Evolution

[archangel]

Noah...he was really...I mean really old... when he fathered his children...and he was like 600 years old when he built the Arch...so he should be classified as a "Dinosaur" no! :cof:

 

[xandy123]

In a video distributed by the American Skeptics Society, Dr Michael Shermer says Charles Darwin contributed seven notable things to the world. How do these seven contributions of Darwin compare with what the Bible says?

1. Darwin 'changed the world from being seen as static to evolving' (changing). That is, microbes, over billions of years, changed into trees, animals and men. Living things do not reproduce true to their type after all, but change into different things, the evolutionist believes.

The Bible: 'And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good' (Genesis 1:11-12). Things reproduce after their kind.

2. Darwin 'established the implausibility of creationism'. God did not create things; they arose through natural processes.

The Bible: 'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is' (Exodus 20:11).

3. Darwin 'refuted cosmic teleology' (that is, that the universe has a purpose). The existence of the universe is just a giant accident; it has no purpose.

The Bible: 'The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork' (Psalm 19:1).

4. Darwin 'established materialistic/naturalistic philosophy'. That is, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

The Bible: 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God' (Psalm 14:1).

5. Darwin 'ended Aristotelian essentialism' (that is, the belief that things live because of some vital essence, life force, or spirit, rather than because of mechanisms understandable to scientists).

The Bible: The (Darwinian) belief that life would carry on without God is not biblical. 'And he [Jesus] is before all things, and by him all things consist' [hold together] (Colossians 1:17).

6. Darwin 'refuted catastrophism'. For Darwin, present processes operating over long periods of time accounted for the world and everything in it.

The Bible: 'Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished' (2 Peter 3:3-6).

7. Darwin 'ended absolute anthropocentrism'. That is, Shermer claims that Darwin established that man is just an animal; man is nothing special. He is just another accident of cosmic evolution, with no ultimate purpose.

The Bible: 'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwin.asp" target=_blank">.</a> So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them' (Genesis 1:26-27). 'The heavens declare the glory of God' (Psalm 19:1).

It should be obvious that the Bible contradicts all seven 'contributions' of Darwin in some way. Mixing the two results in an unholy mess. Do oil and water mix? What fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14). Let us not try to mix evolution and the Bible — they just don't go together!

WHy are you trying to compare a person to a book. Hey why not compare everyone to the bible to see if they measure up...?

 

[xandy123]

You should have given as one of your vote choices, "theory", because that is precisely what evolution is, a "theory", and has never been proven as fact.

You are right it is a theory, but it is the kind of theory that cant actually be proven. Most scientific theories are well accepted simply because they make the most sense. Darwins theory was contray to scientific theory of creation at the time however today most scientists consider it to be holy writ. The fact that this happens shows us that science is constantly changing, however the core premise of science, fundamental truth does not change, only the arguments that can be substantiate are accepted in the scientific community, and many arguments can be substantiated, however, the argument that can stand the test of time within that community will emerge as scientific. I'm not saying that evolution is scientific truth Im simply sayin that many fundamental theories have never been proven and often cannot be. (In the case of evolution there is compelling circumstantial evidence, however we do not have the entire recorded history available to discredit or prove any theories about how mankind appeared on the earth) We should stick with what makes the most sense.

 

[007]

You are right it is a theory, but it is the kind of theory that cant actually be proven. Most scientific theories are well accepted simply because they make the most sense.

I always love these broad, sweeping, generalized statements, that all are supposed to accept as truth...

... I don't see ANYONE accepting UNPROVEN theory as FACT, so the veracity of your BROAD statement, to me, is bull crap.

Something is either proven, or not. Which either makes it FACT, or NOT.

This arguement of "is evolution fact" generally ALWAYS boils down to "what you want to believe", and not what you can CONVINCE the other man to believe.

 

[sealybobo]

Curious to see what people think about evolution.

Superbugs 'Crawled Out' Of The Ocean 450 Million Years Ago