Argument against Evolution I hadn't read before...

[Said1]

I refuse to acknowledge macro evolution for two reason:

#1 By perponderance of the evidence, we were created by devine design.

#2 Darwinian-Macro-evolution speaks against God and Creation as we have in the Bible. Not completely contrary...but against it.

I don't distrust the reasoning behind your beliefs since you tend to be a calm sort of collected kinda guy - as in not hostile towards the views of others.

 

[dmp]

I don't distrust the reasoning behind your beliefs since you tend to be a calm sort of collected kinda guy - as in not hostile towards the views of others.

I'm not a hostile person, by nature - more a lover than a fighter...I do have a temper at times.

I have learned I'll never 'shout' somebody into understanding why I believe the truths I believe. I've learned the single best way for people to get to experience what I've found to be true is show them my love for others; my sense of service, my peace (NOT my package, sorry ).

My reasoning behind my belief comes from having first hand knowledge about a God who Loves me in spite of myself. Unconditional Love - something nobody can experience apart from Christ. It's not my desire to 'convert' people for the sake of 'conversion' - I get no reward except to see how God can truly enrich their lives and offer hope and comfort in an otherwise cold, callus world.

 

[Mr. P]

At this point no one can conclusively "prove" evolution nor the creation theory.
I tend to lean toward evolution as it makes the most sense. And science is making new
discoveries all the time in the quest for the origin of man..

However, let me pose this for all of you to ponder...If in fact we did evolve and were not created, who or what, created evolution?

*I like to muck up the water every so often*

 

[5stringJeff]

I refuse to acknowledge macro evolution for two reason:

#1 By perponderance of the evidence, we were created by devine design.

#2 Darwinian-Macro-evolution speaks against God and Creation as we have in the Bible. Not completely contrary...but against it.

To caveat off of #1... there is no theory outside of Intellegent Design which can explain the existence of life. Evolution theory cannot explain the origin of life, yet it attempts to replace creationism/Intellegent Design, which does explain the origin of life. For this reason alone, I cannot accept Darwinism.

 

[dmp]

To caveat off of #1... there is no theory outside of Intellegent Design which can explain the existence of life. Evolution theory cannot explain the origin of life, yet it attempts to replace creationism/Intellegent Design, which does explain the origin of life. For this reason alone, I cannot accept Darwinism.

I Agree

 

[MJDuncan1982]

At this point no one can conclusively "prove" evolution nor the creation theory.
I tend to lean toward evolution as it makes the most sense. And science is making new
discoveries all the time in the quest for the origin of man..

However, let me pose this for all of you to ponder...If in fact we did evolve and were not created, who or what, created evolution?

*I like to muck up the water every so often*

Yes it does present a problem. I often get asked by religious people: "If there is no God, where did the universe come from". I usually respond "Where did God come from". They respond "He has always been" and I say, "Well then why is it so hard to believe the universe has just always been as well?"

I often wonder why an infinite regression is automatically discounted by us (the turtles all the way down analogy). Does there even have to be a beginning?

I personally think there is and Aristotle calls it the First Cause. Call it God or whatever...my view allows it to be God but it could be any number of things.

So as to what created evolution? Just as hard to answer as what created God.

 

[dmp]

I Agree

I rest my case.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

To caveat off of #1... there is no theory outside of Intellegent Design which can explain the existence of life. Evolution theory cannot explain the origin of life, yet it attempts to replace creationism/Intellegent Design, which does explain the origin of life. For this reason alone, I cannot accept Darwinism.

Why is it exactly that evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of life? Honest question, don't pull out the customary claws on me.

 

[dmp]

Why is it exactly that evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of life? Honest question, don't pull out the customary claws on me.

It's the explanation that "It all happened by pure chance" .

 

[MJDuncan1982]

It's the explanation that "It all happened by pure chance" .

Why cannot something happen by pure chance? I'm sure you'd say there is no chance because it is part of a big plan by God but that begs the question.

 

[dmp]

Why cannot something happen by pure chance? I'm sure you'd say there is no chance because it is part of a big plan by God but that begs the question.

I didn't say there was 'no' chance...it's just so inprobable that life would 'magically' spontaniously 'better' itself.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I agree that as we understand it now that it is low on the probability scale but that does not make it impossible. It could happen. God is not a necessary explanation in every scenario.

 

[dmp]

I agree that as we understand it now that it is low on the probability scale but that does not make it impossible. It could happen. God is not a necessary explanation in every scenario.

...just in this scenario.

 

[5stringJeff]

Why is it exactly that evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of life? Honest question, don't pull out the customary claws on me.

Darwinian evolution theory says that living beings evolve in ways to make survival easier. It says nothing of the origin of life. However, this omission was soon noticed by evolutionary scientists, who attempted to see how life could have been created outside of Intelligent Design (God). There has been no successful attempt to explain this; in fact, every experiment that tries to "prove" that life spontaneously appeared ends up strengtheneing the ID case.

As to your other assertion: "I agree that as we understand it now that it is low on the probability scale but that does not make it impossible. It could happen." The chances of life spontaneously existing are so small as to be indistinguishable from zero. First, you would have to create DNA (or RNA), which is extremely complex. Then you would have to create cellular membranes, mitochondria, etc.etc.etc. Then you would have to create them in exactly the right way and order them in exactly the right order and have them work with each other in exactly the right fashion. And oh, by the way, there are no proteins just laying around to use as building blocks. It would be akin to taking a ton of iron ore, sand, copper, etc., throwing it into a tornado or hurricane, and producing an office building with working electricity. Technically possible, but to such a small extent to be practically impossible.

 

[deaddude]

So you throw in an omnipotent being and suddenly everything makes perfect sense?

 

[007]

Thats the reaction I get from alot of people who refuse to entertain the notion that they possibly could have been from a lower life form. I think its an arrogance thing, understandable sort of, but still arrogance. my opinion anyway.

It's ARROGANT of you to answer for me, and then accuse me of being arrogant.

What was that kettle... black line you like to use DK? Well if the shoe fits... wear it.

 

[007]

If according to you, the above can't be proven either, why are you so hostile?

Sorry but, I believe you've mistaken vehemence for hostility. I'm just firm in my beliefs, and tried to relay that.

 

[007]

Yes it does present a problem. I often get asked by religious people: "If there is no God, where did the universe come from". I usually respond "Where did God come from". They respond "He has always been" and I say, "Well then why is it so hard to believe the universe has just always been as well?"

Because the universe and what's in it can be seen, touched, traveled through, etc., and everything in it is bound by the laws of relativity. God on the other hand is none of the afore mentioned. He isn't bound by any of the same rules for you and I, or the universe. "Time" has no relavence to God.

 

[alien21010]

Darwinian evolution theory says that living beings evolve in ways to make survival easier. It says nothing of the origin of life. However, this omission was soon noticed by evolutionary scientists, who attempted to see how life could have been created outside of Intelligent Design (God). There has been no successful attempt to explain this; in fact, every experiment that tries to "prove" that life spontaneously appeared ends up strengtheneing the ID case.

Exactly. Darwinian theory does not state anything about the origin of life on Earth, and perhaps if you had actually studied the Theory you would know this. The theory does not explain how life started. It picks up after life started, and provides a well documented, tested, and explained phenomena by which life adapted to its environment. Evolving along the way into higher life forms. In fact, we are still evolving as we speak.

Let me state this clearly. No where does Evolutionary Theory attempt to explain how life started on Earth.

Furthermore, there have been experiments that have shown that rudimentary amino acids can form out of "soups" of chemicals, that would have existed on a very young, proto Earth.

Technically possible, but to such a small extent to be practically impossible.

This analogy does so little justice to the Theory of Evolution. First of all, the selection of traits into an entity are not merely random. The traits are selected through natural selection, or "survival of the fittest." More attractive mates propogate their genes through to the next generation while others do not.

I don't know about you people, but my ancestors were NOT fucking APES!

I WAS CREATED, IN THE IMAGE OF MY GOD, BY MY GOD. And until you can "PROVE" your "theory", the discussion of evolution is an excersize in futility.

Well you can either accept reality, or you can live in your alternate reality. I'm not denying that there may be a supreme being, that's a debate in and of itself, but to deny the evidence that supports Evolution is just plain ignorant.


Defend your beliefs as vehemently as you feel is necessary. You cannot change facts.

 

[5stringJeff]

Let me state this clearly. No where does Evolutionary Theory attempt to explain how life started on Earth.

Furthermore, there have been experiments that have shown that rudimentary amino acids can form out of "soups" of chemicals, that would have existed on a very young, proto Earth.

As to the first point I've quoted, you are absolutely correct. That is why Darwinian evolution theory cannot replace creation theory/Intellegent Design, because these theories do account for the origin of life.

As to your second point, the experiments you refer to were conducted by a man named Miller in the 1940's (if I remember correctly). The atmosphere he used was nothing like what scientists believe the young earth had, and virtually all scientists have now distanced themselves from this experiment, citing its extreme flaws. Not to mention, even if the experiment was based on reality, amino acids are only the smallest building blocks of life. Those amino acids would then have to be connected in the correct fashion, along with a cellular membrane, RNA or DNA, mitochondria, etc.etc. There is no plausible theory, outside of ID, that can explain how such things came to be.