Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE? - part 2
sail2awe's photo
Sat 08/15/09 04:18 AM
Edited by sail2awe on Sat 08/15/09 04:34 AM
proof of God means that God doesn't exist?

That's doublespeak if I ever heard any.

And then a personal attack to boot?

Ohhhh Arcamedees, that is just so terribly sad.



"Fraud and Falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it" - Thoomas Cooper (1759-1839)

no photo
Sat 08/15/09 11:13 AM

proof of God means that God doesn't exist?

That's doublespeak if I ever heard any.

And then a personal attack to boot?

Ohhhh Arcamedees, that is just so terribly sad.



"Fraud and Falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it" - Thoomas Cooper (1759-1839)


I'm guessing you're new to Earth. On THIS planet, there's this show called South Park. You should check it out, it's pretty funny. There's a catch phrase that one of the characters says every week, right after one of his buddies gets killed. "You bastard!"
What's terribly sad is either you have no sense of humor or you're so out there, so to speak, that all references to popular culture will go over your head.

no photo
Sat 08/15/09 11:21 AM
Oh, and I forgot to mention, Sail2awe, that if you are right w/ that drivel, that evolution is an imposibility, then we wouldn't have domesticated cows, cats, dogs...ect ect ect. which we know for an absolute fact came from wild (and therefore different) species.

Jon85213's photo
Sun 08/16/09 01:59 AM
Edited by Jon85213 on Sun 08/16/09 02:55 AM
just going to provide the link. came across this. its an argument mathematically why evolution is not possible. kind of interesting. not to familiar with algorithms anymore. only used simple algorithms before. and that was 20 years ago when programing in pascal. nothing as complex as this so any comments?
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/30/73738/6906

also in response to the definition of faith faith is belief in anything according to reference.com. so belief in something that is testable is faith. does that work for you? Only you can answer that. i have had to many weird things happen to me that science and logic can not explain.

Just a few other questions to Arcamedees. What made the friend an ex-friend. also want to suggest a thought. could it be possible that you have seen proof for God's existence but choose to dismiss it as coincidence or just your imagination? i know i did in the past.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

Jon85213's photo
Sun 08/16/09 02:03 AM


proof of God means that God doesn't exist?

That's doublespeak if I ever heard any.

And then a personal attack to boot?

Ohhhh Arcamedees, that is just so terribly sad.



"Fraud and Falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it" - Thoomas Cooper (1759-1839)


I'm guessing you're new to Earth. On THIS planet, there's this show called South Park. You should check it out, it's pretty funny. There's a catch phrase that one of the characters says every week, right after one of his buddies gets killed. "You bastard!"
What's terribly sad is either you have no sense of humor or you're so out there, so to speak, that all references to popular culture will go over your head.


humor and sarcasm rarely come through well on message boards. sad part of technology is the most important part of communication(non-verbal) is often lost.

sail2awe's photo
Sun 08/16/09 09:50 AM
Edited by sail2awe on Sun 08/16/09 10:08 AM
Arcamedees,

I have to guess here, so let me just ask then: Are you wanting me to apologize for not taking as much stock in cartoons as you do or what ?

Pahleeeeeze !

After having viewed only a few of your other posts, well, everyone here can easily see that you like to pick battles rather than other things. Your words against me and others most certainly say something more about you than they do anyone else.

Returning to the real and true subject of this thread, perhaps someone might wish to look into this side of nature, and, putting it forward now, that I don't really require extrabiblical applications because I believe that which IS written:

Let us look at random events


Since random events within nature are supposed to be responsible for the spontaneous beginning of life and of all living things, let’s evaluate “randomness.” The tool used to evaluate randomness is the mathematical concept of probability.

The basic principle of probability is simple: If you have a coin with two sides, heads and tails, and toss it into the air, each side has a 50 percent chance of being on the top when the coin lands. This is the probability of a random event limited by two possible outcomes.

Now, imagine a pair of four-sided dice. The probability of any certain side landing in the bottom position when one of the pair is tossed is one in four, or 25 percent. Add the second of the pair, and there are 16 possible combinations (four times four). Add a third and there are 64 possible combinations (four times four times four). The probability of getting any certain combination in one toss of three dice would be 64 to one. The more possible combinations, the less the probability of any one specific result.

Evolution is hypothesized to occur when there is an alteration to the genetic material of a plant or animal, and the change produces offspring with a better chance to survive. In animals, the changes take place in the genome, the genetic material of the sperm or egg cells of a parent, and are passed on to the next generation.

In the human genome, there are four possible combinations of amino acids called nucleotides, but, instead of three dice, there are 3.2 billion nucleotides. The possible combinations would be four times four times four—repeatedly multiplying by four a total of 3.2 billion times.

The Human Genome Project, a joint international effort to unravel the structure of genetic material of humans, has determined that a genetic mutation of one billionth of a genome is always fatal. That means for a human, a random change of three nucleotides is fatal, thereby ending any further possibility of evolution for that individual’s offspring.

Evolutionists claim that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives to man, with a difference of about 48 million nucleotides. This means at least 48 million random events must have occurred in exactly the right order for the evolutionary gap between man and his hypothesized common ancestor with chimpanzee to have been spanned. Three changes in the genome during one generation would be FATAL and stop the process. Therefore this number of changes would require a minimum of 24 million generations to achieve, assuming two changes happened during each generation.
These changes must happen in exactly the proper order, and each step must produce either no noticeable change or provide the offspring with some sort of advantage. Any negative change would stop or prolong the process. Each change must occur in a gene that is passed on to an offspring, and the offspring must survive and must undergo some further sort of change and have offspring and so on for each of the 48 million genetic changes.

Next, since there are 3.2 billion nucleotides in the human genome, the probability of one particular nucleotide being altered is 3.2 billion to one. To determine the mathematical probability of the genetic changes necessary for the hypothesized “evolution” between chimps and people, it is necessary to multiply 3.2 billion times 48 million.

The probability against the evolution from a common ancestor with chimps to modern man, using these figures, is 153 quadrillion (153 followed by 15 zeros) to one.

The scope of 153 quadrillion is incomprehensible. To illustrate the size of this number: If one number is counted every second (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), it would take over 200 million years longer than the estimated age of the Earth to reach 153 quadrillion.
Though this number seems mind-boggling, it is only the tip of the iceberg. This example assumes all changes to genetic material would be positive when, in reality, fewer than 1 percent of genetic changes are beneficial. This example assumes each offspring would be successful in producing more offspring and that each generation would have two genetic “improvements.” It does not include any of the factors like mortality of offspring, unsuccessful reproductive attempts, the order of changes and many more variables, each of which would increase the odds against evolution by millions of times.

If a change anywhere in the chain of events proves to be detrimental, the entire process comes to a halt. For example, if a saber-tooth tiger eats one of the young prehistoric genetically altered monkey-men before it becomes a parent, the process is interrupted—the entire chain of events leading to that child comes to an end.

This represents only the changes that must occur starting with the supposed common ancestor of men and chimps and ending with the first modern man. What about the number of changes necessary to get from the first single cell, which is hypothesized to have taken life in the primordial ooze, until it evolved into this hypothetical chimp-like pre-man?

Here’s a better question: How many multiple millions of times greater would be the probability AGAINST such “evolution”?

Bless.

no photo
Sun 08/16/09 03:16 PM

just going to provide the link. came across this. its an argument mathematically why evolution is not possible. kind of interesting. not to familiar with algorithms anymore. only used simple algorithms before. and that was 20 years ago when programing in pascal. nothing as complex as this so any comments?
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/30/73738/6906

also in response to the definition of faith faith is belief in anything according to reference.com. so belief in something that is testable is faith. does that work for you? Only you can answer that. i have had to many weird things happen to me that science and logic can not explain.

Just a few other questions to Arcamedees. What made the friend an ex-friend. also want to suggest a thought. could it be possible that you have seen proof for God's existence but choose to dismiss it as coincidence or just your imagination? i know i did in the past.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith


I've seen such proofs before. They've all been flawed in their assumptions. Funny thing about higher level math, w/ enough a "assumptions", one can make virturally anything equal anything. I've seen the proofs of 2+2=1, 2+2=3 ect. But to be fair, I will take a closer look later. However, I stand by my original assertions that if it were true, we wouldn't see any changes in any species, which we most certainly do.

Just because you can't explain something doesn't necessarily mean it's of the devine. It just means you can't explain it.

The friend became an ex-friend because of conversations like this.
Which is why I don't engage in these types of conversations in person.

Of course it's possible. Although, I think it unlikely. Unlike most people, my ego isn't threatened by being wrong. And I would tend to think that if a god wanted me to know him, he would've given me something I couldn't dismiss.

Jon85213's photo
Sun 08/16/09 03:59 PM
Edited by Jon85213 on Sun 08/16/09 04:12 PM


just going to provide the link. came across this. its an argument mathematically why evolution is not possible. kind of interesting. not to familiar with algorithms anymore. only used simple algorithms before. and that was 20 years ago when programing in pascal. nothing as complex as this so any comments?
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/30/73738/6906

also in response to the definition of faith faith is belief in anything according to reference.com. so belief in something that is testable is faith. does that work for you? Only you can answer that. i have had to many weird things happen to me that science and logic can not explain.

Just a few other questions to Arcamedees. What made the friend an ex-friend. also want to suggest a thought. could it be possible that you have seen proof for God's existence but choose to dismiss it as coincidence or just your imagination? i know i did in the past.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith


I've seen such proofs before. They've all been flawed in their assumptions. Funny thing about higher level math, w/ enough a "assumptions", one can make virturally anything equal anything. I've seen the proofs of 2+2=1, 2+2=3 ect. But to be fair, I will take a closer look later. However, I stand by my original assertions that if it were true, we wouldn't see any changes in any species, which we most certainly do.

Just because you can't explain something doesn't necessarily mean it's of the devine. It just means you can't explain it.

The friend became an ex-friend because of conversations like this.
Which is why I don't engage in these types of conversations in person.

Of course it's possible. Although, I think it unlikely. Unlike most people, my ego isn't threatened by being wrong. And I would tend to think that if a god wanted me to know him, he would've given me something I couldn't dismiss.


one other question if you do not believe in religion why hang out in a religion chat board?

as far as things that cant be explained for one others actions. i have seen a judge argue an entire case for a man in family court when he is pro women having all the control. i have seen peoples hearts stop multiple times in one day(8 times 3-4 minutes each time) and they come out of it with nothing wrong. normally more than 4 is terminal. previous record in the area was 5. i have experienced knives(not dull, razor sharp) that do not cut. guns that do not fire(never had a misfire). ive seen people stop drug use with no withdrawal effects at all. i could go on with so many other things that i have seen but that will take time. those are a few of the things i have experienced.

ClayFace2009's photo
Sun 08/16/09 05:34 PM

IS IT possible that God used evolution to make men from beasts? Did God direct bacteria to develop into fish and then to continue developing through reptiles and mammals, so that finally a race of apes became humans? Some scientists and religious leaders claim to believe both the theory of evolution and the Bible. They say that the Bible book of Genesis is a parable. Perhaps you have wondered, ‘Is the theory that man evolved from animals compatible with the Bible?’

The apostle Paul told educated Greeks: “God . . . made out of one man every nation of men”

Understanding our origin is vital to understanding who we are, where we are going, and how we should live. Only with knowledge of man’s origin can we understand God’s permission of suffering and his purpose for man’s future. We cannot enjoy a fine standing with God if we are not sure that he is our Creator. So let us examine what the Bible says about man’s origin, his present condition, and his future. Then we will see if the theory of evolution is compatible with the Bible.

When There Was One Man

Evolutionists generally claim that a population of animals gradually developed into a population of humans, denying that there was once only one man. However, the Bible presents a very different picture. It says that we originate from one man, Adam. The Bible account presents Adam as a historical person. It gives us the names of his wife and some of his children. It tells us in detail what he did, what he said, when he lived, and when he died. Jesus did not consider that account as just a story for uneducated people. When addressing well-educated religious leaders, he said: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:3-5) Jesus then quoted the words about Adam and Eve recorded at Genesis 2:24.

A woman reading the Bible

Luke, a Bible writer and a careful historian, presented Adam as a person who was as real as Jesus. Luke traced Jesus’ genealogy back to the first man. (Luke 3:23-38) Also, when the apostle Paul spoke before an audience that included philosophers who were educated in the famous Greek schools, he told them: “The God that made the world and all the things in it . . . made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.” (Acts 17:24-26) Clearly, the Bible teaches that we descended from “one man.” Is what the Bible says about man’s original condition compatible with evolution?

Man’s Slide From Perfection

According to the Bible, God made the first man perfect. It is impossible for God to make things any other way. The creation account says: “God proceeded to create the man in his image . . . After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Genesis 1:27, 31) What is a perfect man like?

Evolution presents modern man as an improving animal. The Bible presents modern man as the degenerating descendant of a perfect man

A perfect man has free will and is able to imitate God’s qualities completely. The Bible says: “The true God made mankind upright, but they themselves have sought out many plans.” (Ecclesiastes 7:29) Adam chose to rebel against God. By his rebellion, Adam lost perfection for himself and his offspring. Man’s fall from perfection explains why we often disappoint ourselves, even though we want to do what is good. The apostle Paul wrote: “What I wish, this I do not practice; but what I hate is what I do.”—Romans 7:15.

A perfect man would live forever in perfect health, according to the Bible. It is evident from what God said to Adam that if the first man had not disobeyed God, he would never have died. (Genesis 2:16, 17; 3:22, 23) God would not have declared the creation of man to be “very good” if the man had a tendency to get sick or to rebel. The fall from perfection explains why the human body, though marvelously designed, is susceptible to deformities and disease. Evolution is therefore incompatible with the Bible. Evolution presents modern man as an improving animal. The Bible presents modern man as the degenerating descendant of a perfect man.

The idea that God directed evolution in order to produce man is also incompatible with what the Bible says about God’s personality. If God guided the process of evolution, it would mean that he guided mankind into its present diseased and distressed state. However, the Bible says of God: “The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he. They have acted ruinously on their own part; they are not his children, the defect is their own.” (Deuteronomy 32:4, 5) Therefore, mankind’s present suffering is not the result of God-directed evolution. It is the result of one man’s losing perfection for himself and his offspring by rebelling against God. Now that we have considered Adam, we can turn to Jesus. Is evolution compatible with what the Bible says about Jesus?

Can You Believe in Both Evolution and Christianity?

“Christ died for our sins.” As you probably know, that is one of the basic teachings of Christianity. (1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 3:18) To see why evolution is incompatible with that statement, we first need to understand why the Bible calls us sinners and what sin does to us.

We are all sinners in the sense that we cannot perfectly imitate God’s glorious qualities, such as his love and justice. Therefore, the Bible says: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) The Bible teaches that sin is the cause of death. “The sting producing death is sin,” says 1 Corinthians 15:56. Our inheritance of sin is also the underlying cause of sickness. Jesus indicated that there is a link between sickness and our sinful condition. He said to a paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven,” and the man was healed.—Matthew 9:2-7.

How does Jesus’ death help us? The Bible contrasts Adam with Jesus Christ and says: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22) By laying down his life, Jesus paid the price for the sin that we inherited from Adam. Thus, all who exercise faith in Jesus and obey him will receive what Adam forfeited—the prospect of everlasting life.—John 3:16; Romans 6:23.

Do you see, then, that evolution is incompatible with Christianity? If we doubt that “in Adam all are dying,” how can we hope that “in the Christ all will be made alive”?

Why Evolution Attracts People

The Bible reveals how such teachings as evolution become popular. It says: “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4) Although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent tendencies. Many who believe in evolution say that they also believe in God. However, they feel free to think of God as one who has not created things, does not intervene in man’s affairs, and will not judge people. It is a creed that tickles people’s ears.

Teachers of evolution are often motivated, not by the facts, but by “their own desires”—perhaps a desire to be accepted by a scientific community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine. Professor of biochemistry Michael Behe, who has spent most of his life studying the complex internal functions of living cells, explained that those who teach the evolution of cell structure have no basis for their claims. Could evolution occur at this tiny, molecular level? “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority,” he wrote. “There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. . . . The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”

1. Flowers; 2. A gazelle

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority”

If evolutionists lack explanations, why do they preach their ideas so loudly? Behe explains: “Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature.”

The doctrine of evolution attracts many clergymen who want to appear wise. They are similar to those described in the apostle Paul’s letter to Christians in Rome. Paul wrote: “What may be known about God is manifest among them . . . His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish.” (Romans 1:19-22) How can you avoid being deceived by false teachers?

Evidence-Based Faith in the Creator

The Bible stresses the importance of evidence when it defines faith. It says: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Hebrews 11:1) True faith in God should be based on evidence that demonstrates the reality of the Creator. The Bible shows where you can find the evidence.

“I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.” (Psalm 139:14) Taking time to reflect on the amazing design of our own body and of other living things fills us with awe at the wisdom of our Maker. Every part of the thousands of systems that cooperate to keep us alive is ideally designed. Also, the physical universe displays evidence of mathematical precision and order.
"The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the
work of his hands the expanse is telling.”—Psalm 19:1.

The amazing design of living things fills us with awe at the wisdom of our Maker

The Bible itself is a rich source of evidence about the Creator. Taking the time to examine the consistency of its 66 books, the superiority of its moral standards, and the unfailing fulfillment of its prophecies will provide you with abundant evidence that its author is the Creator. Understanding the Bible’s teachings will also give you confidence that the Bible is, indeed, the Word of the Creator. For example, when you understand such Bible teachings as the cause of suffering, the Kingdom of God, the future of mankind, and the way to find happiness, you will see an evident demonstration of God’s wisdom. You may come to feel as Paul did when he wrote: “O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments are and past tracing out his ways are!”—Romans 11:33.

A bird

As you examine the evidence and your faith grows, you will become convinced that when you read the Bible, you are listening to the Creator himself. He says: “I myself have made the earth and have created even man upon it. I—my own hands have stretched out the heavens, and all the army of them I have commanded.” (Isaiah 45:12) Surely you will never regret making the effort to prove to yourself that Gpd is the Creator of all things.


I seriously doubt that God made men from other creatures, since for one thing beasts are not made in God's image and likeness. Another thing is that God told man to have dominion over all other creatures. Therefore, that would defeat the argument of me ever coming from some monkey.

Eljay's photo
Sun 08/16/09 08:28 PM
Edited by Eljay on Sun 08/16/09 08:29 PM
I edited this for brevity




What is "real" here is that a mutation has been observed where information has been lost. How exactly is that "evidence"? This is an example of de-evolving. How is a fly losing it's wings an example of something improving on the organism - or natural selection?


Well....if the fly no longer needs wings, not having to expend the energy to make them would be an improvement, wouldn't it. An example of evolution. De-evolving would be going back to a simpler previous form, which they were not. In fact, nothing evolves backwards towards a previous form.


How could a fly without wings be an improvement? This is an example of the fly de-evolving. Else why did it develop wings in the first place. (an evolution-theory idea) Now - if, let's say - a dog developed wings, well, I'd call that "Evolving". Otherwise - to attempt to claim a fly losing it's wings as an example of it "evolving" is a purely subjective idea. And not one that's very convincing. Were it worth taking the time to even look at - I would wager a guess that information is lost in a fly's dna that no longer develop's wings. What would you say?




Evolution is also why we need a new flu shot each year. The virus keeps evolving.


Actually - they are de-evolving. No information is being gained in any of the virus' that have been studied, or documented. This being the best argument against evolution - you're not going to find this alarmingly consistant fact documented much in scientific journals, and surely the media won't touch the subject. You won't find this fact documented in any text-book on evolution as well. I find that a bid odd. I wonder why that is? I also wonder why you don't wonder this.



Perhaps because it's patently untrue. Information is gained and changed constantly in viruses. Else, we'd never need to develope new vaccines. Where in the world did you get these odd notions?



Please provide some documentation that supports this - because as far as I know, there's been no Nobel Prize awarded to the scientist who has discovered information being gained within a species from one generation into the next - or any firther generational mutations.
Perhaps because it just hasn't happened yet. And don't think that every biologist on the planet isn't waiting for this to occur in one of their experiments. There's billions of dollars being pumped into this discovery - with no results, so don't just casually claim thee has. Provide the evidence to support your claim.



Richard Dawkins is a devout Atheist with a predetermined world view which shapes all of his opinions. His premises are subjective and without empirical support. I've yet to see any debate with him where he's demonstrated any of his claims with supportable fact - just his opinion, which he is in such high reguard of that he considers his opinion evidence enough to represent fact. "Good" in reference to the writings of Dawkins is debatable in and of itself.


Actually, Richard Dawkins, having been devoutly religious (and gotten better) is quite qualified to debate the merits of science versus superstition. I've seen some of his debates and I've not noted any descrepencies(sp?...it's late) in either his logic or his use of science. Perhaps, and I'm just thinking out loud here, it is your own understanding of scientific principles that is lacking.


You know nothing of my understanding of scientific princiles - notr of my understanding of logic - of which I have a degree in. Dawkin's premises are built around his Atheistic world view and though they may seem logical - they only are if you support his premise of Universalism - which even his own scientific field refutes. I don't find his arguments for not beliving in God due to the inability to support it with proof or evidence - belief in God is faith based. But if you examine his arguments - you'll find that the same is true for his claims about evolution. The very reasons he argue's against the existence of God hold true for the idea of evolution as an explination for the origins of life on the planet.

tribefan73's photo
Sun 08/16/09 08:31 PM


You are talking about micro-evolution & I don't disagree with you about the adaptation effect. What you didn't address is macro-evolution. Even though the flies no longer produced wings, because they didn't need them, they were still FLIES. Not something else farther up the food chain.

Deal with the question at hand, not dodging it like like a J-W at your door who can't explain their position about who Jesus really is.


Did you read the link I posted? It's all there. How about the book I recomended? It's there too in much more detail.

If evolution wasn't true we wouldn't have mordern biology.

Let's look at this from a slightly differant angle.

Artificial selection.

Animal breeders select animals to breed because they want a spacific trait. They have bred cows that are stupid, and produce lots of milk for example. They have bred dogs that can run much faster than any wolf (where all dogs came from). If humans can seletively breed animals to serve a purpose why can't nature select animals that are better at surviving? The answer is that it does! All the time!

Just read one good book on evolution and you will understand so much. Enolution is so simple and beautiful and wonderful. It is the best idea in the history of Man.


You're totally missing the point. Do you not know the difference between micro & macro evolution? And using the example of breeders interfering with the breeding process & making animals into whatever they want, is totally useless. Classic evol theology (macro evolution) is based on the fact all this that we see in nature just happened without any outside influence. Most modern scientist of late have embraced the notion that there had to be some "outside" force, that got the ball rolling. But what "outside" force?

I have read evol material & believe you me, it takes more "faith" to hang your hat on evolution than creation, any day.

Also, you never addressed the woodpecker scenario I suggested. As far as I know none you have because you don't know how to get there from here, so to speak.

I suspect that if Darwin had had access to the modern research devices that are in use today, 1 look at the micro-machines contained in 1 cell of human tissue would have changed his mind dramatically. You can't explain the complexity of biological life-forms here on earth by something so mundane as evolution.

Eljay's photo
Sun 08/16/09 08:34 PM
Edited by Eljay on Sun 08/16/09 08:36 PM





And this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of. Please name just ONE thing for me that is not a subjective conclusion completely devoid of empirical evidence.


This has been done MANY times, in COUNTLESS threads, each time it is presented to you, you come up with a new reason why you can't look at it.

So please, tell us how this time will be any different..


Inkracer - name one example of any organism that has evolved from another where information in DNA has been "GAINED".

umm..all of them...


Since there hasn't been anything documented in all of the scientific journals since the discovery of DNA where this is empirically verifyable - I'm waiting with eager anticipation of the mere mention of just ONE example from you - rather than your claiming it has been stated over and over in past threads. It has NEVER BEEN STATED! Not by you - not by anyone on this site - not in a single one of your U-Tube references.

Come on Ink - just name me one empirical example so I can submit your name for the Nobel prize. Just one - since there are so "many".



dood, drink a little too much coffee before this post?

Ink, doesn't have to name one example. He's probably pondering, as I am, how you could not know that all of them, that is, all life on the planet, is the result of information being gained and being changed in DNA. This is a bit like asking to name just one example of an air-breathing bi-pedal mammal on Earth.


Well - since evolution claims that man is a distant decendent of the amoebia, it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to see that there's a "claim" of information being added into DNA to justify evolutionary theory. Again - where is the example of information being added to DNA to support the idea that one species has "evolved" into another. Or for that matter - just within a species.

And not only does Ink not have to name an example - he will be UNABLE to, just as you have. I see you're quick to make the claim, but not so quick to site an example. Oh, I know why - because YOU CAN'T! If you could, there'd be a Nobel Prize with your name on it.

tribefan73's photo
Sun 08/16/09 09:01 PM


Evol & creation are totally incompatible. Darwin said so himself. He fully expected to be ex-communicated from his church body for what he proposed.

One simple question for all of the evol theist out there. If a woodpecker was not specifically created to do what they do, but rather evolved of some simpler form. Postulate just how many thousands of these "simpler" forms killed themselves trying to perfect the exact technique that woodpeckers use today to gain access to the inside of a tree. And why would they even want to attempt something so brutal? Look up the make-up of an average woodpecker & be amazed at the sheer genius of design. The shock absorbing skull, perfectly shaped beak, the vertebrae with the proper angle & on & on it goes.

Another problem area that the ET's tend to shy away from is the scientific fact that any current life form that mutates, it loses rather than gains genetic code. A mutation is just that. Something less than the original.

Micro-evol = yes. Macro-evol = no.

Just what fossil records support evol? Unless they've been "doctored", the answer would be none.

And as far as entropy goes, it doesn't address the fact that our galaxy is still expanding not contracting. The ET's can't figure that 1 out either.

Lastly the "age" issue. Ever wonder why the lunar lander, used in the Apollo moon missions, had such large saucer shaped landing pads? Well, based on erroneous data postulated about how old the solar system is, the NASA scientists expected the dust on the surface of the moon to be several feet thick. And the large pads were designed to prevent the lunar lander from settling in too deep. Weren't they surprised when in fact they found that the thickness of the dust was only a couple of inches. And don't go there with the whole "it was faked" non-sense. Myth busters recently ran a series & busted everyone of the supposed moon landing faking accusations. Check it out for yourself on discovery.com.

peace-out


So....exactly how many micro-evolutions would you say it takes before a new species would be recognized? I'd say "enough". That's where your idea falls apart. If you recognize that micro-evolution works, then you must recognize that w/ enough micro-evolutions, you have a macro-evolution.


Your argument that enough "micros" will eventually equal 1 "macro", doesn't wash. I wasn't even suggesting that. Of course with the billions of years position, given enough time almost anything can happen, right?

He referenced 1 example of the adaption of the flies. The point being that no matter how many times they may adapt they would still be flies. Fish that dwell in caves from done similar with the lack of eyes. So what? Animals have been designed with an ability to adapt. We don't do the same because we were designed with reasoning abilities to make homes & clothes in order to adapt.

Arguing common DNA structure doesn't point to common ancestry, it points to a common designer.

Anytime someone refers to the scientific evidence of evolution, I have to ask, what science fiction have you been reading? In order to support what is known as "classic evolution", you would need a fossilized record of a transitional creature. Such record has NEVER been discovered. So what evidence are we referring to? Most modern day scientists distance themselves from evolution because they have realized that the premise is too restrictive & doesn't account for all of the variables found in nature.

I still as of yet have found any evol supporter coming close to disputing any of the points I have made. Can't find that info in wiki can you?

If we all were really honest, the bottom line in all of this whether you believe or not in an eternal God. Many who support evol have stated in their posts that they can't support creation because of the God in the OT, killing people this or punishing people that. I'm not trying to trivialize they or the Bible. Just bringing to the surface the real issue at hand. And keep this in mind. Many who have made it their mission to disprove the Bible end-up becoming believers themselves.

wux's photo
Sun 08/16/09 09:36 PM
Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE?

I think you got this backwards. The Bible is compatible with Evolution. Sorta. A lot of squinting when viewing facts, a lot of wincing during the same, and a lot of convincing is still needed.

Redykeulous's photo
Mon 08/17/09 08:46 AM
Perhpas most people look at too broad a picture. We know that stem cells are undifferentiated, they have not been coded for any specific purpose. This is why stem cell research is so important. The hope is that we learn to manipulate the undifferentiated cell so that when it divides it does so with a purpose such as to become a liver, a pancreas and such.

With that in mind consider a brand new planet and the only life are these undifferentiated cells. Factors, I am not educated enough to know, influenced the dna sequence and caused these cells to take shape in different ways. Evolution is the process we give to this change. Nature caused the cells to make various choices, a selection process or attempt to assure survival. Eventually the cells divided but did not separate as one cell became coded for a specific purpose. Not so soon, life forms began to take shape and various species developed.

There have been several humanid species, we are the only surviving one.

NOW we can discuss evolution within a species, that mass of cells that have been coded to produce whatever it is we are examining.

Animals change both phsiologically and biologically and on occasion a biological change makes the species different enough from its former parents to render it a new species even though we might never know that unless we witnessed and examined the new species.

The more complex the animal, the less likely random effects will render a new species. This is why, in humans we find little change, while in flys and frogs and smaller animals we witness such changes.

So in effect the human form has always been human and our closest relatives may have been other extinct humanids. But todays comparisons simply find other close relatives.

This does not mean we were EVER or will EVER be a monkey. If we should ever evolve to the point of being unable to mate with other humans, we would still appear to be humanids.

If you take evelotion to its beginnings, you will more likely understand that what first evolved to be a species were cells, not
animals.

This is how the Bible and evolution might be compatible - if one were to believe that God was the manipulating force behind shaping the destiny of all those stem cells.

sail2awe's photo
Mon 08/17/09 09:36 AM
Edited by sail2awe on Mon 08/17/09 09:55 AM
Maybe, but not really. I mean, it could be that way if (please excuse my matter of fact way of writing) If, we simply disregard language and change the meaning of words to mean what we want them to mean. However, on the other hand, if words mean anything at all then we must acknowledge that they mean what they mean, and, Biblically, it is a 24 hour period in the Hebrew, page one of the opening page, with the figure of speech being employed called, Polysyndeton - which means one thing right after another in succession (indicated by many 'and' s at the beginning of a clause), and here in the opening chapter we find in the 34 verses of this Introduction, each one of 102 separate acts are emphasized, and the important Word of God in vs.1 is carried like a lamp through the whole of this Introduction;



Po'ly-syn'de-ton; or, Many Ands
(Genesis 22:9,11. Joshua 7:24. Luke 14:21). The repetition of the word "and" at the beginning of successive clauses, each independent, important, and emphatic, with no climax at the end (Compare Aysndeton and Luke 14:13).


Each time we find the words in the Bible, where, the people went out and reasoned amongst themselves, a judgment was handed down. Never a good one either.

In the above provided mathematical examples, we have seen that even if an entire generation of perfect altered accelerated genes were attained, at the rate of one generation every second, the science you are depending upon has revealed that the universe simply is not that old yet.

And we don't have one generation every second. It's simply beyond the realm of possibilities as far as I can comprehend. I think we read that man has always wanted to fly, but I have not heard of anyone growing wings. Darwin wrote that it would be impossible to have an eye evolve under his theory unless there was scientific proof. He spoke the truth when he wrote that.

Bless.

AdventureBegins's photo
Mon 08/17/09 04:03 PM
What does it matter.

Life goes on reguardless of how you believe...

When one is forging metal from its base form into a tool...

One does not work with the atoms that make the metal...

One simply works the metal itself.

The atoms fall into line.


tribefan73's photo
Mon 08/17/09 08:02 PM

What does it matter.

Life goes on reguardless of how you believe...

When one is forging metal from its base form into a tool...

One does not work with the atoms that make the metal...

One simply works the metal itself.

The atoms fall into line.




All of this discussion matters, because the "belief" in evolution has been the cause of many heinous acts against humanity & the devaluation of humanity as a whole. Evolution was used as an excuse to justify slavery. Both Hitler & Stalin where evolutionists & the world witnessed the horrors they visited upon entire ethnic cultures as they strove to eradicate the "less than human" creatures.

We see it's prevalence today, when it's so easy to just abort reproductive tissue rather than a human being. Yet, the people that would defend the right to have an abortion, are the same people that turn around & tell you it's wrong to kill animals & eat them. Has any rational thinking person paused to consider what's wrong with this picture. Save Bambi but slay the unborn?

When the populace as a whole thinks or feels that since I descended from apes how special am I? The importance of ones' & others lives becomes trivialized. Where's the value? Where's the meaning? If we're not created in God's image, with a specific purpose, what's the point?

As sail2awe was sharing earlier, understanding the process of the beginning of our galaxy, world & life itself is paramount. Knowing & understanding where we came from, what our genetic make-up is, is important. If we err here then everything forward becomes a distortion & it serves to further remove us from the One that we owe our entire existence to. We need the anchor of creation in order to help us make sense of everything else.

TexasScoundrel's photo
Mon 08/17/09 10:43 PM

All of this discussion matters, because the "belief" in evolution has been the cause of many heinous acts against humanity & the devaluation of humanity as a whole. Evolution was used as an excuse to justify slavery. Both Hitler & Stalin where evolutionists & the world witnessed the horrors they visited upon entire ethnic cultures as they strove to eradicate the "less than human" creatures.


This is a bad argument. What about all the deaths that have been brought about simply because some people didn't beleive the same way someone else did? The crusades are just one example. Another is the inquisition. The followers of God don't like free thinkers.


We see it's prevalence today, when it's so easy to just abort reproductive tissue rather than a human being. Yet, the people that would defend the right to have an abortion, are the same people that turn around & tell you it's wrong to kill animals & eat them. Has any rational thinking person paused to consider what's wrong with this picture. Save Bambi but slay the unborn?


Abortion is about a woman having control over her own body. Moreover, the crime rate in the USA has dropped by half sense abortion was made legal (read freakonomics). I don't see a need for any unwanted babies.


When the populace as a whole thinks or feels that since I descended from apes how special am I? The importance of ones' & others lives becomes trivialized. Where's the value? Where's the meaning? If we're not created in God's image, with a specific purpose, what's the point?


First of all, evolution doesn't say we are desended from apes. It says that we and apes have a common ancestor.

Why does there have to be a value or meaning? Isn't it enough that we are alive? Purpose? Well, I am looking forward to a date I have coming up this week.


As sail2awe was sharing earlier, understanding the process of the beginning of our galaxy, world & life itself is paramount. Knowing & understanding where we came from, what our genetic make-up is, is important. If we err here then everything forward becomes a distortion & it serves to further remove us from the One that we owe our entire existence to. We need the anchor of creation in order to help us make sense of everything else.


But creation, as you term it, only serves to confuse. To answer a question by saying "God did it" is simply a cop out. It's sherking the responsibility to discover the truth.

If there is a god then science should be able to find it. For example, if prayer is real then it is a transfer of energy. We should be able to measure it.

ClayFace2009's photo
Mon 08/17/09 11:22 PM
"This is a bad argument. What about all the deaths that have been brought about simply because some people didn't beleive the same way someone else did? The crusades are just one example. Another is the inquisition. The followers of God don't like free thinkers."

--the above quoted from Texas Scoundrel--

Mr. Scoundrel, I'm a follower of God, and I still have my own thoughts, opinions and preferences. Does this make me not a follower of God? I have a brain that God created me with, but I'm still being transformed and conformed to the image and mind of Christ. Does this make me have the right to judge others who don't think or believe like I do? No. But as everyone else, I'm a work in progress.