J
JKnappGirl
Guest
?
If so, I'd like to ask you a few questions...if it's no problem, that is...
And no, I'm not an evolutionist.
If so, I'd like to ask you a few questions...if it's no problem, that is...
And no, I'm not an evolutionist.
- Status
J
JKnappGirl
Guest
All righty, can you give me a few examples of where evolution was proven wrong?
Has evolution ever been recreated in a laboratory?
I suppose that's enough for now...I have a few atheist friends that have thrown those questions at me...
Oh, yeah, and the body IS made of the same 14 elements that dirt is made of, right? I heard that somewhere...
Has evolution ever been recreated in a laboratory?
I suppose that's enough for now...I have a few atheist friends that have thrown those questions at me...
Oh, yeah, and the body IS made of the same 14 elements that dirt is made of, right? I heard that somewhere...
Upvote
0
Irreducible complexity:
The human eye could not have come from evolution: it's most basic parts have no function by themselves at all, nor could they ever have been stand-alone appendages - they would all have to come about all at once in order for any one of them to work - and the total intended function of all parts of the eye make the eye work. If any single function is missing, the eye simply will not work. Therefore, due to its complexity, it could never have come into being by itself, nor could its individual parts ever "appear" by themseves as they could not function at all with the other parts. To simply believe that all these random parts "suddenly and randomly" came into being with some "purporse" to eventually evolve into an eye is to stretch scientific credulity that requires more faith to believe than simply an Intelligent Designer.
The human eye could not have come from evolution: it's most basic parts have no function by themselves at all, nor could they ever have been stand-alone appendages - they would all have to come about all at once in order for any one of them to work - and the total intended function of all parts of the eye make the eye work. If any single function is missing, the eye simply will not work. Therefore, due to its complexity, it could never have come into being by itself, nor could its individual parts ever "appear" by themseves as they could not function at all with the other parts. To simply believe that all these random parts "suddenly and randomly" came into being with some "purporse" to eventually evolve into an eye is to stretch scientific credulity that requires more faith to believe than simply an Intelligent Designer.
Upvote
0
S
sear
Guest
Josephus posted:
Josephus, I admire your faith; but I do not share it.
Is the human eye miraculous, no matter how it came to be?
Absolutely.
Even if we presume that's true, that doesn't conclusively disprove evolution. It simply elevates its miraculous nature. It may even suggest that the eye's most basic parts all evolved together, perhaps even all at once.
Seems unlikely doesn't it? But do the math. Determine the chromosome defect rate, and multiply it by the number of times chromosomes duplicate. When the number of such duplications per square foot of Earth per year are multiplied by the number of square feet on Earth, is multiplied by the hundreds of millions of years such processes have been occurring on Earth (an astronomical number), perhaps it may seem a little less unlikely.
And evolution does not require sense organs to be fully formed at first generation. It only requires that they provide the individual a slight survival / reproductive advantage. Example? Frogs have rudimentary auditory sense, but not fully developed ears. No matter, what they have is all frogs need. Another example? Rudimentary eye spots don't provide enough resolution to read a newspaper. But they don't need to. They provide the individual (planarian?) an advantage.
[edited for non forum-topic content.]
Josephus, I admire your faith; but I do not share it.
Is the human eye miraculous, no matter how it came to be?
Absolutely.
Even if we presume that's true, that doesn't conclusively disprove evolution. It simply elevates its miraculous nature. It may even suggest that the eye's most basic parts all evolved together, perhaps even all at once.
Seems unlikely doesn't it? But do the math. Determine the chromosome defect rate, and multiply it by the number of times chromosomes duplicate. When the number of such duplications per square foot of Earth per year are multiplied by the number of square feet on Earth, is multiplied by the hundreds of millions of years such processes have been occurring on Earth (an astronomical number), perhaps it may seem a little less unlikely.
And evolution does not require sense organs to be fully formed at first generation. It only requires that they provide the individual a slight survival / reproductive advantage. Example? Frogs have rudimentary auditory sense, but not fully developed ears. No matter, what they have is all frogs need. Another example? Rudimentary eye spots don't provide enough resolution to read a newspaper. But they don't need to. They provide the individual (planarian?) an advantage.
[edited for non forum-topic content.]
Upvote
0
Hey Jknapp!
I recommend the Pagan Invasion series from Jeremiah Films. It has two tapes devoted to evolution and I think they would serve you well.
I recommend the Pagan Invasion series from Jeremiah Films. It has two tapes devoted to evolution and I think they would serve you well.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
S
sear
Guest
JKnappGirl posted:
Labels can be useful, but perhaps less so here than in other debates, because (if you'll indulge a metaphor) in debate on this topic, hairs are split unusually thin.
I don't mean to dodge your question. But I should confess: I've been called an atheist. I've been called an atheismist. I've been called a pantheist, among other things.
From my perspective I am a seeker of the truth. To some that promotes the impression that I'm ambivalent, or wishy-washy, or fickle. But that's not the explanation. I believe there are scientific truths, and perhaps emotional truths as well. Science is the realm of quantification. Can love be quantified? I can't imagine how. Does that mean love does not exist? Not to me. Do I deny the existence of love? Absolutely not. But even if it's reality, it's a subjective one; as some might claim to love Osama bin Laden, while others might claim to hate him.
In debate on this topic, I seek objective reality; though I confess, my approach to the search is more scientific, more literal minded than that of many faithful.
If your quest to label my approach is to distinguish it from the approach of others, perhaps this will do it best; NONE of us knows the truth. The difference between me and them is, I admit my ignorance; with absolute indulgence to others; provided only they reciprocate that same courtesy.
[edited for off-forum topic content]
Labels can be useful, but perhaps less so here than in other debates, because (if you'll indulge a metaphor) in debate on this topic, hairs are split unusually thin.
I don't mean to dodge your question. But I should confess: I've been called an atheist. I've been called an atheismist. I've been called a pantheist, among other things.
From my perspective I am a seeker of the truth. To some that promotes the impression that I'm ambivalent, or wishy-washy, or fickle. But that's not the explanation. I believe there are scientific truths, and perhaps emotional truths as well. Science is the realm of quantification. Can love be quantified? I can't imagine how. Does that mean love does not exist? Not to me. Do I deny the existence of love? Absolutely not. But even if it's reality, it's a subjective one; as some might claim to love Osama bin Laden, while others might claim to hate him.
In debate on this topic, I seek objective reality; though I confess, my approach to the search is more scientific, more literal minded than that of many faithful.
If your quest to label my approach is to distinguish it from the approach of others, perhaps this will do it best; NONE of us knows the truth. The difference between me and them is, I admit my ignorance; with absolute indulgence to others; provided only they reciprocate that same courtesy.
[edited for off-forum topic content]
Upvote
0
Sear, this forum is for Christian's only. Please do not post here. We have a debate forum for nonChristians to engage us.
Please follow the rules:
"This forum is for Christians to discuss with other Christians about theological issues and general bible study to edify one another. If you are not a believer in Jesus as your savior, then unbelievers are asked to post their questions in the Round Tables forum for more general theological issues."
Please follow the rules:
"This forum is for Christians to discuss with other Christians about theological issues and general bible study to edify one another. If you are not a believer in Jesus as your savior, then unbelievers are asked to post their questions in the Round Tables forum for more general theological issues."
Upvote
0
S
Schrack
Guest
JKnappGirl,
When approaching the subject of evolution vs. creation, I like to use the "common sense" approach rather than the scientific or even theological approaches. I say this because when it comes to science and theology on this subject a lot of people tend to lose their common sense, even those who claim to be experts in their field, lol.
If you happen to wear a watch, stop for a moment and take a look at it. What would you say if I was to tell you that that watch was not created but somehow evolved over a long period of time? What would you say if I told you that theparts which make up that watch were not carefully designed and machined and crafted by some intelligent designer so that it would keep time but instead these pieces miraculously fell together by some unknown force? I am willing to bet you would tell me that I'm crazy.
Yet, this is precisely what many people believe about man, that there is no intelligent creator behind our design despite the fact that our physiology is no doubt trillions of times more complex than a simple machine watch. Common sense tells us that just by looking at life in this world that it is impossible for it to have come about by random chance and the evolutionary processes which scientists have been touting for decades. I don't think this is any less crazy than someone telling you your watch was not specifically created by someone for a purpose but by chance and time came to be what it is today.
I believe that once a person's common sense is restored, he is most likely to be open to hearing and understanding why he ought to repent for salvation and begin to follow Jesus Christ.
SchracktheBaptist
When approaching the subject of evolution vs. creation, I like to use the "common sense" approach rather than the scientific or even theological approaches. I say this because when it comes to science and theology on this subject a lot of people tend to lose their common sense, even those who claim to be experts in their field, lol.
If you happen to wear a watch, stop for a moment and take a look at it. What would you say if I was to tell you that that watch was not created but somehow evolved over a long period of time? What would you say if I told you that theparts which make up that watch were not carefully designed and machined and crafted by some intelligent designer so that it would keep time but instead these pieces miraculously fell together by some unknown force? I am willing to bet you would tell me that I'm crazy.
Yet, this is precisely what many people believe about man, that there is no intelligent creator behind our design despite the fact that our physiology is no doubt trillions of times more complex than a simple machine watch. Common sense tells us that just by looking at life in this world that it is impossible for it to have come about by random chance and the evolutionary processes which scientists have been touting for decades. I don't think this is any less crazy than someone telling you your watch was not specifically created by someone for a purpose but by chance and time came to be what it is today.
I believe that once a person's common sense is restored, he is most likely to be open to hearing and understanding why he ought to repent for salvation and begin to follow Jesus Christ.
SchracktheBaptist
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Go to www.answersingenesis.org I went to a seminar. Dang! I learned alot. Also, consider ordering CREATION. It is a magazine that is full of scientific ways to defend your faith, spot frawds, and many other things. It is great. I can answer some Q too, but I would suggest the web site.
Upvote
0
Go to www.answersingenesis.org I went to a seminar. Dang! I learned alot. Also, consider ordering CREATION. It is a magazine that is full of scientific ways to defend your faith, spot frawds, and many other things. It is great. I can answer some Q too, but I would suggest the web site.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
L
lisa03wilson
Guest
I'm actually doing a report on this for my english class so i'm gald someone asked about it. The websites posted are very useful. I have to have two print sources though, does anyone know of any good books on or with sections on the topic?
Upvote
0
- Status
