Evolution is a flawed theory

[RedAndy]

GOD spoke, and it came to be.....

How? How did it "come to be?"

Surely it could have "come to be" through evolution? After all, isn't that what many Christians believe?

 

[LittleNipper]

How? How did it "come to be?"

Surely it could have "come to be" through evolution? After all, isn't that what many Christians believe?

SPOKEN into existance.

PS: Many christians accept a lot of things. That does not make them Biblical. If the things many christians accept are not biblical, the chances are that they are as in error as was the nation of Israel ,on more than one occasion. The occasions that Israel was wrong is shown Biblically to be EVERY time they turned away from GOD's WORD.

 

[Shadowsun]

SPOKE.

evidence
noun

• 1. Information, etc that gives grounds for belief; that which points to, reveals or suggests something.
  • Thesaurus: proof, confirmation, documentation, substantiation, testimony, indication, grounds.
  2. Written or spoken testimony used in a court of law.
  • Thesaurus: proof, smoking gun, testimony, witness, deposition.

Etymology: 14c: from Latin evidentia clearness of speech.

So far there has been no evidence for your claims , care to enlighten us?

 

[LittleNipper]

evidence
noun

• 1. Information, etc that gives grounds for belief; that which points to, reveals or suggests something.
  • Thesaurus: proof, confirmation, documentation, substantiation, testimony, indication, grounds.
  2. Written or spoken testimony used in a court of law.
  • Thesaurus: proof, smoking gun, testimony, witness, deposition.

Etymology: 14c: from Latin evidentia clearness of speech.

So far there has been no evidence for your claims , care to enlighten us?

WORD--------------- noun.

The WORD became flesh.

GOD's spoken word became materal.

 

[Shadowsun]

WORD--------------- noun.

The WORD became flesh.

GOD's spoken word became materal.

So ripples caused in matter can become organic material? Care to verify that with empirical evidence?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

GOD spoke, and it came to be durning a 6 day period and the creation was perfect. This perfect creation began to slide into corruption after the Fall of man.

despite the fact that it has been pointed out repeatedly to you that the Hebrew word tov means good, complete, suitable not perfect, for there is another Hebrew word for that idea. Creation was not perfect, the Bible doesn't say it was, it says good. why can't people seem to learn here? why with the constant and most definitely wrong claim that the creation was PERFECT?

hey guys, adam screwed up. that is CERTAINLY not a perfect thing to do, is it? in a perfect world, the fall is a logically impossibility. now why is that so hard to understand?

Only a PERFECT personal witness or a revelation for GOD can provide factual information. Only GOD can arrage this or provide it.

nonsense, i suspect that most people would burst into flames at the first contact with a perfect anything.

Isa 6:4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
Isa 6:5 Then said I, Woe [is] me! for I am undone; because I [am] a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

good enough is the best you are going to do with people. isn't it you that pointed out the fall?

 

[RealityCheck]

Only a PERFECT personal witness or a revelation for GOD can provide factual information. Only GOD can arrage this or provide it.

And since God has spoken to you _______ number of times directly, you know exactly _______.


Care to fill in the blanks? (Hint: They are blank for a good reason.)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

PS: Many christians accept a lot of things. That does not make them Biblical. If the things many christians accept are not biblical, the chances are that they are as in error ....


and by their own words were they condemned.

judgment starts first with the household of God, look to your own not biblical ideas before you start pulling specks from other people's eyes. for instance:

SPOKEN into existance.

it is a metaphor, God doesn't have a mouth to make sounds, nor is there matter to carry the sound waves. it is an anthropomorphic metaphor, it is not meant to be taken literally, it is part of a large complex metaphor about words, speech, God and the universe. To crassily make it a physical happening looses all the neat connections which are built around it throughout the Scriptures.

 

[eddieJ]

Abiogenesis, the foundation upon which evolution rests, is impossible. Life cannot come from non-life. We often read about "the building blocks of life," somehow implying how simple it is, but scientists are unable to make life in the lab.

Evolution is based on the concept of naturalism. Which states that science will uncover the mechanisms for all life, and that you are a biochemical machine responding to outside stimuli and exist to survive only for the passing on of your genes.

The fact is that God created you. You can choose not to believe that but that is what happened. None of the arguments being presented here are new, just slightly repackaged. The fact that God created will be taught in Christian Schools and Sunday schools.

I totally ignore and see through the "tell them what they want to hear" lies being promulgated by the so-called Religious Right. I reject everything they say because their intentions are not Godly. The false (made up) conflict between "science and anti-science" is just to speed up the spread of the rhetoric, not for any Godly purpose.


Pray for Revival of the Holy Spirit,
Eddie

 

[Shadowsun]

GOD spoke, and it came to be durning a 6 day period and the creation was perfect. This perfect creation began to slide into corruption after the Fall of man.

despite the fact that it has been pointed out repeatedly to you that the Hebrew word tov means good, complete, suitable not perfect, for there is another Hebrew word for that idea. Creation was not perfect, the Bible doesn't say it was, it says good. why can't people seem to learn here? why with the constant and most definitely wrong claim that the creation was PERFECT?

hey guys, adam screwed up. that is CERTAINLY not a perfect thing to do, is it? in a perfect world, the fall is a logically impossibility. now why is that so hard to understand?

That is not what I'm asking. Prove that this creation (perfect of imperfect) ever took place or was even able to take place. And I mean tangible evidence, not quoting from your Bible bacause it is a lousy source due to many contradictions and logical fallacies, thus making it no more credible than the ramblings of a madman.

 

[Asimov]

Abiogenesis, the foundation upon which evolution rests, is impossible. Life cannot come from non-life. We often read about "the building blocks of life," somehow implying how simple it is, but scientists are unable to make life in the lab.

No.

Evolution is based on the concept of naturalism. Which states that science will uncover the mechanisms for all life, and that you are a biochemical machine responding to outside stimuli and exist to survive only for the passing on of your genes.

No.

The fact is that God created you. You can choose not to believe that but that is what happened. None of the arguments being presented here are new, just slightly repackaged. The fact that God created will be taught in Christian Schools and Sunday schools.

No.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Abiogenesis, the foundation upon which evolution rests, is impossible.

the TofE does not care where the first replicators came from. Ask Hoyle and his panspermigenesis, his TofE works just fine with it inputting the first replicators. Likewise life on earth can be a great experiment from Alpha Centuri like the raelians seem to believe or even the scientologists, how the first replicator appears is completely irrelevant to the TofE, it doesn't care, doesn't know, doesn't discuss it, for the TofE only starts when the proper replicator appears. period.

Evolution is based on the concept of naturalism. Which states that science will uncover the mechanisms for all life,

nonsense, there are lots of different metaphysics that claim to be based on evolutionary theory. they are all equally metaphysics and not science. science is methodologically naturalist not philosophically. science never says it will someday find all the answers, it doesn't even claim to have found all the cases to answer any particular question, hence the constant provisionalness of science, just waiting for something new to pop up. you are confusing metaphysics and science, as is customary in these discussions. they are not the same thing, and failure to make this crucial distinction gets you into all kinds of nonsensical claims, not the least of which is creation science.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Abiogenesis, the foundation upon which evolution rests, is impossible. Life cannot come from non-life. We often read about "the building blocks of life," somehow implying how simple it is, but scientists are unable to make life in the lab.

Irrelevant. Even if abiogenesis was impossible, evolutionary theory would not be affected.

Evolution is based on the concept of naturalism. Which states that science will uncover the mechanisms for all life, and that you are a biochemical machine responding to outside stimuli and exist to survive only for the passing on of your genes.

There is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.

The fact is that God created you.

That's not a fact, that is speculation at best and unsubstantiated belief at worst.

You can choose not to believe that but that is what happened. None of the arguments being presented here are new, just slightly repackaged. The fact that God created will be taught in Christian Schools and Sunday schools.

Fine, as long as they keep out of the public ones.

 

[Morcova]

Please note: To make up stores (no matter how scientific they may seem) that seem to fit what is presently observed happening, or fill the gaps, in the world today is nothing but a modern form of HUMANISTIC PAGANISM.

Did you just call yourself a humanistic pagan?

Because as best I can tell only you and the op are making up stories.

 

[Dannager]

Abiogenesis, the foundation upon which evolution rests, is impossible. Life cannot come from non-life. We often read about "the building blocks of life," somehow implying how simple it is, but scientists are unable to make life in the lab.

Abiogenesis is not the foundation upon which evolution rests. Were God to have poofed life into existence, evolution would have continued just the same, and would have worked just as well.

Regardless, though, you do realize that you believe in abiogenesis, right?

Evolution is based on the concept of naturalism. Which states that science will uncover the mechanisms for all life, and that you are a biochemical machine responding to outside stimuli and exist to survive only for the passing on of your genes.

That's not what naturalism is. And by the way, evolution (as with all science) is based on methodological naturalism.

The fact is that God created you. You can choose not to believe that but that is what happened. None of the arguments being presented here are new, just slightly repackaged. The fact that God created will be taught in Christian Schools and Sunday schools.

God can certainly have created the first life, sure. That doesn't change whether or not evolutionary theory is correct. You're not arguing against evolution here.

By the way, you know that your church supports evolutionary theory as the best explanation we have, and considers young-earth creationism a false belief, right?

 

[Split Rock]

Abiogenesis, the foundation upon which evolution rests, is impossible. Life cannot come from non-life. We often read about "the building blocks of life," somehow implying how simple it is, but scientists are unable to make life in the lab.

Abiogenesis is not the foundation of evolutionary theory. If you think differently, show us where Darwin discussed abiogenesis in On the Origin of Species.

Scientists cannot recreate a volcanic eruption or a star in a lab either. Does this mean they cannot be studied?

Evolution is based on the concept of naturalism. Which states that science will uncover the mechanisms for all life, and that you are a biochemical machine responding to outside stimuli and exist to survive only for the passing on of your genes.

Modern science is based on Methological Naturalism.

Biologically, this is true. If you want the meaning of life, you need to look outside of science.

The fact is that God created you. You can choose not to believe that but that is what happened. None of the arguments being presented here are new, just slightly repackaged. The fact that God created will be taught in Christian Schools and Sunday schools.

My parents created me. You can teach whatever you like in Sunday School, just keep pseudo-science out of Public Science classes.

I totally ignore and see through the "tell them what they want to hear" lies being promulgated by the so-called Religious Right. I reject everything they say because their intentions are not Godly. The false (made up) conflict between "science and anti-science" is just to speed up the spread of the rhetoric, not for any Godly purpose.

Here I agree with you completely.

 

[franklin]

Most people today believe in evolution. Too bad it has been already scientifically proven false! There are so many questions that evolutionists cant answer. Here are a few: How did an asexual organism evolve into a sexual organism? Since when does a pattern so complex like DNA evolve? Where did matter come from? Where did the laws of gravity and inertia come from? If evolution is true, how come so many animals are extinct? Shouldn't they have "evolved?" If evolution means survival of the fittest, why are humans and animals alike willing to risk their lives for others? How does intelligence and memory evolve? How did emotions, music, and feelings come from dead matter? These are just some questions of many. And I bet not one of you can answer these questions on a scientific base. There are just too many flaws in evolution, because evolution has none of the answers.

I think we can make an exception. For you anyway. It is quite obvious you haven't yet evolved. From you're neck up.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Ok first this is obviously a poe.but what the heck mr 5 post jesus lover.


Most people today believe in evolution.
i would say yes, as in that the evidence out there leads to evo being the most likely route.

Too bad it has been already scientifically proven false!
do scientist know this?

There are so many questions that evolutionists cant answer.
Wow same here. I wonder how many questions related to evo they can answer though.


Here are a few:
How did an asexual organism evolve into a sexual organism?
There are several theories on this look them up, next.

Since when does a pattern so complex like DNA evolve?
This would be better asked to someone in abiogenisis.

Where did matter come from? Where did the laws of gravity and inertia come from?
Not related to evo.

If evolution is true, how come so many animals are extinct?
through evo, duh.

Shouldn't they have "evolved?"
Some did and those that didnt died or went exstinct, heck even those that were better fit eventually went exstinct as newer versions came into being.


If evolution means survival of the fittest,
it doesnt, it means roughly survival of those that can reproduce. not just the best, but the worst enough to reproduce.

why are humans and animals alike willing to risk their lives for others?
unrelated, go into socialogy.


How does intelligence and memory evolve?
Fair question. Both through evo. Those that had a advantage in having better memories or smarter passed those on if it let them reproduce.


How did emotions, music, and feelings come from dead matter?
Wh...what... feelings come from dead matter??
what the Truck!!??


These are just some questions of many.
now imagine how many you could answer by reading.
Imagine how many you could save yourself the troublew of asking by realizing how they are not related.

And I bet not one of you can answer these questions on a scientific base.
Bet?? How much? we should clarify what you mean by scientific base. But I am up for it. 1 grand perhaps?

There are just too many flaws in evolution, because evolution has none of the answers.
You so far have not stated in flaws in evo.
And the questions you have asked that are related to evo there are answers for.

Now ends the answer to this horrible poe.

 

[corvus_corax]

GOD spoke, and it came to be durning a 6 day period and the creation was perfect. This perfect creation began to slide into corruption after the Fall of man. This corruption was confused and sped up by the FLOOD. So presently, we are living in a corrupted world, which was seriously damaged during the FLOOD but somewhat stabilized (though still quickly degenerating) and so what we presently observe has little to do with what the original creation was all about.

So, is this how you explain the objective empirical FACT that allele frequencies change over time?
Careful how you answer, you may answer in the positive and thus give away your acceptance of evolutionary fact

Please note: To make up stores (no matter how scientific they may seem) that seem to fit what is presently observed happening, or fill the gaps, in the world today is nothing but a modern form of HUMANISTIC PAGANISM.

Please note: evolution is not a made up story
It's an observable FACT
To deny it is to bury your head in fundamentalist sand

Only a PERFECT personal witness or a revelation for GOD can provide factual information.

That is a lie
That's right, a lie
If I cut myself on a knife blade, is that a PERSONAL witness from God?
No
It's my own clumsiness giving me a naturalistic explanation that a sharp edge can cut my skin.
Likewise, if I jump into a bonfire and catch myself on fire, is that a PERSONAL witness from God?
Again, no. It's my own stupidity regarding the natural effects of the world around me

Retract your untruth regarding factual information

 

[tocis]

Hey, where did the original poster go?

I hope to the library.

Scared to death by the facts