake to keep it's teaching away from children. How are people going to defend their faith when they really don't understand evolution? They can call me ignorant if they like. But I can at least tell people what problems I see in the hypothesis of evolution. Afterall, I know what evolution is. I also realize that the cosmic origins have nothing to do with the hypothesis of evolution. Many of the evolution believers don't realize this.
The problem is that in schools they do not teach evolution as a theory they teach it as if it is fact.
Thats because theorys can be fact. I have a transmission repair manual that has a section "Theory of Operation". I would be hard pressed to take the theory argument and say that I do not believe this transmission works because it is only a theory.
So why does it not say "fact of operation"? Because scientifically, while it is demonstrated that this transmission can work this way, it is not necessarily the only way a transmission can work.
Bad example. It IS the only way your tranny can work. Try removing a gear if you dont believe me. They could just as easily called it "fact of operation". They didnt. They had to name it something.
Theory fits your example though.
Theory:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
You cannot scientifically demonstrate that a God is the cause.
None of us were around to see it.
And the evolutionists cannot demonstrate that God isn't the cause, as much as they seem to delight in trying to do that and then declaring victory, for the same reason. They weren't here either.
If we would say that God created the universe, we would have to say how He did it, to satisfy the evolutionists. If we know how He did it, then we could probably find a way to do it too.
It's a never ending argument.
BTW, some time ago I found a really interesting article. I post it here now. Kindly tell me how T Rex soft tissue can be preserved? I'd just LOVE to hear your explanation. 60 70 million years ago ain't yesterday. The article is curiously silent on how this could be.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
-
By and large, most aspects of Evolution taught in schools are indeed observable fact. Evolution does happen in the genome.
Scientifically Evolution is the best explanation that can be scientifically promoted. Theories of Creation that say god did it lack one scientifically sound aspect. You cannot scientifically demonstrate that a God is the cause.
The argument lies in whether the observable aspects of evolution are enough to allow for common descent. Most recent arguments are that there is no known barriers to prevent it.
What hinders more honesty in this area of science is because of CHRISTIANS. They want to remove everything associated with the term evolution. They want to say that since evolution can be shown to have problems that automatically means God did it. That is BAD science.
Hi Phazel,
First off I want to say I do not believe the Christian 6 literal days hypothesis, but if evolution is one thing it is the fact that science cannot even reproduce one single aspect of it! Science only throws an "abra cadabra" and billions of years at the life process and there you have it.
Micro evolution is one one thing but an entire new species? Even a wing or how about the eye? The fossil record shows them appearing all at once, fully formed and functional.
Do you have any examples of these observable facts of evolution being presented in the classroom? The only observable mutations on record are degenerative, birth defects and the like, I am unaware of any advantageous birth "mutations" being observed but perhaps I have missed them.
From Gerald Schroeder*
With the advent of molecular biology's ability to discern the structure of proteins and genes, statistical comparison of the similarity of these structures among animals has become possible. The gene that controls the development of the eye is the same in all mammals. That is not surprising. The fossil record implies a common branch for all mammals. But what is surprising, even astounding, is the similarity of the mammal gene the gene that controls the development of eyes in mollusks and the visual systems in worms. The same can be said for the gene that controls the expression of limbs in insects and in humans. In fact so similar is this gene, that pieces of the mammalian gene, when spliced into a fruit fly cell, will cause a fruit fly eye to appear at the site of the 'splice' . This would make sense if life's development were described as a tree. But the bush of life means that just above the level of one-celled life, insects and mammals and worms and mollusks separated.
The eye gene has 130 sites. That means there are 20 to the power of 130 possible combinations of amino acids along those 130 sites. Somehow nature has selected the same combination of amino acids for all visual systems in all animals. That fidelity could not have happened by chance. It must have been pre-programmed in lower forms of life. But those lower forms of life, one-celled, did not have eyes. These data have confounded the classic theory of random, independent evolution producing these convergent structures. So totally unsuspected by classical theories of evolution is this similarity that the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the Untied States, Science, reported: "The hypothesis that the eye of the cephalopod [mollusk] has evolved by convergence with vertebrate [human] eye is challenged by our recent findings of the Pax-6 [gene] ... The concept that the eyes of invertebrates have evolved completely independently from the vertebrate eye has to be reexamined."
The significance of this statement must not be lost. We are being asked to reexamine the idea that evolution is a free agent. The convergence, the similarity of these genes, is so great that it could not, it did not, happen by chance random reactions.
The British Natural History Museum in London has an entire wing devoted to the evolution of species. And what evolution do they demonstrate? Pink daisies evolving into blue daisies; small dogs evolving into big dogs; a few species of cichlid fish evolving in a mere few thousand years into a dozen species of cichlid fish. Very impressive. Until you realize that the daisies remained daisies, the dogs remained dogs and the cichlid fish remained cichlid. It is called micro-evolution. This magnificent museum, with all its resources, could not produce a single example of one phylum evolving into another. It is the mechanisms of macro-evolution, the change of one phylum or class of animal into another that has been called into question by these data.
The reality of this explosion of life was discovered long before it was revealed. In 1909, Charles D. Walcott, while searching for fossils in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, came upon a strata of shale near the Burgess Pass, rich in that for which he had been seeking., fossils from the era known as the Cambrian. Over the following four years Walcott collected between 60,000 and 80,000 fossils from the Burgess Shale. These fossils contained representatives from every phylum except one of the phyla that exist today. Walcott recorded his findings meticulously in his notebooks. No new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion. These fossils could have changed the entire concept of evolution from a tree of life to a bush of life. And they did, but not in 1909. Walcott knew he had discovered something very important. That is why he collected the vast number of samples. But he could not believe that evolution could have occurred in such a burst of life forms, "simultaneously" to use the words of Scientific American. This was totally against the theory of Darwin in which he and his colleagues were steeped. And so Walcott reburied the fossils, all 60,000 of them, this time in the drawers of his laboratory. Walcott was the director of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. It was not until 1985 that they were rediscovered (in the draws of the Smithsonian). Had Walcott wanted, he could have hired a phalanx of graduate students to work on the fossils. But he chose not to rock the boat of evolution. Today fossil representatives of the Cambrian era have been found in China, Africa, the British Isles, Sweden, Greenland. The explosion was worldwide. But before it became proper to discuss the extraordinary nature of the explosion, the data were simply not reported. It is a classic example of cognitive dissonance, but an example for which we have all paid a severe price.
*Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His doctorate is in the Earth Sciences and Nuclear Physics.
-
Hi Kent,
We were posting right around the same time, I appreciate and agree with the points you made.
Peace,
Joe
-
The fossil record does not support gradual mutation evolution. What it does show is over 500 million years fully formed functional species existing and then going extinct, then more advanced species appearing with NO transitional link to ANY previous species. Life has evolved with the universe, but NOT by gradual mutation. However, since the arrival of modern man (Gods last creation) this has been in reverse (Gods rest, the 7th day which is NOT book ended with an evening or morning). There is not one new species recorded or found since the arrival of man. There are more than 30,000 less species on earth since the arrival of man. While some of it is due to man, even with the removal of every aspect of humanity from the earth, there would be still one species disappearing every year.
-
If we would say that God created the universe, we would have to say how He did it, to satisfy the evolutionists. If we know how He did it, then we could probably find a way to do it too.
It's a never ending argument.
Thats actually not true. Scientifically you need to formulate what God is and give evidence to demostrate why the "what" is a cause.
God is a "possibility" and scientifically there is little more than speculation to assert that a God does anything in our world or life. It doesn't matter how unexplainable something is, that does not demonstrate anything scientific that it must be a God.
-
Micro evolution is one one thing but an entire new species? Even a wing or how about the eye? The fossil record shows them appearing all at once, fully formed and functional.
The problem is that micro evolution, IS evolution and one only has to research a bit to find that new species of mosquitos have been discovered based upon an environmental change.
The difference is that science has not observed large changes most notably called Macro evolution. The issue is whether the evidence against it automatically means God did it simply because science does not have an answer.
And while you may not agree with the 6 literal day account of creation, THOSE are the people who are trying to get even worse science taught than evolution ever thought about being. I guess it is a matter of picking your poison.
-
Thats actually not true. Scientifically you need to formulate what God is and give evidence to demostrate why the "what" is a cause.
And do this how?
What is the possible "scientific" explanation for that 70 million year old soft dino tissue?
God is a "possibility" and scientifically there is little more than speculation to assert that a God does anything in our world or life. It doesn't matter how unexplainable something is, that does not demonstrate anything scientific that it must be a God.
This is what I mean. It never ends. Scientists will always call it speculation, because as far as I can tell, the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven. How does one show another a Spirit? Nothing I or anyone else can say will convince an evolutionist, any more than an evolutionist can say anything that will change a creationists mind.
Now where I agree with you is that a lot of people believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. All because some monk sat down and figured it out using geneaologies (sp?).
Nothing short of an act of God will change their minds either. They make creationists look stupid.
-
Thats actually not true. Scientifically you need to formulate what God is and give evidence to demostrate why the "what" is a cause.
And do this how?
What is the possible "scientific" explanation for that 70 million year old soft dino tissue?
Here is the difference.
You first question is the point scientifically. Why should science recognize something you cannot even formulate something for?
The second question is another problem. What does that lack of explanation ACTUALLY demonstrate? Does it really demonstrate God? If it does, please explain.
-
Micro evolution is one one thing but an entire new species? Even a wing or how about the eye? The fossil record shows them appearing all at once, fully formed and functional.
Hi Phazel,
You missed the point. A small dog through environment and diet and breeding becomes a bigger dog it is still a dog, not a bear or a tiger or an ape. The genetics that allowed for this were already preprogrammed into it's genes. It was not a series of birth defect random mutations over billions of years that produced this result.
The problem is that micro evolution, IS evolution and one only has to research a bit to find that new species of mosquitos have been discovered based upon an environmental change.
It is still a mosquito. Are you going to say that a caterpillar spinning a cocoon, crawling in it and emerging as a butterfly proof of evolution as well?
The difference is that science has not observed large changes most notably called Macro evolution. The issue is whether the evidence against it automatically means God did it simply because science does not have an answer.
Nothing happens without God, period. Take Him out of the equation and all we have is nothingness, if you do not believe He exists and is sovereign then this discussion becomes rather pointless, don't you think?
Look at the fossil record, as Dave pointed out and innumerable articles and journals declare, these "new" forms of life appeared fully formed. Show us the in between fossil as fins evolved into hands and feet. As I asked you before can you name one birth defect that has been beneficial and passed on to the children of the person that was born with a defect?
And while you may not agree with the 6 literal day account of creation, THOSE are the people who are trying to get even worse science taught than evolution ever thought about being. I guess it is a matter of picking your poison.
If you are saying you believe God used evolution (preprogrammed the entire process, I have no problem with that, if you are implying we are the result of random selection then I emphatically disagree.
I will pass on both the arsenic and the hemlock thank you. ;)
Peace,
Joe
P.S. This is like debating politics so I will bow out.
-
You missed the point. A small dog through environment and diet and breeding becomes a bigger dog it is still a dog, not a bear or a tiger or an ape. The genetics that allowed for this were already preprogrammed into it's genes. It was not a series of birth defect random mutations over billions of years that produced this result.[/color]
The problem is that micro evolution, IS evolution and one only has to research a bit to find that new species of mosquitos have been discovered based upon an environmental change.
It is still a mosquito. Are you going to say that a caterpillar spinning a cocoon, crawling in it and emerging as a butterfly proof of evolution as well?
The main point I am trying to make is if the evidence against the aspect of evolution that would be said to be "common descent" is a scientific demonstration for God.
If it is not then creationists need to formulate a scientific case to demonstrate what God is. The bible is not scientific evidence for a God creating the universe. As much as I believe that God did, I cannot use the scientific method to make the case for it.
You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that a new species of mosquito is not evolution while saying evolution is about a new species
A new species is a new species. Common descent is another matter. There are gaps in the evidence concerning our origin from a single cell. But those gaps do not demonstrate God.
-
Here is the difference.
You first question is the point scientifically. Why should science recognize something you cannot even formulate something for?
Why do evolutionists recognize something they cannot even formulate something for?
Paraphrasing HillsboroRiver, a duck is a duck is a duck. That there are different varieties of ducks doesnt mean that the first duck came from dinosaurs.
Another thing I have wondered about is: If evolution produces positive changes in a species thru mutation, how is it that we still have clearly defined species of apes if they evolved into homo sapiens (or whatever) "millions" of years ago?
Another thing is reproduction. It takes 2 to tango, and they must have the same number of chromosomes. How did 2 compatable mutants "get together" to reproduce? It's a big planet.
The evolutionists (as I understand them. I am talking about the hardcore here, not those that believe God set up evolution.) have faith in evolution as our origin, and Christians have faith in God. Never the twain shall meet, because it is all, creationism and evolutionism, based on faith that, to the faithful creationist or evolutionist, seems reasonable.
That does not mean that Christians dont believe in science. The smart ones do. I just dont confuse science with evolution.
The second question is another problem. What does that lack of explanation ACTUALLY demonstrate?
IMO it demonstrates sciences' reluctance to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit into their belief systems. Scientists dont like anomalies, but just because they make scientists uncomfortable doesn't mean they dont deserve explanations or even acknowledgement.
That soft tissue was found in one sample doesnt mean it isn't common. What person would intentionally break a extremely rare bone just to see if anything was inside? But I am sure that there are tests that could be performed that are nondestructive. Have those tests been performed? I really doubt it.
Does it really demonstrate God? If it does, please explain.
In and of itself, not in my opinion.
To me it does demonstrate evolutionists ability to readily give explanations to things that fit into their worldviews, and ignore what doesn't fit, and this definitely does not fit.
I like these kinds of talks. It's rare that this can happen without getting into a "you're a stupid head" "no, you are" "No I'm not, you are!" argument and I appreciate it.
-
According to darwnism, Humans evolved FROM APES. WHY DO WE STILL HAVE APES ??
Why have humans stopped EVOLVING ??
FOOLISH MAN THINKING
Rodger
-
According to darwnism, Humans evolved FROM APES. WHY DO WE STILL HAVE APES ??
Why have humans stopped EVOLVING ??
FOOLISH MAN THINKING
Rodger
Rodger,
I expected you to be more sophisticated than that. First off, evolutionists say apes and humans evolved from the same ape like creature. Second, if higher forms of ape were to split from the main one, that doesn't mean that the first level of ape would have to go extinked. That would be like saying if multiple celled creatures evolved from single celled creatures, why would there still be single celled life? Why isn't all life only the most complex. I as well as evolutionists have a better imagination than that.
Besides, apes can still do some things much better than humans. They can climb and swing from trees, they can move much faster to avoid predators. Pound for pound, they are all much stronger than humans. So if anything, I can't see how humans ever survived in a pre-tech world. Our brains would be of little use when being beaten to a pulp by an angry chimpanzee. Apes rule!!
-
According to darwnism, Humans evolved FROM APES. WHY DO WE STILL HAVE APES ??
Why have humans stopped EVOLVING ??
FOOLISH MAN THINKING
Rodger
So if anything, I can't see how humans ever survived in a pre-tech world. Our brains would be of little use when being beaten to a pulp by an angry chimpanzee. Apes rule!!
Dear Friends,
Humans survived because God made animals to obey instinct and normally to be afraid of the scent of Humans.
Humans normally had the good sense to let the predators eat what tasted good to them. Ha ha.
Bob
-
Phazel,
Not sure if this is helpful, but please consider the idea of Cryptic Genes.
That is genetic structures in each animal or plant that do not surface until the need arises or until the environment changes in which case the existing animal adapts to its environment. An example may be the Polar Bear and it white fur. What is to say that God did not provide genetic structures in the Bear kind that would remain recessive until needed?
Why must we believe that all animals or plants have only one purpose or one way of living. Why cannot a fresh water fish adapt to sea water over time without becoming a different creation or benefiting from evolution in which the animal makes volitional choices? Consider Salmon and their habits. In the same way it seems that folks who promoted the New Eugenics in the end of the 19th century, promoted the idea that the various races had to be generated independently on different continents rather than the idea that all races came from two original members of the human species.
Check our Cryptic Genes. They have been investigated and the literature defends the idea. Adaptations were provided for at the creation by the creator.
Bob
-
I remembered that Ray had spoken a little about this at the Nashville conference last year, here is an excerpt from the transcript.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,4472.0.html ----
When I first started studying the Bible, 40 years ago, the one thing that struck me about evolution, was the eye. How do you evolve an eye? When did a creature that didn’t have an eye, decide he wanted one? And maybe one of his buddies said, you know if you’re going to go for the eye thing, go for 2. But you know they had no mouth either, so he really couldn’t talk and had no brain either. But he said, what do you mean 2? His buddy said, you know dept perception, if you’re going to have eyes, you’re going to need 2 to get this thing called dept perception, it’s really an elusion in the brain, it’s not real.
And that evolved from sea slime? No.
Listen, through mutations only one in a hundred generations, of most animals, produce any kind of mutation, ok. And mutations are usually bad, they are detrimental to the health of the creature. Let’s suppose that once in a while you have a mutation that is of some kind of benefit and in this case we’re going to work on an eye. How many mutations would you have to have, in a row, through evolution, beneficial to start constructing an eye? Well somewhere around a trillion. That is if you had a trillion consecutive mutations, that were all positive and beneficial, and they were all directed to constructing an eye. What are the chances of that? One in a trillion quardrillion trillion. You see what I mean. And that’s every hundredth generation or whatever. How many billion and trillion and quadrillions generations would it take? It would take millions of times longer than the universe was here.
Did the human eye evolve? No, it did not. Every time you look at an eye you know there is a God. Not only does the eye see, the eye doesn’t ‘see’, it’s the brain that sees. What? Yea, you need the eyes, but the brain sees through the eyes, the eye doesn’t see anything. The eye is dumb. Now you have this eye and you have to connect it to a brain that interprets what all this is. And that evolved out of chance? With no intelligence? All you have to know is you have 2 eyes and that is proof positive, there is a God! That is unequivocal proof, there’s a God. You can’t even begin to imagine your way around that in evolution, there’s no way.
Well evolutionist will say, if you got enough time. How many trillions of years do you want? Because even that isn’t enough time. So yes, there is a God. To make eyes, He must be pretty bright. If He gave us a brain and we can think subjectively He‘s pretty wise. I mean you keep adding these attributes of what God is and He just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
------------------------------------------
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
Phazel,
Not sure if this is helpful, but please consider the idea of Cryptic Genes.
Not sure what you think I need help with.
Check our Cryptic Genes. They have been investigated and the literature defends the idea. Adaptations were provided for at the creation by the creator.
I've never said I doubted creation. What I am pointing out is the difference between a possibility that is faith based and the scientific method. Please show scientifically that they were provided by the creator.
-
Since we are all debating evolution i thought i would throw my chime in.
One thing that has always come to my mind when it comes to evolution and the first cell that evolved is this;
Somewhere along the line the cell changed into an organism that required blood to survive. Everyone knows that without blood, the person, animal, what have you in question will die. We also know that without the body, blood itself cannot exist. [Without human intervension that is, no scientific test tubes and what not.]
The delima becomes that of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? Did evolution develope a body for which an animal could exist in first and than evolve blood, or did blood come first and than the body. How about both at the same time? The problem is so monumental that this alone puts a big dent in the theory of evolution.
One must also consider DNA. We all know that DNA contains the code for who we are physicaly and apperently who we are mentaly through new scientific research. So what came first, the organims or the DNA? We know that without the DNA the organism could not exist and without the organism the DNA would have no place to exist. So what do we do? Once again the chicken and the egg.
Another thing one must consider are the different blood types. Why did evolution create the variouse blood types in animals and humans? Blood type A, blood type B, furthermore how was this done? What natural influence of the enviroment and mutation caused such a variety in blood types we see today?
I have yet to find anyone nor any scientist to date, provide an answer for this other than "We don't know right now."
If someone can answer this than please do.. otherwise i rest my case for why it is a THEORY.
God bless,
Alex
-
Please show scientifically that they were provided by the creator.
It seems the eye is not proof enough
Jesus walked on water...The waters parted and Moses and Israelites passed right through...Lazarus, a dead man, walked out of a tomb...
How do I scientifically prove that? I honestly cant. And I'm glad I cant. Because then I could almost be like the One who does these things. But let me not have a one track mind about this. We do need proof of these things.
The sun. It is part of the creation (or evolution?). How could the sun possibly come to be? The moon? The stars? The galaxy?
I still cant prove these. But it directs me more and more to acknowledging a source greater than my mere understanding. And that is where GOD shows up.
All glory to Him
BTW, did you know that there was a time in the bible when the sun shone all day and didnt move? All day. I cant prove such things to you or anybody. Sorry for being of so little help.
-
Kweli, just so it is not misunderstood, I do not require scientific proof for the many things I contemplate and believe are possible. My main point is and has always been to show that most of the creation / naturalism debates rests in scientists protecting themselves from the ridiculous notions of fundamentalist Christians.
Last I check around this place we are not against Christians but we understand that babylon has most of what it believes wrong.
The eye all by itself is not scientific proof of a creator. I do not personally believe that we evolved from a one celled organism, the evidence that Abiogenesis is impossible is quite compelling. Someone who does not believe in a Creator might want to hold onto a belief that one day science will uncover more evidence that abiogenesis happened. And what if one day science says that is a fact as well? So what?
That being said the scientific method is a good thing even if it allows theories and hypothesis that one day are found to be incorrect. To bypass that method for our lives on earth is not smart.
Babylon has perverted the scientific method by saying that claims of faith are as good as science for saying something to our lives is real and useful. Shaping the data to fit into a 6 literal day belief is a big part of the problem.
Babylons fight against science is shrouded in the assertion that it is leading people into hell forever.
Think about it.
-
I have yet to find anyone nor any scientist to date, provide an answer for this other than "We don't know right now."
What does it mean to you if science does not have an adequate answer for you?
What has it meant in the past when science did not have an answer, but then discovered one?
-
The Scriptures tell of men living over 900 years old. Why do we only live around 100 or less these days? At this rate, the average human will die in the womb in no time at all! That's not quite evolution, is it? Unless you don't believe the scriptures; but I'll say this, If you can't believe just one point, you will be spinning your wheels to believe any of it.
Lazarus was raised from the dead. It can be scientifically proven that a living man IS in fact alive. It can be proven that a dead man IS in fact dead. It's not the Scriptures' fault that MODERN science wasn't around to see it happen. I could have a dream about anything AND YOU CAN'T PROVE OTHERWISE. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. The carnal man CAN NOT understand the things of the Spirit. The problem with most christianity and atheistic science is that they're both on the same playing field. NIETHER can understand things of the Spirit. How then will they ever be able to judge the little things? Now you could ask, "Why are you talking about things of the Spirit when we're discussing evolution and scientific evidence for scriptures and, and, and....?" Why indeed? The proof is there for those who care to see it, but you will never see it with your eyes. I speak as a fool.
-Beau
-
I have yet to find anyone nor any scientist to date, provide an answer for this other than "We don't know right now."
What does it mean to you if science does not have an adequate answer for you?
What has it meant in the past when science did not have an answer, but then discovered one?
What it means is that evolution cannot be taken as FACT or more than a THEORY. If they have huge holes in their theory that they are unable to solve than one should not and cannot teach it as fact.
Until i see an adequate resolution to these problems, i believe evolution should be taught as a theory, spoken of a as a theory, looked at as a theory and not emphaticaly shoved down our throats in the school systems as if it was the one and only truth.
God be with you,
Alex
-
What it means is that evolution cannot be taken as FACT or more than a THEORY. If they have huge holes in their theory that they are unable to solve than one should not and cannot teach it as fact.
Until i see an adequate resolution to these problems, i believe evolution should be taught as a theory, spoken of a as a theory, looked at as a theory and not emphaticaly shoved down our throats in the school systems as if it was the one and only truth.
God be with you,
Alex
I would be interested in seeing the information that shows school systems teaching evolution as fact in the light of undeniable truth. Anything my kids brought home from scholl said "theory". Is there scholl systems that have material that says "fact of evolution" or "truth of evolution"?
No offense to anyone, but most people misunderstand exactly what a "scientific fact" is.
Theories for a flat earth were accepted scientific fact at one time, follow me? What caused those theories to be rejected?
-
What it means is that evolution cannot be taken as FACT or more than a THEORY. If they have huge holes in their theory that they are unable to solve than one should not and cannot teach it as fact.
Until i see an adequate resolution to these problems, i believe evolution should be taught as a theory, spoken of a as a theory, looked at as a theory and not emphaticaly shoved down our throats in the school systems as if it was the one and only truth.
God be with you,
Alex
I would be interested in seeing the information that shows school systems teaching evolution as fact in the light of undeniable truth. Anything my kids brought home from scholl said "theory". Is there scholl systems that have material that says "fact of evolution" or "truth of evolution"?
No offense to anyone, but most people misunderstand exactly what a "scientific fact" is.
Theories for a flat earth were accepted scientific fact at one time, follow me? What caused those theories to be rejected?
That's the thing phazel. You have children and are a parent, i don't have children and am the student.
What grade are your children in?
I'm a college student currently studying to become a doctor in which my major requires i take a plethora of biology classes and chemistry courses. Sit in any college course of biology and you'll see what i mean.
Heck, sit in an english class and they throw the word around this "evolved," we "evolved," "your paper needs to evolve" etc... evolution has become the norm in just about any way of intellectual thinking in this society.
God be with you,
Alex
P.S. If you don't find it stated you will certainly find it implied that it is a scientific fact that we evolved.