A question to all Evolutionists- please answer

[L'Anatra]

Teleology threatens the knowledge of the Christian god.

That's for sure.

This "finding a purpose through evolution" thing is perhaps the most ridiculous notion I've seen from creationists.

 

[Bushido216]

A couple of things. One, if people here are not willing to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and completely accurate, than there's not much I can say to change their minds. The Bible is accurate, and is God's Word, that's the basis of all Christian belief. Christ himself referred to Adam and Eve as historical figures, very strong evidence supporting the original creation theory.

Finally, the Bible would not say it if it were not true. I depend on God to tell me the truth, so I depend on the Bible, for it makes the claim to be perfect, and everything that can check out, has, so I have no reason not to believe such a claim. However, man is flawed, naturally so, and I cannot take anyone's word as to what part of the Bible I can take literally and what I cannot.

Jesus is the Living Word, not the Bible. Jesus is the hinge on which our salvation rests, not the Bible.

The Bible is 100% truth. That doesn't mean literal truth, just truth, savvy? Just because it doesn't say what you want it to say doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Oh, and I'd look up on metaphor.

 

[L'Anatra]

The most stupid people as claimed on one post that people are stupid, are those who would take the theory of a man who revealed that there was no veracity to the theory, over the word of The God of this universe who created all things by the words of His mouth.

Even if Darwin did recant, it wouldn't make the Theory of Evolution any less supported. But as has been pointed out, he didn't.

Your posts are exceedingly immature and insulting.

 

[Bushido216]

There are large holes in the theory of evolution for example. Take for example irreducible complexity. How did, say, the coagulating mechanism evolve, since that takes a myriad of hormones and enzymes to function correctly, and single missing enzyme resulting in someone who's entire blood supply was coagulated, or blood that never coagulates. Also, say you find an organism that produces a mix of these enzymes that do not produce one of the two above effects. These enzymes are mostly only regulators of coagulation, so without the whole puzzle, would be useless. An organism that has to spend extra time trying to get food to produce enzymes that do not do anything for it is at a distinct disadvantage compared to one who only needs enough food to produce all the necessary enzymes already in the code. There are also codes in DNA itself that prevent mutations from occuring as much as they would had the codes not been there.

For someone who "studied" evolution, you're pitifully off the mark. You're describing evolution as assembly from individual parts. It isn't. It is the slow, gradual modification of existing parts. The eye is a good example of why the IC arguement fails.

 

[Bushido216]

This is an area of the discussion that I find very troubling. I will not paint all TE with a broad brush as holding to this notion, but it seems to come primarily from that side. It is one thing to put forward the argument that God created via evolution and to subsequently try and assert an interpretation of the Bible to validate it, It is quite another to say that the Bible is errant. If this is the case, who decides what is truth and what is a lie? Man? If that is the case then man now holds all the answers to life. My God is certainly able to tell me what he wants me to know and I trust Him. It is man that I don't trust.

There is a word that describes someone who places his own wisdom above God but I dare not mention it.

The Bible is inerrant spiritually, theologically, and ideologically. In all other matters it is possible for the Bible to be errant. To me, the Old Testament smacks of Aesop's Fables mixed with Words to Live By. The New Testament seems to be the only largely historical part of the text.