Was Darwin Wrong?

[Mainframe]

So basically Evolutionists say 'We refuse to acknowledge Creation/divine Design simply because we don't like the implied conclusions', thus, we must have 'evolved' from nothing, into something?

Mine made more sense.

 

[Mainframe]

so..they find the skeleton of what could be a child...or a pigmy-type person, and it's a breakthrough? Weird.

There's still no evidence, or such little evidence as to be ridiculous, that humans evolved from apes, or ape-like creatures.

no. its a more than one and its no child. a whole island of them? with tools and such? no really, explain it.

 

[dmp]

no. its a more than one and its no child. a whole island of them? with tools and such? no really, explain it.

pigmy?

 

[Zhukov]

Do you have any idea how much DNA it takes just to tell a cell how to make more of itself and to metabolise food?

Yes. Yes I do.

And I say it points to necessity.

Necessity? What do you mean?

If you mean to imply that they share commonalty only because there is common purpose, that is incorrect.

Most of the conserved sequences code for nothing (most of your DNA codes for nothing). These sequences are never translated into proteins. These conserved sequences are a remnant. A remnant of the evolutionary ancestry of diverse species.

Likewise, at the obverse side of that argument, the same task is accomplished in a variety of different ways among species. That is to say different codes of DNA accomplish the same task or tasks. This is called convergent evolution. An example would be avarian flight and mammalian flight. The same result achieved by quite different genetic means.

1. That the universe was created by the explosion of a huge ball of gas. There's no explanation of the origin of that ball of gas, it just happened to be there.

So?

When it exploded, suns, moons and planets condensed and ordered themselves magically.

Well, cosmological physics and quantum mechanics is hardly magic.

The earth was simply an aggregate of rock. It had no water, no atmosphere and no life. Yet somehow oceans formed - either from the solid rock or from ice. (I guess the ice came from that same gas cloud).

Well it wasn't just plain generic rock. Stars are mostly hydrogen, the fusion furnaces that are stars create all manner of heavy elements, not least abundant of which is oxygen. Diatomic hydrogen plus diatomic oxygen plus a spark, yields fire, noise, and water.

Over time, the oceans (which formed from either rock or ice on a planet which accidentally formed out of wandering rocks created by an explosion of a huge ball of gas ball which came out of nowhere) created an atmosphere.

4. Somehow, in this sterile and lifeless hunk of space junk some sort of single celled fungus took life. (No clue how that happened. Maybe the planet got athlete's foot or crotch rot.)

Actually the crotch rot would have formed first, and the metabolic and respiratory by-products of the crotch rot created the atmosphere.

5. That slimy, single celled fungus evolved eventually into man.

I know. It's wild isn't it? (Of course it wasn't fungi. fungi is actually pretty advanced)

What I do not understand is how any thinking person can look upon the function of the human hand, or admire the artitistic products of the human mind, or walk into a forest and wonder at the complexity of life or gaze into the heavens at the majesty of the universe and still deny the existence of a Creator.

I for one don't consider it denial. Denial suggests that it is intentional. My personal disbelief in a creator entity is a matter of faith.

So basically Evolutionists say 'We refuse to acknowledge Creation/divine Design simply because we don't like the implied conclusions', thus, we must have 'evolved' from nothing, into something?

Are you kidding me? Eternity in paradise in the presence of an all powerful being that loves me unconditionally and will protect me from anything? Where I will find everyone and everything I ever loved and will be happy for ever, as opposed to oblivion? I love the implied conclusions. I just don't believe it.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm not sure why the argument 'we can't understand the complexities of DNA' lends credence to the fallacy of Darwinism.

It doesn't. I'm simply pointing out that DNA commonalities don't prove Darwinism. They form a compelling argument, but I wouldn't call it conclusive.

4-5% Is roughly 1/20-1/25 of your genetic material. That is quite a bit. so are you telling me you never noticed your gender? jk

Eh, I guess that came out sounding wrong. What I meant by "stuff we notice" are things that people think about as being human traits, you know, the things they teach you about in genetics in biology. Hair and eye color, height, skin pigmentation, even the entire genetic strain defining your race are all relatively small portions of the makeup as a whole and next to strains defining something common across many species, like, say, gender.

Most of the conserved sequences code for nothing (most of your DNA codes for nothing). These sequences are never translated into proteins. These conserved sequences are a remnant. A remnant of the evolutionary ancestry of diverse species.

That's what they said about tonsils and the appendix, too, but they were wrong. I simply refuse to believe that we have any "spare parts." We found the purposes of the appendix and tonsils, and we'll find out what all that "extra DNA" is for, too. Our DNA knowledge is so rudimentary that you can't take anything the genetic scientists say at face value, anyway. Every time they've tried gene manipulation, it had a seemingly unrelated side effect, such as an experiment they did with rabbits that, in addition to the intended outcome, changes their eye color.

Likewise, at the obverse side of that argument, the same task is accomplished in a variety of different ways among species. That is to say different codes of DNA accomplish the same task or tasks. This is called convergent evolution. An example would be avarian flight and mammalian flight. The same result achieved by quite different genetic means.

Yes, I know about convergent and divergent evolution. What I'm saying is that I think the common DNA strands are there not because of a common heritage, but because all creatures needed these DNA sequences to survive, so God put them there. I have no more evidence to back this up than you have to back up evolution, but that's what I believe.

As for bats and birds, I think God felt there needed to be some variety.

Anyway, I give you proof that not only is there a God, but that He has a sense of humor. Ladies and gentlemen, I present as proof...the platypus.

Anyway, I'm willing to accept that I don't have much evidence to prove the existence of God or creationism. My argument is usually just to show that there isn't really any more evidence of evolution than there is of creationism. I basically just agree to disagree.

 

[Zhukov]

That's what they said about tonsils and the appendix, too, but they were wrong. I simply refuse to believe that we have any "spare parts." We found the purposes of the appendix and tonsils, and we'll find out what all that "extra DNA" is for, too.

It's not the same thing at all. There is a specific sequence of DNA nucleotides before and after every gene that in effect says, "Start translating here" and "Stop translating here." The majority of your DNA lies between the 'Stop' and the 'Start' as opposed to between the 'Start' and the 'Stop'. It is not read by transcription polymerases. It is not transcribed into mRNA. It is not translated into amino acid chains. It is not used. For purposes of ontogenetic development and inter- and intra- cellular metabolic functions, it may as well not be there. These segments are called introns and we've pretty much figured out if all the intron DNA in every cell in your body were removed, it would not affect you in the least.

Our DNA knowledge is so rudimentary that you can't take anything the genetic scientists say at face value, anyway.

I happen to know quite a bit about genetics. Our knowledge is far from rudimentary.

Yes, I know about convergent and divergent evolution. What I'm saying is that I think the common DNA strands are there not because of a common heritage, but because all creatures needed these DNA sequences to survive, so God put them there.

As I said, they aren't required for anything at all. What they do provide is a large canvas on which the mechanisms of natural selection can act with a lower probability of resulting in a lethal mutation. Such a role however would not require these exon segments of DNA be arranged in any specific sequence.

 

[White knight]

This new finding suggest this race of dwarfs lived side by side with man it supports local legends about a race of little people.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=576796

Religious people will always defend their dogma, first they said that the earth was at the center of universe, and then they said that God created the earth and then man, skipping over the dinosaur age. Now they are changing their story so that evolution fits into it.
They claim to have all the answers till proven wrong.

 

[Merlin1047]

Your response to my statement "1. That the universe was created by the explosion of a huge ball of gas. There's no explanation of the origin of that ball of gas, it just happened to be there."

So?

Not going to let you off the hook so easily.

We cannot explain how this alleged "gas cloud" was formed or how it came to exist. We cannot explain how planets precipitated out of the alleged gas cloud explosion. We can only speculate and theorize.

But you want to get by with "So?" and then build the rest of your argument on that shaky foundation. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Your response to my statement "1. That the universe was created by the explosion of a huge ball of gas. There's no explanation of the origin of that ball of gas, it just happened to be there."




Not going to let you off the hook so easily.

We cannot explain how this alleged "gas cloud" was formed or how it came to exist. We cannot explain how planets precipitated out of the alleged gas cloud explosion. We can only speculate and theorize.

But you want to get by with "So?" and then build the rest of your argument on that shaky foundation. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Correct, but absence of proof is not proof of absence, which is the corner of anti-evolutionist arguments, from what I've read and heard.

Theories are the back bone of science. In situations, such as evolution, astronomy, etc we cannot reproduce them, because technically the field of knowledge too large to fit in a lab.

Evolution is "the most likely" cause of our species they way it is. I've never heard a scientist say it was fact. However, it does provide an excellent mechanism that does seem to fit much of the data given.

As a side of abiogenisis and evolution are not related. Evolution makes no comment of the origin of biological life. Nor is evolution contrary to any theistic belief. No where does science ask the question "Why?", nor does it try to.

 

[Zhukov]

Your response to my statement "1. That the universe was created by the explosion of a huge ball of gas. There's no explanation of the origin of that ball of gas, it just happened to be there."




Not going to let you off the hook so easily.

We cannot explain how this alleged "gas cloud" was formed or how it came to exist. We cannot explain how planets precipitated out of the alleged gas cloud explosion. We can only speculate and theorize.

But you want to get by with "So?" and then build the rest of your argument on that shaky foundation. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

No, that's the beginning of your argument as if the biologist's theory of evolution is dependent on the physicist's theory of universal inception. The biologist will not tell you where the universe came from; the physicist does not know about the mechanisms of natural selection. Saying, "we don't know where the Universe came from so man didn't evolve from apes" is illogical. One does not necessarily follow the other.

I'm not building my argument on it, you're building your argument on it. I'm saying, "so we don't know where the Universe came from? So what?"

That has an approximately zero percent impact on the theory of evolution. Therefore you can go on and read my other points if you want.



Besides the theory that the Universe originated from a single infinite-mass zero-volume object is just one of many theories, and not necessarily one every physicist completely agrees with.

Recently I've read about a much more interesting one. One that does not require a 'beginning'.

Also, the process by which matter in the universe coalesced into stars and planets is well understood.

 

[Hobbit]

Oh well, I'm willing to agree to disagree. The whole point is moot, anyhow. I don't pretend to know the mind of God and I really don't care how he put us here. I've got to concentrate on the here and now and trust that I'll find out exactly how we ended up here if I really need to know.

 

[Zhukov]

Well, I never really thought, or hoped, I'd sway you from whatever faith you hold.

I just don't want you to think us scientists are insane. We're not making this stuff up. We're just explaining our findings as we understand them and trying to use our knowledge to help out as best as we can.

 

[Hobbit]

Well, I never really thought, or hoped, I'd sway you from whatever faith you hold.

I just don't want you to think us scientists are insane. We're not making this stuff up. We're just explaining our findings as we understand them and trying to use our knowledge to help out as best as we can.

Oh, I fully understand that, and the conclusions are logical. I have simply chosen to believe in a higher power because I found that belief not only improved my life and my outlook on it, but also seemed more logical to me.

 

[-Cp]

The idea that God created the world and life is often thought to have been disproved by evolutionary theory. Is there any scientific evidence for creation?

The truth is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation. Let me attempt to point out just some of this evidence here. First, the scientific community is now almost unanimous in affirming that the universe had a beginning. This is usually referred to in scientific terms as “The Big Bang Theory.” Of course, this implies that someone or something brought the universe into existence.

Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been “finely tuned” to make life possible. For example, the elementary forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the atom are precisely what they need to be. The earth’s size, distance from the sun, rotational period, composition, and many other factors are all just right. The chances of there being even one planet where all of these factors converge by accident are very slim indeed.

Thirdly, the evidence is mounting that life on earth simply could not and did not come into existence through natural processes in a primordial “soup.” For example, the experiments to prove that it could have happened are suspect because little progress has been made possible due to the ingenious designs on the part of experimenters.

Fourthly, the genetic code of all biological life on earth contains evidence of intelligent design. This is because the genetic code contains information comparable to the information in complex computer programs as well as information in books.

Fifthly, the fossil record continues to be an embarrassment to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The many transitional forms which Darwin predicted would be found simply have not surfaced. This fact has forced evolutionists to modify Darwin’s Theory, often in absurd ways. In short, it is the theory of naturalistic evolution which is in serious trouble scientifically today, while the Biblical teaching of creation never looked better.

 

[-Cp]

In December of 1981 an Arkansas judge ruled that an account of life’s origin which postulates a Divine Creator is not scientific. Well is this judge enlightened or is he dragging us into the dark ages?

It’s true that the Bible shouldn’t be read as merely a scientific textbook. However that doesn’t mean the Bible contradicts science (e.g., Psa. 19:4-6; Rev. 7:1). Fact is, the very foundation of the scientific method is rooted in a biblical worldview. Christianity considers the world to be knowable, observable, descriptive, and above all, orderly because it has a designer of infinite knowledge and wisdom. Based on this premise, early scientists like Kepler, Bacon, and Newton believed that by studying creation, they were obeying not only the great commission, but the cultural mandate to subdue the earth as well. Maybe the best way to put it is to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”

It’s ironic that in an age of scientific enlightenment, skeptics still claim that science deals with what is observable while theology only deals with what is unobservable — especially in light of the fact that we can’t even explain what science is in the first place. Not only this, but much of what is being touted today as science isn’t really observable at all — things like quarks, electromagnetic fields, and even the evolving big bang theory. In fact, if we’re to consider only what is observable to be scientific, we’d still be saying that the earth is flat.

Truth is, God Himself bases his own integrity upon certain scientific premises (e.g., Jer. 31:35-37). For instance: the fact that Christ rose from the dead is testable and verifiable. To prove that he rose bodily, Jesus said to his disciples, see, touch, and eat with me (Luke 24:36-42; John 20:24-31; 1 John 1:1-4).

The point is, the Bible and science are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory — they fit together like hand and glove.

 

[-Cp]

A recent article from Omni magazine stated that evolution was a scientific fact, but creationism was a matter of faith. This is just one of many objections evolutionists postulate against creationism. How should the Christian respond? The CRI Perspective in a moment.

When people tell you that evolution is a proven fact, they are really only appealing to microevolution. Of course there are mutations and adaptation of species, but have we any proof of macroevolution? Can one species transform into an entirely different one? The honest evolutionist must sadly reply “no.” So while you might be able to breed a Chihuahua with a Great Dane and get a new species of dog, you can’t breed two dogs and get a cat, a mouse, or a whale. There is simply no sufficient evidence for macroevolution.

Darwinists claim that science deals with the natural, but creationism deals with the supernatural. But not all scientific endeavors can be explained by natural laws. Belief in the big bang is just one example of this. Many evolutionists fail to make a distinction between operation science and origin science. Operations science generally refers to observational and repeatable events, while origin science deals with nonrepeatable events such as creationism and macroevolution.

Nevertheless, we can construct a scientific model for creationism by combining matter, energy, and information — such as that found in the genetic code — and produce life. This model is both observable and repeatable. Now in order to get programmed information, you need a Designer. Information does not come by random evolution, but from an intelligent Creator.

Once again, the evolutionist might claim that accepting creationism would subordinate science under religion, and cause us to revert back to the Dark Ages. After all, why search for scientific explanations when we could posit a god to fill in all the gaps? But creationism does not seek to undermine operations science, only macroevolution. Therefore, creationism is a viable alternative to Darwinism.

 

[-Cp]

Creation versus Evolution. As the debate rages, there remain those who contend that they can subscribe to modern evolutionary theory and, at the same time, believe in God’s Good News as revealed in the Bible.1 Is this truly possible?

Theistic evolutionists claim that God created man by evolutionary processes, that is man is said to have evolved from lower forms of life. If this were the case, then all life, including man and his presumed ancestors, would have been subject to death throughout history. This is because evolution depends on death to weed out lesser fit organisms to make room for the development and refinement of surviving species. However, the Bible tells us that death came about as a result of sin. If Adam had not eaten of the forbidden fruit, if he had not fallen into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what need is there for redemption? None! What all of this means is that we cannot give up the Genesis account of creation, but we could the doctrine of Geocentrism and get along.

Genesis 3 unmistakably asserts that death overcame man when he transgressed God’s command. Death, according to Scripture, had no hold on man until some later period following his creation. This flies directly in the face of evolutionary theory. Still, theistic evolutionists may try to skirt these passages by regarding the opening portion of Genesis as non-historical. But such recourse can only lead them to even more disastrous avenues. Theistic evolutionists can allegorize Genesis as much as they want, but to do so, they have to contend against Scripture itself. Paul, in such passages as Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, clearly treats the Genesis account in historical terms and he speaks of human death as God’s judgment on sin. It was for this very reason—to answer for God’s punishment for our sin—that Christ died. This is the very heart of the Gospel. Quite frankly, Theistic Evolution, in my opinion, is a contradiction in terms, somewhat like talking about burning snowflakes.

But if human death were not God’s judgment on sin, as theistic evolutionists would have to maintain, what then did Christ die for? Those clinging to evolutionary dogma would have to admit that Jesus lied when He claimed to die for our sins. Consequently, the atonement is robbed of all meaning, while the Gospel is hollowed to an empty shell. In their attempt to fuse evolutionary theory with Scripture, theistic evolutionists only wind up perverting God’s Good News into no news, as we remain dead in our sins.

 

[-Cp]

dang.. I owned it up w/ those posts - I guess none of the Darwin lovers could respond after reading such great logic eh? :spank3:

 

[Zhukov]

I'm just getting to it now, and I haven't the time to read it all. So far I disagree with it completely.

You should indicate where you got it with a link.

 

[Isaac Brock]

dang.. I owned it up w/ those posts - I guess none of the Darwin lovers could respond after reading such great logic eh? :spank3:

I must be blind, but i didn't see one scientific reference that backed up creationist theory.

I did however see a circular argument: Life is too complex to exist without a creator, the conditions were perfect for life, therefore a creator must exist.

Faulty logic: the absence of proof is a proof of absence.

I'm certainly open to different ideas, but there has to be grounds for a case. I see no problem in divine design, but the process in which changes have occurred are well documented. Despite what your articles say, evolution has no point concerning ultimate origins of life, theism, nor intelligent design.