Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[THE LIGHT]

And many times, genetic defects cause unexpected results.

She gave birth to that big cat??? Now folks, there is proof of evolution right there.

I'm... I'm...Speachless...

 

[THE LIGHT]

How about looking at it in a different view

Is creation, as outlined by the Bible, true? Do you think God created the Earth in seven days? Or is it just a story written by an ancient people(More ancient than the Hebrews) that became a popular source to answering the question "Where did life come from?"


Creation, as written in the Bible, is not backed up by any science and it is usually believers in it that tend to add or misinterpret the Bible.

Ij truthe there is no need to.

I've tried looking at it in a different view, but if he did not create it in six literal days as the Bible says he did, then (a) you would have to be a all knowing guru to interpret it as such, (b) it would not be scientifically possible, and (c) there is no reason to except in attempt to corrupt a perfectly accurate book.

The Bible's six day creation doesn't have a problem with science. It is those who don't believe in the Bible that have a problem accounting for the begging of life.

 

[logical4u]

this is interesting, an fundamentally where our christianity diverges.

a black man and white man are both is God's image. both men are physically in the image of their parents, phenotypically, and as their genes indicate. they're both human, but share 90-some percent of the same genes with other primates.

that is not the basis of evolution, but is consistent with it anyhow. it is no affront to my christianity that the bible says im in gods image, but i have my mom's nose and the monkey genes. you have chosen to accept the heredity from your parents, but have put a faith-based barrier to accepting that what the bible says is our creation in God's image selectively. if you take a tight interpretation, a contradiction between science and your religious belief exists, which fails to religiously mandate why my nose is like my mom's and not yours, and we could be in His image if such is the case. the conclusion, i guess, would be to deny the evidence that shows how we transmit these phenotypes genetically. your reaction is very similar, but you have selectively conceded heredity, but denied other evidence which further explains its implications.

to the contrary, there isn't a single physical finding available now or in the future which could refute the statement in the bible. for me, God states that we are the culmination of his creation, and the ultimate in intelligent life on earth... and that's what makes us in His image. that evolution and other science describe how, like how leaves are green, etc. support, rather than undermine reality in God.

Do you have a book and verse on that "culmination of..."? I don't recall seeing that in Genisis.

won't you just need to read on to the end of the first chapter? did he not rest satisfied with his ultimate creation in man?

how much more convincing must 1:28-30 be?

there is plenty about evolution which could be understood from the bible, and which i find quite satisfying as a christian. i certainly don't look at the bible with the same fundamental interpretation which you do. i dont feel Jesus did either, as evidenced by His life and teachings recorded in the new testament. notwithstanding, i would caution that, because the bible wasnt written in english, that you have to study deeper into the meaning you've taken for in My/our image in 1:27. the relationship, of course, is not a physical simile, but a metaphor of the powers of God, and over creation as espoused directly thereafter in the verses i'd referenced.

Note the hebrew words for God and image/likeness which were used for those passages (also later in Gen) which vary from physical identity and which term God for his powers, not for His identity.

the key to your seeing evolution and nature for what it is, is in seeing the bible for what it is.

follow me with this concept: were adam and eve modern humans before they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge? does this incident not chronicle the rise of modern man alongside the fall of humanity? in the sense that ignorance is bliss, humanity is cursed by our knowledge (having eaten from the tree). 2400 years or so later, science can demonstrate our emergence from the rest of the animal kingdom and primitive hominids, and quantify our potential for knowledge with a study of our brain capacity.

paleontologists today have established that man was the first/only such hominid to farm and work the earth, but had that not been established thousands of years prior in gen 3:17-19?

my perspective on what i've read in the bible has it proclaiming evolution millenia before chuck darwin. follow me up to that point, there is more to what i feel the bible reveals on evolution.

IMHO, when they ate from the apple, they were made LESS. They would have to 'toil' for their food, Eve would want Adam even though childbirth would cause her great pain. Some of the stories not in the Bible say that the animals talked to humans before the flood, but afterwards, could not. The ability 'to reason' was a gift from the Creator, specifically mentioned in Genesis. Because scientists can say similar things to what is in the Bible, does not make them 'perfect' with their ideas, stories, theories.

If you concentrate on those theories, theories of men, how can you focus on the Lord, the Light and the Truth?

 

[konradv]

If you concentrate on those theories, theories of men, how can you focus on the Lord, the Light and the Truth?
------------------------------

Because God gave us the brains to do it. Why create a world full of fossils that appear to be millions of years old with many of our current species not represented? To suggest that evolution is not true in that case, would seem to be saying that God lies to us!!!

 

[antagon]

Do you have a book and verse on that "culmination of..."? I don't recall seeing that in Genisis.

won't you just need to read on to the end of the first chapter? did he not rest satisfied with his ultimate creation in man?

how much more convincing must 1:28-30 be?

there is plenty about evolution which could be understood from the bible, and which i find quite satisfying as a christian. i certainly don't look at the bible with the same fundamental interpretation which you do. i dont feel Jesus did either, as evidenced by His life and teachings recorded in the new testament. notwithstanding, i would caution that, because the bible wasnt written in english, that you have to study deeper into the meaning you've taken for in My/our image in 1:27. the relationship, of course, is not a physical simile, but a metaphor of the powers of God, and over creation as espoused directly thereafter in the verses i'd referenced.

Note the hebrew words for God and image/likeness which were used for those passages (also later in Gen) which vary from physical identity and which term God for his powers, not for His identity.

the key to your seeing evolution and nature for what it is, is in seeing the bible for what it is.

follow me with this concept: were adam and eve modern humans before they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge? does this incident not chronicle the rise of modern man alongside the fall of humanity? in the sense that ignorance is bliss, humanity is cursed by our knowledge (having eaten from the tree). 2400 years or so later, science can demonstrate our emergence from the rest of the animal kingdom and primitive hominids, and quantify our potential for knowledge with a study of our brain capacity.

paleontologists today have established that man was the first/only such hominid to farm and work the earth, but had that not been established thousands of years prior in gen 3:17-19?

my perspective on what i've read in the bible has it proclaiming evolution millenia before chuck darwin. follow me up to that point, there is more to what i feel the bible reveals on evolution.

IMHO, when they ate from the apple, they were made LESS. They would have to 'toil' for their food, Eve would want Adam even though childbirth would cause her great pain.

i see the fall in a different light, obviously. i see humanity's awareness of our environment and our role in it diverged from the rest of the animals by virtue of it. while they have no awareness of their mortality, we ponder on it and are stressed by it. while they are part of and awhim to nature, we can guide it and shelter ourselves from it to secure our survival (albeit by way of toil). that the fall was God's will and in such close proximity to our creation, i find it to be the final step in this creation. not only do you bring a child into the world, but you raise him. so did God tend us, as Jesus would put it, as sheep, throughout the bible and to this day.

Some of the stories not in the Bible say that the animals talked to humans before the flood, but afterwards, could not.

this happens in some disney stories, too. i extend the same confidence in divine guidance not only in the human authors of the bible, but to its history. these other stories dont share that benefit for me, as this history has excluded them.

The ability 'to reason' was a gift from the Creator, specifically mentioned in Genesis.

there's an extent many creatures could reason, but i find humanity to be far beyond that. we could contemplate reason itself. nonetheless, might you help me with a citation from Genesis?

Because scientists can say similar things to what is in the Bible, does not make them 'perfect' with their ideas, stories, theories.

who said that these men's discoveries or theories makes them superhuman? keep that argument for someone who feels that way about scientists; it may come in handy. do you feel that way about the men who wrote the bible, or the pastor which speaks on it? God represents the only perfection for most people of faith and in the scientific community. these observations only indicate the wisdom in the bible, much as a proverb's application in an inter-human circumstance might. scientists findings are predicated on their science, not their fit with scripture.

If you concentrate on those theories, theories of men, how can you focus on the Lord, the Light and the Truth?

your faith so has it that studying nature distracts from study of God, whereas mine is in direct contrast. The earth and the natural world is God's creation; learning about it is, indeed a 'focus' on God's truth. read Psalm 19; i find it couples the two testimonies of God's greatness (creation and the Word) much the same as i live my life out. does it not trouble you that inquest into creation is a threat to your faith that you must defend with denials? have you not considered Jesus' life and teachings that God could and should be sought in all creation?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

How about looking at it in a different view

Is creation, as outlined by the Bible, true? Do you think God created the Earth in seven days? Or is it just a story written by an ancient people(More ancient than the Hebrews) that became a popular source to answering the question "Where did life come from?"


Creation, as written in the Bible, is not backed up by any science and it is usually believers in it that tend to add or misinterpret the Bible.

Ij truthe there is no need to.

I've tried looking at it in a different view, but if he did not create it in six literal days as the Bible says he did, then (a) you would have to be a all knowing guru to interpret it as such, (b) it would not be scientifically possible, and (c) there is no reason to except in attempt to corrupt a perfectly accurate book.

The Bible's six day creation doesn't have a problem with science. It is those who don't believe in the Bible that have a problem accounting for the begging of life.

Well said...

In truth, there is no scientific conflict with the biblical accounting of the life and the scientific accounting...

the conflict only comes where the anti-theists project these little fantasies regarding evolution which they foolishly and deceptively portray as evidence for something which never seems to get proved...

That species are capable of adapting is fair evidence of an intelligent design indeed... that such proves that God had no hand in that design is a leap of reasoning for which there can be no rational explanation.

 

[JBeukema]

That species are capable of adapting is fair evidence of an intelligent design indeed...

 

[konradv]

The conflict only comes where the anti-theists project these little fantasies regarding evolution which they foolishly and deceptively portray as evidence for something which never seems to get proved...
---------------------------

What makes people who believe in evolution "anti-theists"? That's a seperate question. There's absolutely no conflict with believing in evolution and believing in God.

 

[logical4u]

If you concentrate on those theories, theories of men, how can you focus on the Lord, the Light and the Truth?
------------------------------

Because God gave us the brains to do it. Why create a world full of fossils that appear to be millions of years old with many of our current species not represented? To suggest that evolution is not true in that case, would seem to be saying that God lies to us!!!

Where did G*d say: I made some primitive creatures and let them 'evolve'?

 

[logical4u]

won't you just need to read on to the end of the first chapter? did he not rest satisfied with his ultimate creation in man?

how much more convincing must 1:28-30 be?

there is plenty about evolution which could be understood from the bible, and which i find quite satisfying as a christian. i certainly don't look at the bible with the same fundamental interpretation which you do. i dont feel Jesus did either, as evidenced by His life and teachings recorded in the new testament. notwithstanding, i would caution that, because the bible wasnt written in english, that you have to study deeper into the meaning you've taken for in My/our image in 1:27. the relationship, of course, is not a physical simile, but a metaphor of the powers of God, and over creation as espoused directly thereafter in the verses i'd referenced.

Note the hebrew words for God and image/likeness which were used for those passages (also later in Gen) which vary from physical identity and which term God for his powers, not for His identity.

the key to your seeing evolution and nature for what it is, is in seeing the bible for what it is.

follow me with this concept: were adam and eve modern humans before they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge? does this incident not chronicle the rise of modern man alongside the fall of humanity? in the sense that ignorance is bliss, humanity is cursed by our knowledge (having eaten from the tree). 2400 years or so later, science can demonstrate our emergence from the rest of the animal kingdom and primitive hominids, and quantify our potential for knowledge with a study of our brain capacity.

paleontologists today have established that man was the first/only such hominid to farm and work the earth, but had that not been established thousands of years prior in gen 3:17-19?

my perspective on what i've read in the bible has it proclaiming evolution millenia before chuck darwin. follow me up to that point, there is more to what i feel the bible reveals on evolution.

IMHO, when they ate from the apple, they were made LESS. They would have to 'toil' for their food, Eve would want Adam even though childbirth would cause her great pain.

i see the fall in a different light, obviously. i see humanity's awareness of our environment and our role in it diverged from the rest of the animals by virtue of it. while they have no awareness of their mortality, we ponder on it and are stressed by it. while they are part of and awhim to nature, we can guide it and shelter ourselves from it to secure our survival (albeit by way of toil). that the fall was God's will and in such close proximity to our creation, i find it to be the final step in this creation. not only do you bring a child into the world, but you raise him. so did God tend us, as Jesus would put it, as sheep, throughout the bible and to this day.

this happens in some disney stories, too. i extend the same confidence in divine guidance not only in the human authors of the bible, but to its history. these other stories dont share that benefit for me, as this history has excluded them.

there's an extent many creatures could reason, but i find humanity to be far beyond that. we could contemplate reason itself. nonetheless, might you help me with a citation from Genesis?

Because scientists can say similar things to what is in the Bible, does not make them 'perfect' with their ideas, stories, theories.

who said that these men's discoveries or theories makes them superhuman? keep that argument for someone who feels that way about scientists; it may come in handy. do you feel that way about the men who wrote the bible, or the pastor which speaks on it? God represents the only perfection for most people of faith and in the scientific community. these observations only indicate the wisdom in the bible, much as a proverb's application in an inter-human circumstance might. scientists findings are predicated on their science, not their fit with scripture.

If you concentrate on those theories, theories of men, how can you focus on the Lord, the Light and the Truth?

your faith so has it that studying nature distracts from study of God, whereas mine is in direct contrast. The earth and the natural world is God's creation; learning about it is, indeed a 'focus' on God's truth. read Psalm 19; i find it couples the two testimonies of God's greatness (creation and the Word) much the same as i live my life out. does it not trouble you that inquest into creation is a threat to your faith that you must defend with denials? have you not considered Jesus' life and teachings that God could and should be sought in all creation?

I could not find the 'gift of reason'. I use different Bibles (mine, a friend's, Gideon's in hotels, the internet), so it is possible, it was just in the one I was reading.


This might be close:
Wisdom, Chapter 1:7 For the spirit of the Lord hath filled the whole world: and that, which containeth all things, hath knowledge of the voice.

This sums my opinion of those that 'believe' in evolution, and deny the works of the Lord.

Wisdom, Chapter 13:1 But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: 2 But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. 3 With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. 4 Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that he that made them, is mightier than they: 5 For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby.


Again, if you could give the reference to where the Lord spoke of starting creation, but not finishing it.

 

[frazzledgear]

There is NO evidence that any animal has ever mutated into existence from another totally different animal.

Exactly as evolutionary theory predicts should be the case.

When a dog gives birth to a whale that grows legs and becomes a human being, you will have disproven evolutionary theory.

(I apologize up front for the length of this post, but there really is no short answer to this one.)

NO NO NO, that is NOT how evolution can be disproved -you disprove ANY scientific theory by showing where it failed to explain something it was SPECIFICALLY proposed to explain in the first place! Since Darwin never once proposed that a dog could give birth to a whale that would turn into a man, then saying that event would somehow disprove the theory is just silly bullshit! There are two types of evolution being discussed here and they are NOT the same thing. Microevolution involves the mutations that occur within a species but where the species remains the same at all times. Microevolution is indisputable and well documented in any number of species including our own.

What Darwin did NOT know is that mutations, regardless of whether they are lethal, benign or beneficial (which is the order of how common each kind is each less common by a factor of at least 10) -are least likely of all to take place on the chain that is the genetic code of the species itself. They nearly universally take place on the areas that have to do with building how the specific individual will look and function -but NOT what species that individual will be. That means no matter how many mutations are involved regarding how a specific individual will look or function, the code that identifies its species remains UNTOUCHED. That part of the genetic code is far hardier and resistant to mutation than that part of the code that determines the specific characteristics of an individual. It is why DNA testing only involves testing for those things that actually vary from individual to individual -because the part of the code that identifies our species is the same for all of us and does not distinguish one of us from another. The part of the code that varies is that involving us as individuals, not that involving the species itself. What Darwin also did not know because this wasn't discovered until later - is that when a mutation takes place in the part that specifically identifies the species, it is nearly 100% LETHAL and rapidly lethal for the individual organism, usually killing it even before birth, hatching etc. So it means for 99.9999% of all mutations, regardless of whether it is a lethal, benign or beneficial mutation,IF it is even one that can be inherited by the offspring and even if it involves a mutation that causes strikingly difference in physical appearance - it STILL inherits the UNCHANGED genetic code that identifies the species to be the same as that of its parents. So what Darwin did NOT know is that IF the gradual accumulation of enough mutations to turn one species to another is even possible, it would actually take many, many EONS longer than even he thought it would take -because it is the LOCATION within the genetic code that is mutated that matters here. Since nearly 100% of mutations on that part of the genetic code are lethal to the individual, we are talking about the appearance of a far more rare event than Darwin appreciated -a mutation in the part of the genetic code that actually identifies the species -but without killing the individual.

Macroevolution is the theory that the gradual accumulation over many eons of these microevolutionary mutations will result in one species becoming a totally different one. But we now know only those mutations that occur in the specific code that identifies the species can have the potential to do that, NOT the ones that occur in the part regarding how to build a specific individual of that species. So that eliminates most mutations entirely and leaves only those that also happen to be nearly universally lethal to the individual! (To say nothing of the fact that with Darwin's theory no matter how you dice it, at some point you are still faced trying to explain what we already know is a biological impossibility of two parents of one species producing offspring of a different species -because at some point, no matter how much time goes by you still have to declare NOW it is a different species for some individual.) And the kind of time period needed for that would actually be many times longer than Darwin even theorized -and we know from the geological and fossil record that this is just the first place where Darwin's theory fails to explain what is was proposed to try and explain in the first place. STRIKE ONE.

Darwin theorized that the fossil record would show the vast majority of fossils would be "in-between" specimens -clearly showing that one species was IN THE PROCESS of turning into another one. Darwin also said the only way to prove his theory was correct would be found in the FOSSIL RECORD and gave a lengthy explanation of the kinds of supporting evidence he believed would be found in that fossil record that would support his theory.

That last is important here because Darwin himself realized it is incumbent upon any scientist who proposes a theory to show where the SUPPORTING EVIDENCE can be found. A theory without supporting evidence and proof is useless. So this one is really important. Darwin said that if his theory was correct, the only supporting evidence for it could ONLY be found in the fossil record and laid out what he thought it would show. IF he were correct. The problem is Darwin got it wrong because the fossil record doesn't show ANY of what he thought it would. Not only are the majority of fossils NOT "in betweens", there isn't a single "in-between" fossil that has EVER been found for ANY species. Not one and we have found millions more fossils since Darwin was around. Whether you like it or not, THAT is a major obstacle that cannot be ignored. The only offer of supporting evidence didn't exist at the time Darwin proposed this theory and in spite of even more in the fossil record -it offers zero supporting evidence for his theory because it shows something entirely different instead. STRIKE TWO.

From the fossil record we know there was literally an explosion of life in the Cambrian period -where in about a 10,000 year period nearly every known species to have ever existed or still exists today -all showed up. And they didn't show up piecemeal but entirely intact. All known visual systems -showed up all at once in totally unrelated species. The theory of evolution holds that the necessary parts for a working visual system were all accumulated piecemeal, gradually over many eons until one day two blind parents produced offspring that could see. Never happened. Likewise for the appearance of every known body type, all kinds of nervous systems, hormonal systems, manner of reproduction, type of locomotion etc. Before the Cambrian explosion there was 4500,000,000,000 years of nothing but sponges and worms. Consider the fact that this is 25 times longer than the length of time since since other forms of life first appeared -yet those sponges and worms existed for all those eons without mutating, looking pretty much like they still do to this day.

I have seen the attempts by some to insist the Cambrian Explosion is really not any different from any other time period with regard to life -but this is a BLATANT DECEPTION. Almost every single known species to have ever existed or still exists today showed up in that 10,000 year period. 10,000 years geologically speaking is an incredibly short period of time, it is about as long as man is believed to have been on earth and we can all realize that length of time is a DROP in the bucket of time for the planet! Yet the only change of substance seen in our own species in all those years is people have a smaller jaw than man used to have and now a small percentage of the population fail to develop wisdom teeth at all. But that change hasn't altered the genetic code for the species itself AT ALL. In 10,000 years that is the real microevolutionary change of note for homo sapiens because EVERYTHING else that is subtly different about man today compared to 10,000 years ago is explained by changes in diet and habitat. In 10,000 years the genetic code that identifies our species as homo sapiens has not changed and an individual from today could reproduce with one from 10,000 years ago and their offspring would also be a homo sapiens. If that were not true it would mean either they or us is NOT a homo sapiens after all!

10,000 years is far shorter than Darwin predicted was needed for the accumulation of beneficial mutations that would result in one species turning into another one. But more importantly, he never predicted it would happen SIMULTANEOUSLY in totally unrelated species that would then result in the simultaneous appearance of MILLIONS of never before seen species in just 10,000 years - IN BOTH PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE. This was a 10,000 year period of (geologically speaking) EXTREMELY rapid, never before seen and never seen since explosion of BOTH plant and animal life.

Just to give a better idea on the kind of time here -more than 500,000,000 years have passed since the Cambrian Explosion. But the earth has NEVER experienced anything like this explosion of life since that occurred in this single stretch of just 10,000 years! So the notion there was nothing really unusual about that time period is pure bullshit. It is and remains unique and remarkable and UNEXPLAINED. It is a key issue that not only contradicts Darwin's theory -it DEFIES it completely.

Darwin also theorized that the fossil record would show a greater and greater diversity of life that moved forward in time -that is, the closer we get to our own time period, the greater the diversity of life and the further you go back in time, fewer different species. What the evolutionary-devout don't even try to explain away because they can't is the fact the fossil record shows the exact OPPOSITE instead. The greatest diversity of life was seen during the Cambrian period. The fossil record shows that with every time period further out from the Cambrian and closer to our own time period, there are fewer and fewer species and life has become less and less diverse ever since. Not more as Darwin predicted. And since this has been true for the last 500,000,000 years since the Cambrian Explosion, there is no way to even try to lay this one as being the fault of man. That one should really stick in the craw of even the most diehard evolutionary enthusiast since at the root of Darwin's theory is his MISTAKEN belief that life keeps becoming MORE diversified over time and this theory attempts to explain that. If his assumption itself is wrong, then any theory trying to explain something that turns out not to be true in the first place -is also not true. But those diehards will never let a little thing like facts get in their way of insisting Darwin got it all 100% correct anyway. In spite of the nonstop evidence that he actually got next to nothing correct.

That is at least a few more strikes - and there are still a slew more.

The theory of evolution will ALWAYS be nothing but a theory and will NEVER move into the "scientific truth" column for the reasons above -and a whole bunch more. And it won't because it does NOT explain the very things it was proposed to explain! A theory that is shown to fail to explain what it was proposed to explain and where one of the foundation assumptions itself is proven to be false - is considered to be scientifically FALSE. Not "truth". The ONLY place Darwin said could even have any evidence to support his theory -totally contradicts it instead. Darwin, if alive today, would have to admit it meant HE GOT IT WRONG and its back to drawing board. If anything, the only thing his theory really shows is the folly of trying to come up with a single theory to try and explain EVERYTHING because we only find it ends up explaining nothing after all. That means we need to do MORE research, MORE theorizing and MORE testing, not less -and do so by trying to explain one particular phenomenon at a time instead of pretending what is in reality an overly simplistic theory can possibly explain EVERYTHING. It didn't, it can't and it never will.

Clinging to this badly flawed and proven erroneous theory is truly a "flat earth" mentality -one that demands we cling to it at the expense of greater scientific knowledge. Same thing the Catholic Church once did regarding whether the earth was round or flat -the Church was wrong then and today's flat earthers are wrong now. The REAL reason today's "flat earthers" demand we unquestioningly believe in this theory is because they find it much easier to dismiss any role for God in creation with this theory and that matters FAR more to them than scientific truth. They FEAR that further discovery might not make it as easy to dismiss the idea that God played any role after all. Bad science that makes it easier for them to eliminate God is preferable to good science that MAY not be as clear cut for them on that one. Darwin's theory cannot EVER be proven to be TRUE, the only place he said would provide supporting evidence showed the exact opposite of what he predicted. It is intellectual dishonest to pretend that doesn't matter -it does. His theory has been repeatedly proven to be significantly flawed to its very core. BUT the "evolution is my religion" crowd have politically invested themselves in this theory. Those who have politically invested themselves into any scientific theory have NO problem sacrificing the truth and scientific fact for it -in fact, they REQUIRE that scientific truth be abandoned and VIGOROUSLY DEMAND that all challenges to their pet theory be STOPPED. Being politically invested in a scientific theory means a demand to abandon sound scientific principles entirely which actually involves challenging theories since it is the only way to prove a theory correct -and instead demand UNQUESTIONING worship at their new altar instead. Or risk their wrath as a heretic.

Not just true with the theory of evolution either. We have all seen for ourselves this is true for the theory of global warming -and that Al Gore and his ilk know firsthand all about demanding unquestioning worship of that theory as well, haven't we?

 

[JBeukema]

I saw 'macroevolution' and knew FG didn't know what it was talking about

Then it claimed that evolution requires any animal to give birth to another species and I realized there is only one appropriate response to the post:

 

[antagon]

IMHO, when they ate from the apple, they were made LESS. They would have to 'toil' for their food, Eve would want Adam even though childbirth would cause her great pain.

i see the fall in a different light, obviously. i see humanity's awareness of our environment and our role in it diverged from the rest of the animals by virtue of it. while they have no awareness of their mortality, we ponder on it and are stressed by it. while they are part of and awhim to nature, we can guide it and shelter ourselves from it to secure our survival (albeit by way of toil). that the fall was God's will and in such close proximity to our creation, i find it to be the final step in this creation. not only do you bring a child into the world, but you raise him. so did God tend us, as Jesus would put it, as sheep, throughout the bible and to this day.

this happens in some disney stories, too. i extend the same confidence in divine guidance not only in the human authors of the bible, but to its history. these other stories dont share that benefit for me, as this history has excluded them.

there's an extent many creatures could reason, but i find humanity to be far beyond that. we could contemplate reason itself. nonetheless, might you help me with a citation from Genesis?
who said that these men's discoveries or theories makes them superhuman? keep that argument for someone who feels that way about scientists; it may come in handy. do you feel that way about the men who wrote the bible, or the pastor which speaks on it? God represents the only perfection for most people of faith and in the scientific community. these observations only indicate the wisdom in the bible, much as a proverb's application in an inter-human circumstance might. scientists findings are predicated on their science, not their fit with scripture.

If you concentrate on those theories, theories of men, how can you focus on the Lord, the Light and the Truth?

your faith so has it that studying nature distracts from study of God, whereas mine is in direct contrast. The earth and the natural world is God's creation; learning about it is, indeed a 'focus' on God's truth. read Psalm 19; i find it couples the two testimonies of God's greatness (creation and the Word) much the same as i live my life out. does it not trouble you that inquest into creation is a threat to your faith that you must defend with denials? have you not considered Jesus' life and teachings that God could and should be sought in all creation?

I could not find the 'gift of reason'. I use different Bibles (mine, a friend's, Gideon's in hotels, the internet), so it is possible, it was just in the one I was reading.


This might be close:
Wisdom, Chapter 1:7 For the spirit of the Lord hath filled the whole world: and that, which containeth all things, hath knowledge of the voice.

This sums my opinion of those that 'believe' in evolution, and deny the works of the Lord.

Wisdom, Chapter 13:1 But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: 2 But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. 3 With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. 4 Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that he that made them, is mightier than they: 5 For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby.


Again, if you could give the reference to where the Lord spoke of starting creation, but not finishing it.

what you are contending has it's effect on those who deny the works of the lord as you stated. our discussion has evolved into a discussion between believers, regarding the validity of evolution in the context of christianity. like most other christians, i feel that evolution and God must be coupled realities as are all of the circumstances of nature which we observe. i feel, as the bible beckons, that the natural world, studied with the limits of our intellect and technology, reveals a great deal of He who created it, and that there is great virtue in that study, and in expanding our intellect and technology in its pursuit. your sentiment that God's creation is threatened by the contentions of science speaks to your faith in God's creation, faith in a pastor who has not explored the Word or science sufficiently to speak on their relationship, or the flaws in presuming there is nothing in the bible beyond the literal meanings of flawed translations in american bibles.

i've found it validating of the bible, science, and my contention that the two are studies of God, that the science and the bible say so much in common step. the bible is no science book, as no science book is scripture, but they both serve to enlighten about God.

i dont think that there is a reference to the ability of man to reason before the fall. i've read deeper into the concept of the tree of knowledge of right and wrong and our exclusive consumption of its fruit as being a validation of what science can observe about our cognitive ability. we are the only creatures known to ponder our existence, morality and virtue.

i'm not sure of what you mean by your challenge to disclose when God started but didnt finish creation. i would remind that God creates all of us and every blade of grass up to the last second. in that respect, creation is continuous. Psalm139. its not a perfect reference, but a fav psalm of mine (more because of the battle-cry at the end). indeed, it supports our being created one by one, all of our parts, severally. i call humanity the culmination or ultimate creation with respect to our superiority over other animals. this superiority is specific to the evolutionary context that the creation story supports.

follow this logic: what the bible implies, is that we are the rulers of animals and nature. in Gen 1:28-30, doesn't God grant us the run of the place? not that it would bend to our call, magically, but that we art 'subdue' creation? in this respect, humanity marks the end of evolution by the hand of God as much as by our own. so went the dodo bird. when extinction faces animals today, we save them, putting them in zoos, struggling to do this work of God.

furthermore, it has been contended earlier in this thread by others, that evolution continues today, and among humans. certainly heredity persists, and hundreds of thousand of years will put this is better light, but isn't our method of fitness dependent on our intellect? the allusions i'd made to the symbolism of the fig leaf and the toiling in the earth, dont these indicate the means by which we survive the evolutionary effects other animals are subject to?

humans are not adapted for life in the wild. we must be clothed, protected from the elements; we aren't fast or strong enough to kill much, nor hardy enough to migrate thousands of miles on our bare feet without food until we find lush provisions. we make our way through these obstacles with our intellect and, more so, our society. did god not put His morality in our very nature, and failing that, did God not spell it out for us in Exodus 20:2–17?

that fabrics of society are based on the principles in the commandments - the laws of interdevine then inter-human morality - biblically indicates the gift that our social capability possesses for our survival and the superiority of societies which keep to these laws enjoy over lawless ones (which turn to salt).

survival of the fittest persists for man, so says the bible, but by way of social development - social evolution.

ps. i collect bibles. it started as a gift or two when i was a kid, now it is pretty rediculous. study bibles, antiques, different languages i cant speak, hebrew, annotated, criticized... i have more than 70. people give them as gifts, or i pick'em up from used stores. got a couple on ebay.

 

[antagon]

I saw 'macroevolution' and knew FG didn't know what it was talking about

Then it claimed that evolution requires any animal to give birth to another species and I realized there is only one appropriate response to the post:

see, it was "Darwin..." for me, and i think is more appropriate.

but then again with the length of the froth, maybe sits about right, maybe

 

[antagon]

If you concentrate on those theories, theories of men, how can you focus on the Lord, the Light and the Truth?
------------------------------

Because God gave us the brains to do it. Why create a world full of fossils that appear to be millions of years old with many of our current species not represented? To suggest that evolution is not true in that case, would seem to be saying that God lies to us!!!

Where did G*d say: I made some primitive creatures and let them 'evolve'?

that's the way creation works, logic. if God did narrate it in english, nobody was around to write it down.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The conflict only comes where the anti-theists project these little fantasies regarding evolution which they foolishly and deceptively portray as evidence for something which never seems to get proved...
---------------------------

What makes people who believe in evolution "anti-theists"? That's a seperate question. There's absolutely no conflict with believing in evolution and believing in God.

First... Ya need to familiarize yourself with the quote system... PM me if ya need some help, or anyone else who ya may feel more confortable with... most here will be glad to answer such questions.

Secondly, belieiving in evolution doesn't make one an anti-thiest... and I don't know anyone who's suggested that it does.

Rejecting theism is what makes one an anti-theist, which usually requires that one 'beleive' that life originates from the vague happenstance of natural selection...

All of which is founded in and requires supremely empty faith which produces absolutely nothing on which to rest one's life...

Its most commonly found in children and fools...

 

[logical4u]

i see the fall in a different light, obviously. i see humanity's awareness of our environment and our role in it diverged from the rest of the animals by virtue of it. while they have no awareness of their mortality, we ponder on it and are stressed by it. while they are part of and awhim to nature, we can guide it and shelter ourselves from it to secure our survival (albeit by way of toil). that the fall was God's will and in such close proximity to our creation, i find it to be the final step in this creation. not only do you bring a child into the world, but you raise him. so did God tend us, as Jesus would put it, as sheep, throughout the bible and to this day.

this happens in some disney stories, too. i extend the same confidence in divine guidance not only in the human authors of the bible, but to its history. these other stories dont share that benefit for me, as this history has excluded them.

there's an extent many creatures could reason, but i find humanity to be far beyond that. we could contemplate reason itself. nonetheless, might you help me with a citation from Genesis?
who said that these men's discoveries or theories makes them superhuman? keep that argument for someone who feels that way about scientists; it may come in handy. do you feel that way about the men who wrote the bible, or the pastor which speaks on it? God represents the only perfection for most people of faith and in the scientific community. these observations only indicate the wisdom in the bible, much as a proverb's application in an inter-human circumstance might. scientists findings are predicated on their science, not their fit with scripture.
your faith so has it that studying nature distracts from study of God, whereas mine is in direct contrast. The earth and the natural world is God's creation; learning about it is, indeed a 'focus' on God's truth. read Psalm 19; i find it couples the two testimonies of God's greatness (creation and the Word) much the same as i live my life out. does it not trouble you that inquest into creation is a threat to your faith that you must defend with denials? have you not considered Jesus' life and teachings that God could and should be sought in all creation?

I could not find the 'gift of reason'. I use different Bibles (mine, a friend's, Gideon's in hotels, the internet), so it is possible, it was just in the one I was reading.


This might be close:
Wisdom, Chapter 1:7 For the spirit of the Lord hath filled the whole world: and that, which containeth all things, hath knowledge of the voice.

This sums my opinion of those that 'believe' in evolution, and deny the works of the Lord.

Wisdom, Chapter 13:1 But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: 2 But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. 3 With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. 4 Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that he that made them, is mightier than they: 5 For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby.


Again, if you could give the reference to where the Lord spoke of starting creation, but not finishing it.

what you are contending has it's effect on those who deny the works of the lord as you stated. our discussion has evolved into a discussion between believers, regarding the validity of evolution in the context of christianity. like most other christians, i feel that evolution and God must be coupled realities as are all of the circumstances of nature which we observe. i feel, as the bible beckons, that the natural world, studied with the limits of our intellect and technology, reveals a great deal of He who created it, and that there is great virtue in that study, and in expanding our intellect and technology in its pursuit. your sentiment that God's creation is threatened by the contentions of science speaks to your faith in God's creation, faith in a pastor who has not explored the Word or science sufficiently to speak on their relationship, or the flaws in presuming there is nothing in the bible beyond the literal meanings of flawed translations in american bibles.

i've found it validating of the bible, science, and my contention that the two are studies of God, that the science and the bible say so much in common step. the bible is no science book, as no science book is scripture, but they both serve to enlighten about God.

i dont think that there is a reference to the ability of man to reason before the fall. i've read deeper into the concept of the tree of knowledge of right and wrong and our exclusive consumption of its fruit as being a validation of what science can observe about our cognitive ability. we are the only creatures known to ponder our existence, morality and virtue.

i'm not sure of what you mean by your challenge to disclose when God started but didnt finish creation. i would remind that God creates all of us and every blade of grass up to the last second. in that respect, creation is continuous. Psalm139. its not a perfect reference, but a fav psalm of mine (more because of the battle-cry at the end). indeed, it supports our being created one by one, all of our parts, severally. i call humanity the culmination or ultimate creation with respect to our superiority over other animals. this superiority is specific to the evolutionary context that the creation story supports.

follow this logic: what the bible implies, is that we are the rulers of animals and nature. in Gen 1:28-30, doesn't God grant us the run of the place? not that it would bend to our call, magically, but that we art 'subdue' creation? in this respect, humanity marks the end of evolution by the hand of God as much as by our own. so went the dodo bird. when extinction faces animals today, we save them, putting them in zoos, struggling to do this work of God.

furthermore, it has been contended earlier in this thread by others, that evolution continues today, and among humans. certainly heredity persists, and hundreds of thousand of years will put this is better light, but isn't our method of fitness dependent on our intellect? the allusions i'd made to the symbolism of the fig leaf and the toiling in the earth, dont these indicate the means by which we survive the evolutionary effects other animals are subject to?

humans are not adapted for life in the wild. we must be clothed, protected from the elements; we aren't fast or strong enough to kill much, nor hardy enough to migrate thousands of miles on our bare feet without food until we find lush provisions. we make our way through these obstacles with our intellect and, more so, our society. did god not put His morality in our very nature, and failing that, did God not spell it out for us in Exodus 20:2–17?

that fabrics of society are based on the principles in the commandments - the laws of interdevine then inter-human morality - biblically indicates the gift that our social capability possesses for our survival and the superiority of societies which keep to these laws enjoy over lawless ones (which turn to salt).

survival of the fittest persists for man, so says the bible, but by way of social development - social evolution.

ps. i collect bibles. it started as a gift or two when i was a kid, now it is pretty rediculous. study bibles, antiques, different languages i cant speak, hebrew, annotated, criticized... i have more than 70. people give them as gifts, or i pick'em up from used stores. got a couple on ebay.

Please read Frazzledgear's post. He presents a clear statement of why evolution doesn't exist.
I asked you to show where in the Bible it showed the Lord did not finish His creation, but left it to 'evolve'. Mumbo jumbo over 'social evolution' is a different subject. It seems you have demonstrated where 'your faith' is stronger. Good Luck with that.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Dr Berlinski destroy Evolution in 5 Min, by the way we should ask if evolution is right, which organ has appeared the first? "eyes, ears or Brain"? eyes need brain and brain need eyes?

YouTube - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes

oh good, a mathematician showing he doesn't understand the basics of biology, yet drawing ridiculous conclusions anyway. I especially liked how he compared evolution to a "distance squared" physics equation. Yes, because one variable raised to the second power is somehow congruent to one variable raised to the 3 billionth power (the complexity of the human genome - not an exaggeration). Who else should provide their two cents into the debate? Maybe computer scientists should be deemed credibly trained in the field enough to provide similar conclusions? Perhaps marketing specialists? Ethicists?

As for the "which organ appeared first": does the brain not work without eyes or ears? Last I checked, a person can survive without hearing. In fact, many animal species don't uses hearing or sight at all, and seem to do just fine.

There is NO evidence that any animal has ever mutated into existence from another totally different animal. All we have is evidence that WITHIN a species changes occur.

truth. when you figure out what evolution is, let me know so we can discuss it.

Once again the theory claims men evolved from an ape like creature. And that other animals evolved from other totally different species. YET there is absolutely NO evidence of these claims. NOT a single one.

false. tons of evidence.

oh at least this guy has a PhD! I mean, with a title like that, he is surely qualified to talk on biology. Oh hmm... it appears his PhD and training is in ethics... so perhaps he means that ethically evolution is wrong?

The question depends on whether we are discussing macro or micro evolution. It also depends what we are defining as evolution in those two fields.

micro evolution doesn't exist. there's no such thing. it was a term invented by creationists to make an exception for the parts of evolution which are undeniable even to the most ignorant of hicks. In actuality, it's exactly the same as every other part of evolution: natural selection producing organisms that are better at survival.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Dr Berlinski destroy Evolution in 5 Min, by the way we should ask if evolution is right, which organ has appeared the first? "eyes, ears or Brain"? eyes need brain and brain need eyes?

YouTube - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes

The answer is eyes, BTW. Primitive bacteria were capable of detecting light long before they had a central nervous center.

 

[antagon]

Please read Frazzledgear's post. He presents a clear statement of why evolution doesn't exist.
I asked you to show where in the Bible it showed the Lord did not finish His creation, but left it to 'evolve'. Mumbo jumbo over 'social evolution' is a different subject. It seems you have demonstrated where 'your faith' is stronger. Good Luck with that.

FG's post is a joke, bud. based on darwin's suppositions, it's already on passe footing. then the comical 10,000 year cambrian explosion, the eyes theory where you guys say theres only ever been fully formed eyes. that's not true now, nor ever has been. the gene analysis is ignorance without peer: most evolution, or course being affected by gene selection, instead of the mechanisms which he thinks he knows about. that you see any truth in that or it's conclusions betray that you might not have paid any attention in highschool bio.

i've made a case for the bible's account for evolution. you think that if it is not in the bible it is not real. the bible asks us to see what is real about the world for God's message. your pastor has failed you, no doubt with the same ignorance about the bible and biology which you reflect, buddy. here i was thinking that your competence in the Word would be better footed, but i find that lacking as well.

it fits the shoe of ignorance that fundamentalists strap on before they mislead their children.