Question regarding Evolution

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Deborah
Senior Member
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Christian: No
Location: Australia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#16

Post by Deborah » Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:12 am

If they asume that first life was always there, then why can't they see the possability that the first life was the living god? and why do they bring theories in to attempt to tear down laws of science that hold the Elolution theory up? :roll:

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9951
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 634 times
Been liked: 652 times

Re: Question regarding Evolution

#17

Post by Kurieuo » Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:31 am

IWD wrote:Could someone explain if this theory is actually viable? I'm split on the matter and I'm trying to make up my mind. The concept behind it is quite logical, yet I don't know. The bible says otherwise.
Hinges on what you mean by "viable," and this "theory" that is "evolution."

So what do you mean by viable? If you mean logical, then lots of things are logical, but not everything logical is real. In this sense, many theories of evolution would perhaps be viable, but it remains to be seen whether any are true.

With regards to theory, I believe it is rather "theories." Now which theory of evolution are you asking about being viable? What evolutionary mechanisms would you advocate for 1) change; and 2) increase in information.

As for what the Bible says... this has no impact upon the validity of evolutionary theories themselves, so I'm not sure why you're trying to make this the focus of why one would deny certain theories of evolution.

Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

User avatar
bizzt
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:11 pm
Christian: No
Location: Calgary
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#18

Post by bizzt » Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:05 pm

IWD wrote:Tim, a couple things.

Contradiction of the scriptures does not, in any way, prove evolution wrong.

You answered your question regarding animal hair. Evolution. Natural selection favours hair growth. Simple as that. "Animals Hair Grows to a certain length and then stops." You mean like the hair on our arms, chests and legs?

Why are cats able to see in the dark? Because their environment demanded that better nightvision pass on to the next generation. They also possess a tapetum lucidum, a shining mirror-like layer of cells within the retina. In fact, many nocturnal animals have something like this.

Survival of the fittest was a term brought on by Darwin's cousin. Eventually it was adopted by the National Socialists for their propaganda machine. Survival of the fittest . As for making us better. There is no better, there is no goal.
No one to this day knows why our Hair on our "Head" Grows Long. There is no specie that has that capability (From what I understand). It is only in humans. That is all I was getting at :wink:

User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#19

Post by August » Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:20 pm

Deb, I don't think that the biological evolutionists even think along those lines. Their area of expertise is narrow, so they simply don't consider the origin of life as necessary to study their speciality.

I'm not sure I understand the 2nd part of your question, can you perhaps give an example?

User avatar
Deborah
Senior Member
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Christian: No
Location: Australia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#20

Post by Deborah » Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:39 pm

August wrote:Deb, I don't think that the biological evolutionists even think along those lines. Their area of expertise is narrow, so they simply don't consider the origin of life as necessary to study their speciality.

I'm not sure I understand the 2nd part of your question, can you perhaps give an example?
Firstly do me a favour please, My name is Deborah, silly really but when I was known as Deb or Debbie I was pretty emotiaonally and mentally ill. I would like to forget that time, that is why I call myself Deborah, it's a new start for me :lol: I hope you understand :oops:

ok they bring theories, theory of abiogenesis being that spontaneous generation could arise from non living matter.
against the law of Biogenisis that says that life must come from life, it can not come from something dead.

Now both Evolution and Creation are theories are they not? (according to science) Creation has a law to support it, but they support Evolution with a theory.

User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#21

Post by August » Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:51 pm

My humble apologies, Deborah. Did not mean to offend you, and we are with you on the new start.

Scientists argue that something arising from nothing, ie a supernatural or metaphysical explanation for life is not science, since a supernatural mechanism cannot be observed, falsified or predicted. Creationism is therefore in scientific terms not a theory such as the ToE, but a hypothesis, which under current conditions will never become scientific theory, unless we start finding cells with "Made by Yahweh" stamped on them. The ToE is full of holes, but this has not stopped some scientists having blind faith in it.

When you say creation has a law to support it, what do you mean?

User avatar
Deborah
Senior Member
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Christian: No
Location: Australia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#22

Post by Deborah » Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:00 pm

August wrote:My humble apologies, Deborah. Did not mean to offend you, and we are with you on the new start.

Scientists argue that something arising from nothing, ie a supernatural or metaphysical explanation for life is not science, since a supernatural mechanism cannot be observed, falsified or predicted. Creationism is therefore in scientific terms not a theory such as the ToE, but a hypothesis, which under current conditions will never become scientific theory, unless we start finding cells with "Made by Yahweh" stamped on them. The ToE is full of holes, but this has not stopped some scientists having blind faith in it.

When you say creation has a law to support it, what do you mean?
You did not offend me :lol:
the law of biogenisis says life comes from life, this does not prove but it does support the possability of creation because as Christians we believe that life came from the living god, do we not ?

User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#23

Post by August » Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:08 pm

What we as Christians believe does not really qualify as the same as a scientific law, in their eyes, since there is no empirical evidence or observations that would show the existence of God. This is why they are so scared of ID, since evidence of design may lead to an acknowledgment of the existence of a designer.

This is also the reason that they exclude the origins of life from the ToE, it would require them to explain the origin of life from naturalist causes, which right now can't be done.

User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#24

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:10 pm

Why are cats able to see in the dark? Because their environment demanded that better nightvision pass on to the next generation. They also possess a tapetum lucidum, a shining mirror-like layer of cells within the retina. In fact, many nocturnal animals have something like this.
They were designed that way? LOL. Evolution would probably argue that the ones with this ability lived and the ones without died-but then comes the question, how did a process understand something that has an entire branch of science studying it? (We're about to hit optics in physics, and it is complex stuff-randomness doesn't discover scientific facts and use them).

and why do they bring theories in to attempt to tear down laws of science that hold the Elolution theory up?
Isn't it the other way around? LOL. Laws of science refulte evolution.
Scientists argue that something arising from nothing, ie a supernatural or metaphysical explanation for life is not science, since a supernatural mechanism cannot be observed, falsified or predicted. Creationism is therefore in scientific terms not a theory such as the ToE, but a hypothesis, which under current conditions will never become scientific theory, unless we start finding cells with "Made by Yahweh" stamped on them. The ToE is full of holes, but this has not stopped some scientists having blind faith in it.

creationism, evolution, and even the middle man of theistic evolution (ToE right?) are on the same level. You can't falsify or prove either. When you ask an evolutionist for proof of evolution, he will hide behind the statement "it takes millions of years" I wish everyone would realize they are all outside the realms of science....as well as psychology and sociology, wonderful pseudosciences (they can do good, but they are not sciences)

User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#25

Post by August » Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:14 pm

creationism, evolution, and even the middle man of theistic evolution (ToE right?) are on the same level. You can't falsify or prove either. When you ask an evolutionist for proof of evolution, he will hide behind the statement "it takes millions of years" I wish everyone would realize they are all outside the realms of science....as well as psychology and sociology, wonderful pseudosciences (they can do good, but they are not sciences)
Sorry for the confusion, ToE is the Theory of Evolution. And you are right, if there was any certainty the scientific community would have renamed it the Law of Evolution.

User avatar
Deborah
Senior Member
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Christian: No
Location: Australia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#26

Post by Deborah » Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:18 pm

August wrote:What we as Christians believe does not really qualify as the same as a scientific law, in their eyes, since there is no empirical evidence or observations that would show the existence of God. This is why they are so scared of ID, since evidence of design may lead to an acknowledgment of the existence of a designer.

This is also the reason that they exclude the origins of life from the ToE, it would require them to explain the origin of life from naturalist causes, which right now can't be done.
all I am saying is for us our belief is supported for us by this law, it's a possability, our faith takes over from their.
How can they expect Evolution to be taken serriously when they skip over the most important part, the first life, micro evolution exists, but their theory will remain a theory untill they prove macro evolution, and by that they have to prove where first life came from.

ok I feel like I am waffling, and not saying really what I want to say, but sometimes is is hard to explain myself. :oops:

User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#27

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:20 pm

Actually, many evolutionists call evolution a fact, and teach it as such. There is internal struggle, probably, between groups of evolutionists. Carl Sagan, long dead, has some pretty stupid explanations for things that contradict evolution (like he says that early primates gave us their memories of dinosaurs, to explain away tribes of people drawing dinosaurs and so many cultures having dragons in stories, and even rescent dinosaur storeis (Arizona, late 1800's even where two rednecks shot one up). Gould, though, is an interesting guy. It's almost like he's playing Devil's advocate. He says he believes in evolution, but in many things I've heard, he goes, "I believe in evolution, but why is it do I find or see this, which contradicts it?"

User avatar
Deborah
Senior Member
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Christian: No
Location: Australia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#28

Post by Deborah » Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:25 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Actually, many evolutionists call evolution a fact, and teach it as such. There is internal struggle, probably, between groups of evolutionists. Carl Sagan, long dead, has some pretty stupid explanations for things that contradict evolution (like he says that early primates gave us their memories of dinosaurs, to explain away tribes of people drawing dinosaurs and so many cultures having dragons in stories, and even rescent dinosaur storeis (Arizona, late 1800's even where two rednecks shot one up). Gould, though, is an interesting guy. It's almost like he's playing Devil's advocate. He says he believes in evolution, but in many things I've heard, he goes, "I believe in evolution, but why is it do I find or see this, which contradicts it?"
yes and my son was taught Evolution as a fact :cry:
and we can't get him to come with us to church because of it.
Evolution should not been taught in schools as anything more than a theory.

User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#29

Post by August » Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:29 pm

Of course evolutionary scientists call it fact, because they don't want to look like idiots by saying that it is merely a scientific theory, and not a scientific law like the laws of thermodynamics or gravity. They attempt to explain everything by naturalist causes, and are great at coming up with 'just so' statements which they claim will be verified once this or that piece of evidence is uncovered. Problem is, the evidence always causes them to have to change the theory, which is way too inconsistent for it to become fact.

User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#30

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:36 pm

That is sad...because after a while of brainwashing, you become closed minded towards anything but evolution-I was for a while....yet somehow believed a God still possible. Don't know what to say-but show him some of the many things that prove evolution is far from fact, and pretty much fiction. Prayer works wonders too, because we don't all come to Christ through reason-I stopped believing in evolution instantly. I just looked at another page in my biology book, and blam. Other people though, are worked on by God Himself. The Holy Spirit can break down the most hardened hearts. Calvin said that when he was converted, it must have been the Holy Spirit because his heart was so hard. A communist, whose name I have of course forgotten, in the same way, looking at his child one day, was taken hold of by the Holy Spirit.

Post Reply