|
0104031158 – wblastyn said: "Genesis only says creation was "good" not perfect.
Instead of telling God how He should have created, look at how He did
create (evolution)."
Perhaps, but if our God, the omnipotent God of the Bible is perfect in
every aspect, would His creation be a reflection of His perfection? Of
course from reality we see the opposite a world torn by death and
suffering. It was a beautiful world once, the beauty we see today is only
a remnant of its former glory. In essence I am not telling God what He
did, He has told me what He did in His book and am merely citing His own
words. Remember God is not a God limited to our naturalistic laws. He is a
"supernatural" being and is capable of anything He pleases. I think what
we as believers often have done is take our doubt of the existence of such
an omnipotent being and have reduced the almighty God to a mere ogre like
god who enjoys seeing his creation suffer and die. Rather let your faith
rationalize God to be who He really is, a God of infinite Love and Mercy.
"Well there are the conflicting creation accounts,
the figurative language, the evidence from creation against literal
Genesis, etc. If you're looking for a direct "and God used evolution to
create..." there is none, although it does say God formed life from the
ocean, which could support abiogenesis. But I could show you scripture
that says the earth is immovable and sits on pillars. The Bible is not a
science book."
But note that these are all theories by fallible man, even a sinner such
as my self realize that. We cannot accept things by men to be infallible,
because after all man is a fallen god in his own sense. Man was made in
the image of God, and therefore a child of God, not in the image of apes.
Of course it is not a science textbook, it was never meant to be. It is
however God's revelation to man of who He is and what He had done, not how
it was done. Look, if God told us everything would we be able to
comprehend what He will say let alone be contained in only one volume? You
must realize that His thoughts are not like our thoughts and His ways not
ours.
"Yes, but I don't understand why that couldn't have
come about by evolution."
Your not seeing the whole picture here, even atheists know more about
Christianity than most Christians in that if they destroy the foundation
of a literal creation the rest of the Bible is also destroyed. Let me
explain, naturalistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory, it is a
whole way of thinking. It is grounded on the philosophical assumption that
all matter whether living or no living exists in a continuum where the non
living becomes the living and the living returns to the non living.
As Christians we know that design demands a designer. However in order to
understand the reasoning of naturalistic evolution we must examine the
philosophical reasoning behind evolution. Before evolutionist there were
the materialists. Materialists such as the Greek philosophers Epicures,
Socrates etc. believed that matter exists in a continuum. The belief is
that there is a continuity in all nature, that is to say that there is a
continual cycle without breaks from the inorganic to the organic. The
reason for this belief is that they saw very little that pointed to an
intelligent designer. This basic argument has been more or less
revitalized in the modern ToE but only based on assumptions of that is
seen as occurring in the natural world - primarily that of speciation.
The point I am making here is that the reasoning behind Darwin was that he
was out to remove the influence of anything and everything that was of the
supernatural in science. He wanted all science to be concerned only with
matter and nothing else. Yes, at first Darwin believed in a god of some
sort, but after the death of his daughter, he removed all thoughts of a
god because He could not accept a god who would allow pain, suffering, and
death to exist - if that god was the omnipotent god that he claims he is.
"That's abiogenesis, and it's not entirely random,
molecules arrange themselves in specific patterns. How are speciation and
evolution different?"
Yes it isn't entirely random but it is inherently a blind process which
yields to no surprise - no life. That is from observations and repeated
tests within the last half century or so. The few amino acids produced in
experiments did not amount to any life.
"But there is no magical barrier that stops a species from becoming
something else. The species could change so much that it could no longer
mate with the original to produce fertile offspring, which is when it is
labeled a new species I think. We don't actually know what "kinds" are."
Yes, species can change, but that is not what is being disagreed on. It is
how one kind can change into another kind. The so called shared genetic
similarities claimed as proof of evolution holds little truth - all merely
speculations. Could it not be that similarities are the result that there
was only one designer who used a basic functional efficient design in the
different kinds? Much like a car design, the basic underlying structure
remain consistently similar and yet look at the variety of differences. Can
I prove that to your satisfaction? Perhaps not, but it makes logical
sense.
"Mutations can add new genetic info, bacteria are
becoming resistant to antibiotics, that is new information added to their
genome."
I'm not a geneticist so I can't argue with you that it does or does not.
But if you start with the premise that evolution is true then of course it
will show that it shows proof for evolution. However you need to also
realize that there is no known process in nature where NEW genetic
information is created due to environmental adaptation. Could it not be
that the loss of genetic information that allows the organism to
synthesize enzymes which allow it to break down the antibiotic to make it
harmful is missing. And therefore the ability not to break down the
antibodies allows those that are not able to produce the enzymes to live
on to reproduce while the others are killed off. This has been documented
as happening to the H. pylori bacteria which is said to cause stomach
ulcers.
0104031258 - wblastyn said: "Abiogenesis is not the foundation of evolution, God
could have created the first single celled life forms by "magic" and
allowed them to evolve (which is kind of what Augustine believed),
although I don't believe God did it that way either, but you never know.
What I'm trying to say is, if abiogenesis was falsified it would not
effect evolution."
Your arguing from incredulity of scripture. Perhaps it won't be falsified,
but I have said too often it isn't because of the amount of evidence but
it is sin that keeps us from the Truth of God's word.
"If you look in the other forum scientists have been
able to produce protocells in the lab, which fit the definition of life.
See the post "Protocell Redux" by Lucaspa."
Scientists = mortal intelligence It wasn't a blind process as evolution
claims it was, was it? It humors me that scientists work so hard to
produce life from existing life that they can make such a bold claim that
life arose by chance when they themselves were intensely involved in the
process. Now how much more can an omniscient God could have done compared
to a mere mortal? Forgive them Lord for they know not what they say.
"Why is abiogenesis impossible?"
First of all biochemistry and probabilities tell us that it can't. But I
am not a mathematician nor am I a biochemist, but I will do my best to
provide an answer. Note: I am simply citing works written by fallible men
so if you disagree it is not me you are disagreeing with.
Dr. Sidney Fox and
Dr. Stanley Miller (evolutionists of course) were among the first
scientists who attempted to prove abiogenesis. They designed a Pyrex
apparatus containing methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no oxygen and
passed through the mixture electricity to simulate lightning strikes. What
did they managed to create? No life, but the process did combine the
mixture to form amino acids which are the building blocks of life. Does
this prove that life could eventually have arisen in some soup struck by
lightning? No! The results actually weakened the case for life emerging by
this method. The mixture of amino acids and other simple chemicals
produced was not sufficient for producing life. Why? Because all life that
we know today consists of amino acids that are exclusively of the
"left-handed" form.
There is no known
life that can use a combination of both "right-handed" and "left-handed"
amino acids. Adding even one "right-handed" amino acid to a chain of
"left-handed" amino acids can and will destroy the entire chain. When
amino acids are synthesized in the laboratory, there is always a 50%
mixture of the two forms. Only through highly advanced, intelligently
controlled processes can these two forms be separated.
One chemist has
calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the
necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be
more than 1 in 10^67 against even a small protein forming – by time and
chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and
given up to 100 billion years (many times longer than the assumed age of
the earth). What do mathematicians generally agree about such odds? That,
statistically speaking, any odds beyond 1 in 10^50 have a zero probability of ever happening. Imagine that!
References:
Fox, Sidney W. editor, The Origin of Prebiological Systems and of Their
Molecular Matrices (New York: Academic Press, 1965).
Miller, Stanley L.
"A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions,"
Science, Vol. 117, No. 3046 (1953), pp. 528-529.
Wilder-Smith,
Arthur E. The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Santee,
California: Master Books, 1981).
Erbrich, Paul "On
the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function,"
Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 34 (1985), pp. 53-80
"Perhaps, but if our God, the omnipotent God of the
Bible is perfect in every aspect, would His creation be a reflection of
His perfection? Of course from reality we see the opposite a world torn by
death and suffering. It was a beautiful world once, the beauty we see
today is only a remnant of its former glory. In essence I am not telling
God what He did, He has told me what He did in His book and am merely
citing His own words. Remember God is not a God limited to our
naturalistic laws. He is a "supernatural" being and is capable of anything
He pleases. I think what we as believers often have done is take our doubt
of the existence of such an omnipotent being and have reduced the almighty
God to a a mere ogre like god who enjoys seeing his creation suffer and
die. Rather let your faith rationalize God to be who He really is, a God
of infinite Love and Mercy."
0104032207 - wblastyn: If God zapped everything into existence in their
full form then why do humans have the information for tails in their
genome, bats have eyes, snakes have pelvises, etc? That seems like a
pretty huge mistake, unless of course God used evolution, which expects
there to be leftovers from more primitive species.
"But note that these are all theories by fallible
man, even a sinner such as myself realize that. We cannot accept things by
men to be infallible, because after all man is a fallen god in his own
sense. Man was made in the image of God, and therefore a child of God, not
in the image of apes. Of course it is not a science textbook, it was never
meant to be. It is however God's revelation to man of who He is and what
He had done, not how it was done. Look, if God told us everything would we
be able to comprehend what He will say let alone be contained in only one
volume? You must realize that His thoughts are not like our thoughts and
His ways not ours."
So you believe God is a human since you think we are
created in God's physical image? God is Spirit, therefore we are created
in the image of God spiritually. That is why I think Genesis is allegory, because the
ancient Hebrews would not have understood evolution, they would not even
have had a basic understanding of our modern science.
"Your not seeing the whole picture here, even
atheists know more about Christianity than most Christians in that if they
destroy the foundation of a literal creation the rest of the Bible is also
destroyed. Let me explain, naturalistic evolution is not merely a
scientific theory, it is a whole way of thinking. It is grounded on the
philosophical assumption that all matter whether living or no living
exists in a continuum where the non living become the living and the
living returns to the non living."
What doctrine rests on God zapping everything into
existence in 6 days? The way I see Genesis is that it tells us God created
everything, man sinned and fell from God, man needs savior, God promises
to provide savior. I see science as finding out HOW God created. Evolution is a process of nature, it is no more a
philosophy than gravity.
"As Christians we know that design demands a
designer. However in order to understand the reasoning of naturalistic
evolution we must examine the philosophical reasoning behind evolution.
Before evolutionist there were the materialists. Materialists such as the
Greek philosophers Epicures, Socrates etc. believed that matter exists in
a continuum. The belief is that there is a continuity in all nature, that
is to say that there is a continual cycle without breaks from the
inorganic to the organic. The reason for this belief is that they saw very
little that pointed to an intelligent designer. This basic argument has
been more or less revitalized in the modern ToE but only based on
assumptions of that is seen as occurring in the natural world - primarily
that of speciation."
Natural Selection is the designer, but God is the
ultimate designer. Natural Selection is like a computer program made by
God to do the work for Him, so He can take pleasure in watching His
creation grow into something that can be in His image (spiritually).
"The point I am making here is that the reasoning
behind Darwin was that he was out to remove the influence of anything and
everything that was of the supernatural in science. He wanted all science
to be concerned only with matter and nothing else. Yes, at first Darwin
believed in a god of some sort, but after the death of his daughter, he
removed all thoughts of a god because He could not accept a god who would
allow pain, suffering, and death to exist - if that god was the omnipotent
god that he claims he is."
Supernatural is not allowed in science because it
cannot be tested, observed or falsified.
"Yes it isn't entirely random but it is inherently a
blind process which yields to no surprise - no life. That is from
observations and repeated tests within the last half century or so. The
few amino acids produced in experiments did not amount to any life."
Go search for "Protocells Redux" in the other
science forum, it has evidence for protocells being created in the lab,
which fit the definition of life.
"Yes, species can change, but that is not what is
being disagreed on. It is how one kind can change into another kind. The
so called shared genetic similarities claimed as proof of evolution holds
little truth - all merely speculations. Could it not be that similarities
are the result that there was only one designer who used a basic
functional efficient design in the different kinds? Much like a car
design, the basic underlying structure remain consistently similar and yet
look at the variety of differences. Can I prove that to your satisfaction?
Perhaps not, but it makes logical sense."
What is a kind? What is there to stop something
becoming another "kind"?
0204031736 -wblastyn said: "If God zapped everything into existence in their
full form then why do humans have the information for tails in their
genome, bats have eyes, snakes have pelvises, etc? That seems like a
pretty huge mistake, unless of course God used evolution, which expects
there to be leftovers from more primitive species."
By left over, you mean vestigial organs right? I think that has been
addressed and discarded years ago. The snake pelvis, "And the LORD God
said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above
all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou
go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:" Gen 3:14 [KJV]
Don’t know of any genome for tails in humans, assuming there are then God
must have been apelike, because He did create man in his own image. Bats
have eyes, imagine that, so do dolphins, and sperm whales.
"So you believe God is a human since you think we
are created in God's physical image? God is Spirit, therefore we are
created in the image of God spiritually.
Human likeness but not mortal. Clarify “spiritual” image. That is why I
think Genesis is allegory, because the ancient Hebrews would not have
understood evolution, they would not even have had a basic understanding
of our modern science."
I think your not getting the message, if the creation was allegory – was
the virgin birth of Christ also allegory, or the miracles that Christ
performed or His death and resurrection? The Jews would not have cared
about evolution because they knew God for who He claims to be because they
believed in what He said He had done as Truth.
"What doctrine rests on God zapping everything into
existence in 6 days? The way I see Genesis is that it tells us God created
everything, man sinned and fell from God, man needs savior, God promises
to provide savior. I see science as finding out HOW God created."
I think God could of done it in mere fractions of a second if He wanted to
- we are talking about the almighty God of the Bible here right? He
created in six days and rested on the seventh, gee where did the seven day
week come from I wonder? I see science as simply the study of God's
creation.
"Evolution is a process of nature, it is no more a
philosophy than gravity."
Not its not, it is "junk science" as someone called it in another thread.
It explains little if anything about what is actually observed. And
benefits little of the other real sciences. Who really uses evolution to
engineer a plane, build a rocket, synthesize new polymers, or new drugs
for that matter?
"Natural Selection is the designer, but God is the
ultimate designer. Natural Selection is like a computer program made by
God to do the work for Him, so He can take pleasure in watching His
creation grow into something that can be in His image (spiritually)."
Natural selection
is has little to do with designing anything, because new genes are not
added in any known kind of animal today only existing ones are reshuffled.
"Supernatural is not allowed in science because it cannot be tested,
observed or falsified."
So why then
believe in the supernatural if it can't be tested, observed or falsified?
"Go search for "Protocells Redux" in the other
science forum, it has evidence for protocells being created in the lab,
which fit the definition of life."
It's probably
something I haven't seen before.
"What is a kind? What is there to stop something
becoming another "kind"?"
The bible tells us
that God created everything to reproduce after their “kind”. I am only
speculating - just like evolutionists – that there may have been only a
male and female of each kind created with the maximum amount of genetic
material in order to populate the earth as God commanded. That is why when
dogs breed they produce their own kind and cats – cats. The laws of nature
God has put in place prevents this. If evolution is an continual process
where a kind can eventually become another kind shouldn’t it be occurring
still - like a reptile with feathers or a bird with scales?
"The gene was created from duplicated—and hence
dispensable—copies of the genes for annexin X (AnnX) and the cytoplasmic
dynein intermediate chain (Cdic). Three large deletions led to the fusion
of the duplicated genes, whereupon a series of smaller deletions and
nucleotide substitutions fashioned a new amino end of the Sdic polypeptide
and created motifs characteristic of known axonemal dynein intermediate
chains. The regulatory region of Sdic,including a spermatocyte-specific
promoter element, also evolved from AnnX and Cdic sequences"
(Chromosomal Effects of Rapid Gene Evolution in Drosophila melanogaster,
Dmitry Nurminsky, Daniel De Aguiar,Carlos D. Bustamante, Daniel L. Hartl,
SCIENCE VOL 291 5 JANUARY 2001)
The above example is from
www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000087.html
It shows info can be added to the genome."
No, it shows you can cut and paste. I can cite research that says other
wise, but I won't get reduced to simply regurgitating information from
fallible men, you need to explain to me in your own words how it occurs so
that I and others can understand.
I think I know more about evolution then I want to know. From my own
experiments abiogenesis does not work - you simply need to do your own
experiments instead of relying on biased research that use technical
jargon most lay person could careless about. I think we can simply throw
information back and forth until the cows come home and won't get
anywhere, it seems you have been evolutionized.
0204031913 - troodon said:
"Oh baby, here we go. (Note: much information
gathered from here:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
"
What makes you think we are going anywhere? Ah! talkorigins - just a lot of
talk if you ask me (and not very origin-al either).
"Like I
said, the hands of early birds are much closer to those of predatory
dinosaurs. Here's a comparison:"
Like who said? (earthly credentials would suffice)
(img) missing link seems to be missing
(/img)
"A is Ornitholestes, a Jurassic theropod dinosaur; B
is Archaeopteryx; C is Sinornis, a primitive bird from the Early
Cretaceous; D is the wing of a modern chicken.
The second transition I'll show is between reptiles
and mammals. According to Talkorigins, embryological studies show that
homologeous bones in mammalian and reptilian fetuses eventually diverge to
form ear bones in mammals and the lower jaw in reptiles. This can be seen
in the fossil record rather well (I was actually quite amazed how well).
Talk a look at this diagram:"
Do like wise as with the above.
Are these free drawing lessons?
Because that person who drew these pictures really need some?
(img) sorry another missing link
(/img)
"This shows much more specifically how these bones
changed in form and function. Quite coincidental how they are all in the
right order in accordance with the 'evolutionist timeline', eh?"
Yeah very coincidental, makes no sense at all does it, unless have you
ever thought - God made each one like that.
"By the way, if anyone wants the keys to these
diagrams I'm posting I'll be happy to post them right alongside, for now
I'll only describe them so that you get the idea as to what they show."
Won't be anything I haven't seen before.
"The next sequence on my list (because it's next on
talkorigin's list) is that between apes and humans. I very nice picture
can be seen here:"
Wow imagine that! A photograph right? So tell me are there any half
humans/ half apes that I can get a photograph of?
"(Note: I feel like pointing out here that the
genetic differences between two animals normally described as being in the
same kind, are often greater than the differences between humans and
chimps. Check this thread out
www.christianforums.com/threads/40852.html
www.christianforums.com/threads/40852.html"
Did that - was linked to more
missing links that are still missing.
"Personally, I grow tired of people claiming that
transitional fossils are "missing". The conditions that must exist for
animals to not only be fossilized but also survive for X million years are
so rare that I should thank God more often that he has gifted us with so
many examples to show you guys. Oye, that's enough for now. I hope you
enjoy my list, feel free to ask any questions; I'll do my best to answer
them."
And so it appears you too have been duped by the lie of evolution. I will
pray for you troodon that you will see the truth of God as I have. For I
too was a theistic evolutionist until the HS shown me that God is a God of
infinite love and not a cruel creator as we have reduced Him to be.
You and I arrived on earth only recently. Civilizations, language and life
as we see it already existed. What we know is taught to us by others -
table manners, history, origins, and hope. Each person’s life touches
another, learning, teaching, inspiring and passing on what knowledge we
may have acquired until we return to the dust from which God made us -
leaving all earthly things. Slowly, inevitably things will get dusty and
forgotten or rewritten or lost - The word of God, His infinite love and
His truth will always remain. The truth of God will not cease to
be true because we do not choose to believe in it.
"Edit: for some reason, I couldn't post nearly as
many pictures as I wanted but I did what ones I could."
Really, could it be that they are missing links?
Disclaimer: Don't take my responses too seriously, I am not
attacking you, but rather at what you are regurgitating as undisputed
fact.
Silly evolutionists, myths are for kids!
To God be the glory!
"By left over, you mean vestigial organs right? I
think that has been addressed and discarded years ago. The snake pelvis,
"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou
art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy
belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
Gen 3:14 [KJV] Don’t know of any genome for tails in humans, assuming
there are then God must have been apelike, because He did create man in
his own image. Bats have eyes, imagine that, so do dolphins, and sperm
whales."
0204032319 - wblastyn said: No they haven't. Explain why God would put the
information for a tail in the human genome, then suppress it with more
genes? People have been known to be born with tails due to a mutation than
causes the tail gene to be switches on. Bats are blind, therefore have no
use for eyes.
Here are some vestigial organs, and there's even a
picture of a human with a tail:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/com...ogical_vestiges
So you believe God is a human? The Bible says God is
Spirit, therefore we were made in His image SPIRITUALLY, not physically,
otherwise God would be a man.
"Human likeness but not mortal. Clarify “spiritual”
image."
Well His triune nature, we are spirit body and mind.
"I think your not getting the message, if the
creation was allegory – was the virgin birth of Christ also allegory, or
the miracles that Christ performed or His death and resurrection? The Jews
would not have cared about evolution because they knew God for who He is
and in what He said to them as being the Truth."
No, because the Gospels are written as eye-witness
accounts of events that real people actually saw happening, whereas
Genesis is written with mythological language, and is a poem/song in the
original Hebrew, Jews sing it in the synagogue.
"I think God could of done it in mere fractions of a
second if He wanted to - we are talking about the almighty God of the
Bible here right? He created in six days and rested on the seventh, gee
where did the seven day week come from I wonder? I see science as simply
the study of God's creation."
Good, and science has discovered evolution.
"No its not, it is "junk science" as someone called
it in another thread. It explains little if anything about what is
actually observed. And benefits little of the other real sciences. Who
really uses evolution to engineer a plane, build a rocket, synthesize new
polymers, or new drugs for that matter?"
No it isn't, you just think that because you don't
like it. It has been observed, you should do some real research on it
rather than reading creationist sites. I recommend here:
www.talkorigins.org
Evolution is used in medicine, it predicts that
species that are closer in the evolutionary line will react the same way
to drugs, which is why drugs are tested on rats (monkeys and dogs/cats are
too expensive).
"Natural selection is has little to do with
designing anything, because new genes are not added in any known kind of
animal today only existing ones are reshuffled."
No, it actually has. Natural Selection selects which
genes will give the organism an advantage of survival and preserves it,
which helps design the organism.
"So why then believe in the supernatural if it can't
be tested, observed or falsified? "
Because
of my own personal experience, and faith.
"It's probably something I haven't seen before."
I'm fairly certain your creationist sites would not
have extensive information on the evidence for abiogenesis. I used to be a
creationist so I've already read AiG, Dr Dino, etc. They are
pseudo-science and I rather stick to real science.
No, it shows you can cut and paste. I can cite
research that says other wise, but I won't get reduced to simply
regurgitating information from fallible men, you need to explain to me in
your own words how it occurs so that I and others can understand."
I think I know more about evolution then I want to
know. From my own experiments abiogenesis does not work - you simply need
to do your own experiments instead of relying on biased research that use
technical jargon most lay person could careless about. I think we can
simply throw information back and forth until the cows come home and won't
get anywhere."
Oh ok, just let me get my phd in biochemistry first.
Silly evolutionists, myths are for kids!
There's another irony meter up in smoke, as they
like to say here.
You've just proven, like most other creationists,
you aren't interested in finding the truth, all you do is spout empty
rhetoric and ignore the evidence. (Eagerly awaits the "what evidence?
There is no evidence!")
Btw, here is some information on genes and
mutations:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html
0304031508 - wblastyn said:
"No,
because the Gospels are written as eye-witness accounts of events that
real people actually saw happening, whereas Genesis is written with
mythological language, and is a poem/song in the original Hebrew, Jews
sing it in the synagogue."
Believe what you will of the scriptures, as I have said Christians should
not squabble over such things as long as you acknowledge that JC is your
Lord and Savior I have no quarrels with what ever else you believe -
whether it be that you believe your ancestors to be apes or not is matters
not to me. As I have said to FoC, we each must walk our own faith and live
our own lives for we will ultimately die our own deaths.
"Good,
and science has discovered evolution."
Evolution is a dying theory, as I have heard said
once that it would have been abandoned long ago if it not be for the love
of fairytales.
"No it isn't, you just think that because you don't
like it. It has been observed, you should do some real research on it
rather than reading creationist sites. I recommend here:"
Talkorigins is a lot of talk and no origin-ality - almost everything on
the site have been said elsewhere. Instead of giving me just links to such
a biased site why not do your own research and form your own conclusions?
"Evolution is used in medicine, it predicts that
species that are closer in the evolutionary line will react the same way
to drugs, which is why drugs are tested on rats (monkeys and dogs/cats are
too expensive)."
Really, is this from personal experience or was it taken from talkorigins?
I could attest that a pharmacologist who has worked in his field for over
50 years mentions nothing about evolution in his technical journals.
"No, it actually has. Natural Selection selects
which genes will give the organism an advantage of survival and preserves
it, which helps design the organism."
Perhaps your version of science, but not the science that I work with
everyday. You know I think you would be scoffed at by die hard
evolutionists such as Eugenie Scott who said: “I guess my religious
background is liberal Protestant. Currently, I would describe myself as a
humanist or a nontheist. I have found that the most effective allies for
evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward
collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day! …What we
[such clergy and atheists] have in common is that we want to see evolution
taught in the public schools ... "
"Because of my own personal experience, and faith."
Faith manifests in many forms including in false theories and doctrines,
yours obviously is in evolution over scripture.
"I'm fairly certain your creationist sites would not
have extensive information on the evidence for abiogenesis. I used to be a
creationist so I've already read AiG, Dr Dino, etc. They are
pseudo-science and I rather stick to real science."
As you have seen in my posts, I neither support nor do I endorse any site.
I endorse first and foremost the inspired word of God neither adding nor
taking away but meditating and reading day and night and am only saying
what God has revealed to me and through those who have committed there
lives to JC.
"Oh ok, just let me get my phd in biochemistry
first."
You do that. But it still won't help for you seek mere wisdom from men,
for true wisdom is of the Lord and those who earnestly seek God first are
the more wiser in His eyes.
"There's another irony meter up in smoke, as they
like to say here."
That’s a new one. I’ll have to remember that.
"You've just proven, like most other creationists,
you aren't interested in finding the truth, all you do is spout empty
rhetoric and ignore the evidence. (Eagerly awaits the "what evidence?
There is no evidence!")"
Could it be that I have found the Truth? And it is that God created
everything exactly as it is written. Because evidence brought forward by
any fallible man is grounds for disbelief and scrutiny, even from God
himself would not be sufficient, but God is a God of infinite mercy and
patience, He will bring His wrath in His time on those who are leading His
flock astray. For it is written "He that is not with me is against me; and
he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30.
It has been said that there is nothing new under the sun - you can have
evidence to the moon and it does not matter - evidence cannot bring you to
faith for it is faith that allows you to understand evidence. You need to
be right with God before He will show you the truth - for I sense anger
and a heavy heart in you my brother, cast out your doubt in the Lord our
God and your eyes will be opened as mines have been.
"Btw, here is some information on genes and
mutations:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html
Please spare me the links, save them for those gullible enough to be
easily duped. I have had my share of die hard evolutionary atheistic sites
- and besides such readings bore the hell out of me and is blasphemous to
God. It has been more or less a dubious attempt to lead the stray back to
the truth of God. It is not my intention to create bitterness between us
but to point others back on the right way but to point out that there are
dark forces at work here in spreading the lie of evolution and not just
who can regurgitate the most evidence.
The bottom line here is that evolution is not just a faulty theory it is a
belief system - origins without God, life without meaning and purpose,
pain and suffering without an answer and ultimately moral conduct without
retribution. For it is written: “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is
the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Mt 7:14
[ KJV]
0404031711 - wblastyn said:
"There's
another irony meter up in smoke. Care to back up your claims that
evolution is dying, because all the evidence I've seen seems to suggest
the more we study life the more evidence there is for evolution."
Gullibility does not prove anything.
Speculations = evolution
Actual observations = speciation (not evolution)
"And the supposed debunks have been debunked by
talkorigns again."
And so on and so forth. As I have said who has more to gain in deceiving
and less to lose in interpreting the facts to fit their model? Tsk, Tsk,
on the evolutionist for telling us that there were hundreds of vestigial
organs left over as the result of our evolutionary heritage, well guess
what today many of these organs do have functions, and if we would have
believed that the Bible was true that God did create the kinds as He said
He did then we would have been right!
Old Russian proverb: Fooled me once, shame on you, fooled me twice shame
on me.
"I have done my own research and came to the conclusion that evolution
occurs."
And so have I, and it is that the Bible is the inspired book of God and it
is the truth. It seems our only difference is our starting point – yours
being outside influence, and me the infallible word of God, that is why
our conclusions are different. The point is we are all sinners, how can we
trust our own interpretations of anything.
fallen man + fallen mind = fallible theories
"They don't have to mention it, they use predictions
from evolution. I got my info from a first hand source."
Because there is no evolutionary relationship between the species. If our
closest ancestors were apes – why is it not possible to exchange a single
organ, tissue, or let alone a drop of bodily fluid between the species
without it being attacked as foreign matter? If the differences are mainly
physical features as evolution has duped us into believing - then it would
be possible without one rejecting the other, but we see exactly the
opposite when it is attempted.
"What science do you work with?'
The science that allows us to land on the moon, the science that you and I
are using to communicate, the science governed by the laws of nature God
has put into place that are neither capricious nor unpredictable.
'Why don't you try and ban the big bang theory and
geology banned from public schools too, since they conflict with literal
Genesis too."
Because I am not an astronomer, nor am I a geologist. Furthermore I could
careless about the fields because each claims to have proven that there is
no evidence for God, there was no global flood. These fields make such
bold statements about the past that cannot be proven because no one was
there to begin with.
As with the account of creation, and the flood, many cultures have legends
and stories passed on from generation to generation before the arrival of
missionaries that are very similar to those of the first eleven chapters
of Genesis – now you can’t simply dismiss that as coincidence. And last,
it is not my calling. Of course I would like to, because it has little
merit and adds nothing to the understanding and appreciation of
operational science, the science that my students work with everyday.
"What are you talking about, what do you mean I have
"faith" in evolution over scripture?"
I am simply saying that you are willing to believe in only what you can
see with your evolutionary view of the world - as I once did. Until we see
the world through our biblical glasses we will always place our faith in
our own interpretation of this world and not what God is telling us.
"Also, you know nothing about me or my experiences,
so in future don't try and judge me like that."
Probably not, but there is
nothing new under the sun – and I am not judging you for I am not your
judge, God is. I am merely pointing the error of your thinking as I too
was pointed the error of my own thinking. You realize though that you must
be prepared to be scrutinized when you make claims that go against the
word of God, for we are not wrestling with mere flesh and blood but with
the prince of darkness.
"Well anyone can say "God revealed it to me". Look
at the crusades, all done in the name of God."
What really matters is what does God's word say. And of course if you have
done some reading on the history of the church you would realize that many
could not read the scriptures for themselves and was wrongly lead into
believing that they could earn their way to heaven and among such false
teachings were that dying in battle fighting infidels or heathens would
grant instant eternal life. And of course we know now from our own
readings of the scriptures that this is not the case – the gift of eternal
life is a free gift of God, for no one is good enough, not one.
"How does taking Genesis as non-literal add or take
away anything?"
Well for one it allows us to reinterpret that if salvation is a free gift
then why bother following God’s commandments when we can accept His gift
and continue to live in sin. My point is by inviting outside influence to
affect our understanding of what is written, what is to stop us from going
to even further extremes? You simply need to trust God more and man less.
"Science can be seen as seeking to learn how God
works, since scripture never really tells us."
Yes, but do realize that God is not a God who deceives. If God is the God
of truth then what He says is true and everything that we see should
follow His words. Instead of interpreting the world through our fallen
view
of the world and doubting what God said He has done, I challenge you see
the world according to what God has said He has done and then the HS will
open your eyes.
"But you're trying to tell people (scientists) mostly that what they can
observe is false because they're just men. You're doing exactly what
Augustine warned not to do."
Once more you have removed the sin factor. As I have said, sin keeps us
away from the truth of God. And until they truly confess with their own
tongues that they are sinners then they will not see the truth of God.
Augustine was simply a man of God, he was not God.
"I already have faith, I don't really know what you mean."
There are many levels of faith that you may not be aware of and I have
been through them all. You can believe in everything that the Bible
teaches whether it be in the literal creation, global flood, etc. it would
not matter if it is merely faith, for faith alone without work is
meaningless. The acceptance of JC as lord and savior is only a start.
Allowing Jesus to come live in your heart and rule your life is another
and when you have done that then you will know what I have been talking
about all along and will truly know what it means to be born again.
You know when I leave this wretched world to be with our Lord and savior,
there will be three dates on my tombstone. Two birthdays, that of physical
birth 3-2-1970, and spiritual birth 2-19-2003 and the day of my physical
death and beginning of spiritual life.
It's just that you creationists spout the same thing over and over and
it's easy to get frustrated.
I understand, you are not the only one, I have been there myself. What is
of importance here is that you must first start with God's word, not man's
theories whether it be creationism or evolution.
"Or if you actually bothered to read the site you would know that they are
not "die hard atheists", they have an article on why it's ok to believe in
God and accept evolution."
Written by fallible men I suppose. They do not say anything against God,
but what are the implications to someone who does not know JC? Origins
without a creator means moral conduct without accountability. Which sounds
better to you if you were a non believer?
"If you find science boring then why are you here. How is showing pictures
of humans with tails blasphemous to God?"
What is boring is that in what they are saying they have already ruled out
the existence of God and therefore everything they say becomes gibberish
and meaningless. Because our ultimate purpose in life is to worship and
praise God and be in communion with Him. And when you take away God, there
is no meaning, no purpose no guidance except for our own selfish reasons
and personal gains.
"Of course, you just brush the evidence away because it's a "lie from
Satan"."
Now you are beginning to see the picture, I hope.
"No, that would be atheism you're describing."
Satan’s children (atheists) = evolutionists
Half breed = theistic evolutionists
God’s children = believers of His word (creationism)
"Do you think gravity is a "belief system" too?"
I think I’ve addressed this before.
"Christians should think of evolution as the method by which God works"
Yes, Christians who doubt the omnipotent God of the Bible and compromise
His words with those of impotent men. Obviously it is clear we have the
same God given hardware, but our operating systems are different. God’s
children should learn to trust God more and men less.
"Btw, how do you explain the evidence troodon has shown you if you
interpret Genesis literally?"
No evidence for evolution. Go read the book “Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny”
by A.E. Wilder-Smith
"Gullibility does not prove anything.
Speculations = evolution
Actual
observations = speciation (not evolution)"
0404032332 - wblastyn
said: How does this show evolution is a dying theory?
"And so on and so forth. As I have said who has more
to gain in deceiving and less to lose in interpreting the facts to fit
their model? Tsk, Tsk, on the evolutionist for telling us that there were
hundreds of vestigial organs left over as the result of our evolutionary
heritage, well guess what today many of these organs do have functions,
and if we would have believed that the Bible was true that God did create
the kinds as He said He did then we would have been right!
Old Russian proverb: Fooled me once, shame on you,
fooled me twice shame on me."
Not just vestigial organs, what about the
information for a tail in the human genome, why do bats have eyes when
they are blind?
"And so have I, and it is that the Bible is the
inspired book of God and it is the truth. It seems our only difference is
our starting point – yours being outside influence, and me the infallible
word of God, that is why our conclusions are different. The point is we
are all sinners, how can we trust our own interpretations of anything.
fallen man + fallen mind = fallible theories"
Actually I was a creationist for a long time, but
then I decided to stop ignoring the evidence for evolution.
Science tries to weed out human fallacy as much as
possible to gain a more accurate result. Evidence from God's creation
shows us evolution occurs, Augustine considered Creation God's second
"book" because it tells us how He worked.
"Because there is no evolutionary relationship
between the species, if our closest ancestors were apes – why is it not
possible to exchange a single organ, tissue, or let alone a drop of bodily
fluid between the species without it being attacked as foreign matter? If
the differences are mainly physical features as evolution has duped us
into believing - then it would be possible without one rejecting the
other, but we see exactly the opposite when it is attempted."
Uh because they are separate species?
"The science that allows us to land on the moon, the
science that you and I are using to communicate, the science governed by
the laws of nature God has put into place that are neither capricious nor
unpredictable."
So you aren't actually a scientist? You don't need
to understand the inner workings of something to know how to use it.
"Because I am not an astronomer, nor am I a
geologist. Furthermore I could careless about the fields because each
claims to have proven that there is no evidence for God, and that there
was no global flood. These fields make such bold statements about the past
that cannot be proven because no one was there to begin with."
So what, you aren't a biologist either. Science
NEVER claims to be able to prove or disprove God, sure atheists might
misinterpret it to do that but that is not how real science works. Science
cannot comment on God because He is supernatural and unpredictable,
therefore cannot be tested or falsified because with the supernatural
anything is possible.
"I am simply saying that you are willing to believe
in only what you can see with your evolutionary view of the world as I
once did. Until we see the world through our biblical glasses we will
always place our faith in our own interpretation of this world and not
what God is telling us."
What "evolutionary view of the world"? Is there also
a "gravitationary view of the world"?
"What really matters is what does God's word say.
And of course if you have done some reading on the history of the church
you would realize that many could not read the scriptures for themselves
and was wrongly lead into believing that you could earn your way to heaven
and among such false teachings were that dying in battle fighting infidels
or heathens would grant instant eternal life. And of course we know now
from our own readings of the scriptures that it is not the case – the gift
of eternal life is a free gift of God, for no one is good enough, not
one."
Actually I have studied church history at Advanced
Level (UK exams). I agree that laymen should try and interpret scripture
on their own, that is why I trust most theologians, who now agree that
Genesis is not literal.
"Well for one it allows us to reinterpret that if
salvation is a free gift then why bother following God’s commandments when
we can accept His gift and continue to live in sin. My point is by
inviting outside influence to affect our understanding of what is written,
what is to stop us from going to even further extremes? You simply need to
trust God more and man less."
How does HOW God created have anything to do with
our salvation?
What is wrong with studying God's creation, which
has been preserved and un tampered by man, unlike the Bible we have today,
in order to help us interpret scripture.
"Yes, but do realize that God is not a God who
deceives. If God is the God of truth then what He says is true and
everything that we see should follow His words. Instead of interpreting
the world using only our own fallen view of the world and doubting what
God said He has done, I challenge you see the world according to what God
has said He has done and then the HS will open your eyes."
I know God does not deceive, which is why I accept
the evidence from His creation that He used evolution. Why would God plan
false evidence?
"Once more you have removed the sin factor. As I
have said, sin keeps us away from the truth of God. And until they truly
confess with their own tongues that they are sinners then they will not
see the truth of God. Augustine was simply a man of God, he was not God."
I haven't removed sin. But if you do not have faith
in scientists then why do you use the knowledge they provide, why do you
use your computer, since it was invented by fallible men.
"I understand, you are not the only one, I have been
there myself. What is of importance here is that you must first start with
God's word, not man's theories whether it be creationism or
evolution."
But is there anything wrong with looking at God's
creation/reality to help us interpret scripture. How are you any different
than geocentricists, who used the Bible to back up their belief that the
solar system revolved around the earth?
"Written by fallible men I suppose. They do not say anything against God,
but what are the implications to someone who does not know JC? Origins
without a creator means moral conduct without accountability which sounds
better to you if you were a non believer?"
Evolution does not mean "origins without a creator",
that is atheism.
Christians should view evolution as the method by which God created.
"What is boring is that in what they are saying they
have already ruled out the existence of God and therefore everything they
say becomes gibberish and meaningless. Because our ultimate purpose in
life is to worship and praise God and be in communion with Him. And when
you take away God, there is no meaning, no purpose no guidance except for
our own selfish reasons and personal gains."
But science never tries to take away or disprove
God, He is beyond their scope. Science just takes away the
"god-of-the-gaps", I mean people used to believe lightning was caused
directly by God, but no most people do not believe lightning is God
getting angry, but static electricity discharging to the earth. Ultimately
God is responsible for the laws of nature, but that does not mean He is
sitting pushing the planet around in their orbits, etc.
"Satan’s children (atheists) = evolutionists
Half breed = theistic evolutionists
God’s children = believers of His word (creationism)"
Oh so Theistic Evolutionists aren't "True
Christians (TM)" but merely half breeds. I wonder how God if God likes you
doing His job for him.
"Yes, Christians who doubt the omnipotent God of the
Bible and compromise His words with those of impotent men. Obviously it is
clear we have the same God given hardware, but our operating systems are
different. God’s children should learn to trust God more and men less."
Why does evolution doubt God's omnipotence?
"No evidence for evolution. Go read the book “Man’s
Origin, Man’s Destiny” by A.E. Wilder-Smith."
No, of course not, scientists, many of whom were
Christians have simply been delusional for 100 of years, you on the other
hand who have never studies evolution directly know better.
0704032308 PM - wblastyn said: "How does this show evolution is a dying theory?"
It was not meant to do so. It was meant to show that disbelief or belief
in something stems from personal presuppositions and not entirely based on evidence.
"Not just vestigial organs, what about the
information for a tail in the human genome, why do bats have eyes when
they are blind?"
Have you lived as a bat? How do you know that they cannot see? How many
persons have you noticed with tails walking around lately? My experience,
none.
"Actually I was a creationist for a long time, but
then I decided to stop ignoring the evidence for evolution."
You mean you stopped listening to what God was telling you and started to
doubt God’s word and began listening to fallible men.
"Science tries to weed out human fallacy as much as
possible to gain a more accurate result. Evidence from God's creation
shows us evolution occurs, Augustine considered Creation God's second
"book" because it tells us how He worked."
Science does no such thing, in the majority of the cases it has already
weeded out the super natural. To me, science is merely the study of God’s
creation. God has revealed to us His nature and that is through His word.
I’m afraid your stand on this issue is not unique on the idea that nature
is liken to the 67th book of the bible. But you have forgotten that God’s
book is not cursed, whereas nature has been cursed since the fall of man.
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth
in pain together until now. Romans 8:22
"Uh because they are separate species?"
Separate kinds.
"So you aren't actually a scientist? You don't need
to understand the inner workings of something to know how to use it."
Evolutionary scientist – no. Creation scientist - yes. So in essence you
are telling me that there was no need to understand the physics of sound
when the ear was being evolved, or the need to understand the physics of
flight when the feather was being formed, or understanding of the physics
of sight when the eye was being evolved through evolutionary processes?
That is so absurd, because it is like saying that building a 747 requires
no knowledge of the physics of flight. Without understanding the inner
workings of something, how can you design anything? What engineer works on
that principle? An unemployed one I suppose?
"So what, you aren't a biologist either. Science
NEVER claims to be able to prove or disprove God, sure atheists might
misinterpret it to do that but that is not how real science works. Science
cannot comment on God because He is supernatural and unpredictable,
therefore cannot be tested or falsified because with the supernatural
anything is possible."
Science does not comment on the existence of God because it already
assumes there is no God of any sort to begin with. Yes, God is quite
supernatural, but not at all unpredictable.
"What "evolutionary view of the world"? Is there
also a "gravitationary view of the world"?"
Here again you have taken the view that what you observe of the world has
always been like that. You have ignored the sin factor and the curse God
has placed on His creation. That is the view we see today – pain, death,
suffering, mutations and diseases. Tell me do you think a loving caring
God would work with such a high extinction rate? No gravitationary view of
the world that I am aware of. It is a law of nature, not a view. There is
however no law of evolution, simply because – it doesn’t happen.
"Actually I have studied church history at Advanced
Level (UK exams). I agree that laymen should try and interpret scripture
on their own, that is why I trust most theologians, who now agree that
Genesis is not literal."
There you have it, the word of men over the authority of scripture – that
really explains a lot.
"How does HOW God created have anything you do with our salvation?"
1. Literal creation in literal 6 days + literal Adam and Eve + literal
rebellion/original sin = literal death
2. Literal Jesus + literal death + literal resurrection = Literal
salvation.
Get the picture?
"What is wrong with studying God's creation, which
has been preserved and un tampered by man, unlike the Bible we have today,
in order to help us interpret scripture."
There is nothing wrong with studying God's creation. But you need to
realize that nature has suffered the curse of God, where the Bible has
not.
"I know God does not deceive, which is why I accept
the evidence from His creation that He used evolution. Why would God plan
false evidence?"
And so have I, and that evolution does not occur. So there must be another
reason, should there not? There is only one right answer and it is not
evolution.
"I haven't removed sin. But if you do not have faith
in scientists then why do you use the knowledge they provide, why do you
use your computer, since it was invented by fallible men."
Scientists are sinners too- just like you and me. It is their a priori
commitment to materialistic means that keeps them blind to the truth of
God and grounds for scrutiny. I give respect and credit where it is due
but that is quite different from being duped into believing in everything
they say or tell me simply because it is their area of specialty or that
they use more gibberish. After all anything that does not bring me closer
to my relationship with God, is worthless to me – just in the process of
evolution alone which uses mutation and death as a process of creation.
How could that represent a God of love? It is like saying God loves you
therefore you must suffer because it has always been and it will always
be?
"But is there anything wrong with looking at God's
creation/reality to help us interpret scripture. How are you any different
than geocentricists, who used the Bible to back up their belief that the
solar system revolved around the earth?"
I did not say that you could not interpret the bible the way you want if
it helps your faith in God. Just because the majority believes in
something does not mean it is right? Are not all humankind fallible? What
is different is that I stand on God’s word and not man’s theories.
"Evolution does not mean "origins without a
creator", that is atheism."
Theistic evolution doesn’t, but naturalistic evolution does. Lets drop
this argument, since it does not apply to either of us.
"Christians should view evolution as the method by
which God created".
No, God’s children should not compromise what God has told them, they
should instead view the world through their faith in the infallible word
of God.
"But science never tries to take away or disprove
God, He is beyond their scope."
Science doesn’t need to disprove God, because God is already ruled out of
the equation.
"Science just takes away the "god-of-the-gaps", I
mean people used to believe lightning was caused directly by God, but no
most people do not believe lightning is God getting angry, but static
electricity discharging to the earth. Ultimately God is responsible for
the laws of nature, but that does not mean He is sitting pushing the
planet around in their orbits, etc."
And how do you know God is not doing exactly that right now? You know
looking at the complexity of life and the very laws of the universe it
makes me wonder sometimes how we even manage to take our next breath if
God is not continuing to uphold the universe.
"Oh so Theistic Evolutionists aren't "True
Christians (TM)" but merely half breeds. I wonder how God if God likes you
doing His job for him."
It is really not up to me to decide if you are truly child of God. You
should know if you are or not by what you believe and what you profess to
believe to those who do not know JC personally. True believers manifest
the love of God within their hearts. The God of Love who gave His one and
only son as a sacrifice, to save mankind. Just from looking at this world
alone, would non believers ever conclude that there is God of love? My
position is not of doing God’s job but in doing His will according to what
has been written and to show others that what they see of the world was
not God’s doing but as a result of man’s rebellion.
"Why does evolution doubt God's omnipotence?"
Because it assumes that God could not have created the “kinds” as written
in the Bible. It assumes He is not the all powerful God He claims to be in
creating this world in the time specified. It implies that a God of love
would use pain, suffering and death as a creation process – and thus has
no power over pain and suffering, and therefore of little use to those
seeking relief from pain and suffering.
"No, of course not, scientists, many of whom were
Christians have simply been delusional for 100 of years, you on the other
hand who have never studies evolution directly know better."
The word Christian has become such an underrated term that it no longer
distinguishes the believer from non believers. Don’t simply associate the
term Christian to scientists and then conclude that therefore they must be
right because they are Christians. For many who call themselves Christians
are not worthy of the name.
|