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.

TexasScoundrel wrote:

This discussion isn't about you. The question is can evolution and the bible coexist? It is my opinion that they cannot. Let's stick to the point shall we?

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.

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.

I edited this for brevity



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?



I would say that in the example of flies in space, wings would be more of a handicap than a help....so flies w/o wings would be an improvement. It developed wings in the first place as a means of transportation in a gravity field. No gravity field, no wings.







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.


Documentation? Go read a book. They don't normally award Nobels for discovering something that is already well known.






You know nothing of my understanding of scientific princiles - notr of my understanding of logic - of which I have a degree in.

You should try to get your money back...lol...just kidding..

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.

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.

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.

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.

This discussion isn't about you. The question is can evolution and the bible coexist? It is my opinion that they cannot. Let's stick to the point shall we?

proof of God means that God doesn't exist?

That's doublespeak if I ever heard any.

What does it matter.
Life goes on reguardless of how you believe...

This discussion isn't about you. The question is can evolution and the bible coexist? It is my opinion that they cannot. Let's stick to the point shall we?

I'm in total agreement with you on this. I used to be a Christian so I have direct experience with this.

When I was young I was both a devout Christian as well as a highschool student who was extremely interested in the sciences. After all, there's nothing wrong with a Christian studying science. It's a perfectly acceptable career to become a scientist.

So anyway, I was taught about evolution in highschool. At first thought this didn't seem to confict with the Bible. So for the longest time I held the belief that both the Bible and evolution were true. I just accepted that God created man via evolution.

It was easy, all I had to do was accept that many of the things in the Bible could simply be taken as metaphores. In other words, the 6 'days' of creation could have been 6 eons in God's time. I didn't need to take the 6-day creation literally. The idea that God created Adam from dirt didn't bother me either. Even if we evolved we're still basically created from dirt. So even that fit in with evolution.

However, some years later. In fact, it was actually quite many years later, even after I had already dismissed the Bible for other reasons. I realized that evolution could not possibly be compatible with the Bible.

Why?

Because of the very fundamental story of the Bible. The basic story of the Bible claims that the world was perfect until man fell from grace. It was Adam and Eve's fall from grace that supposedly brought sin, evil, and even death into the world.

Well, clearly that's not compatible with billions of years of animals being born, eating each other, getting diseases and dying long before man came onto the scene to fall from grace and bring all those thing into the world.

So I finally realized many years later that my belief that the Biblical tale could be compatible with evolution was completely misplaced. There is no way that evolution could be compatible with the Biblical tale.

Of course, I had already discovered that the Bible was false for many other reasons by the time I realized that it couldn't possibly be in harmony with evolution. But now I realize that even evolution would have been reason enough right there to realize that the Bible had to be false.

I would say that in the example of flies in space, wings would be more of a handicap than a help....so flies w/o wings would be an improvement. It developed wings in the first place as a means of transportation in a gravity field. No gravity field, no wings.

Documentation? Go read a book. They don't normally award Nobels for discovering something that is already well known.

You should try to get your money back...lol...just kidding..

I stand with Abra on this one - about the incompatabiity of the bible and evolution that is.

And if I'm allowed to pile on, the account of creation in Genesis is in total contradiction to what evolutin claims. Mere examiniation of the order of what was created when in the scriptures is incompatable with the cronological events following the big bang in evolution. So - I stand with Abra on this one! (a rarety indeed)

This discussion isn't about you. The question is can evolution and the bible coexist? It is my opinion that they cannot. Let's stick to the point shall we?

Yeah, way to avoid answering my questions there, bub.

This discussion isn't about you. The question is can evolution and the bible coexist? It is my opinion that they cannot. Let's stick to the point shall we?

Do you find Gensis chapter 1 incompatible with Gensis chapter 2? I surely do!

Hallelujah! Finally I am learning what this topic is discussing.

The answer is easy, YES. The Bible certainly exists; and evolution is certainly here. The entire DNA-related research supports Darwin's evolutionary theory; a whopping thirty-two percent of all biochemical research in the USA is doing DNA probing. Some say almost all future drugs will be directly related to findings in DNA research which means that evolution, though not proven (to whom? To three-year-old deaf-and-mute-and-blind autistic retards?), is certainly changing the way of life of every American family (more correctly, of those American families that produce offspring.)

Drug research, by the way, is only one of the many endeavours in which we use Darwin's theory. We use it in forensic science, in police work, in the courts; we use it in biology, in anthropology, in historical research, in dentistry, in warfare, in agriculture, in zoology, in mathematics, in chemistry, in literature, in forums on the Internet, in recreation (such as when playing Trivial Pursuit), in sports (whow), in motorcycle maintenance. Okay, I grant it, we don't use it in motorcycle maintenance. It's so only because that uses Zen, and no self-respecting upright and honourable religion will use Darwin's Evolutionary Theory for anything but to wipe its feet on.

The existence of evolution as theorized by Darwin and proved in so many different ways, the most convincing to date being DNA research, is not in any way a contradiction to the Bible's existence. Yes, the Bible exists!! In many copies. Some say it't the absolute best-seller of all books of all times. If someone denied the existence of the Bible, that person would be no better than a three-year-old deaf-and-mute-and-blind autistic retard.