Evolution is very obvious that is not true at all

USincognito · Jul 1, 2004

dstauff said:
In response to USincognito: Stop trying to use personal attacks to mask your lack of information to contradict my statement. You did not use of bit of information or data in your statement. I'm starting to think that you may be one of those people that believe in the "hopeful monster" theory. In that case, you may be a prime example of one.

Dstauff, please save your indignation for times when it's warrented. If you had even checked the content of the threads on page 1 of this forum, much less the rest of the forum, much less the enitre Internet, you would have seen that the "eye" argument is worthy of little more than disdain. Here is a current thread on this dead horse of a thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t713854

Did you even check that thread and the information contained in it before you posted your PRATT? Did you even check the Internet regarding eye evolution before posting your comments? The reason I didn't bother posting any supportive documentation for the fact that your assertion about the eye is a PRATT is for precisely that reason. It's been refuted a thousdand times and the fact that you even attached yourself to that "argument" tells me you are utterly bereft of intimacy with evolution or the evidences for it... and yet you make proud, ill-informed pronouncements about it.

How else should I react?

lucaspa · Jul 1, 2004

jb-creation said:
In response to Bushido216,

I am merely attempting to demonstrate my point that there is a connection between biological evolution and abiogenesis (probably why textbooks cover them in the same chapter or chapters).

What you have to do is look at the theory itself and not what Kerkut says about it. Remember, Kerkut talks about a "general theory of evolution". IOW, he is defining a new term. Now, is his definition correct? By the data or logical necessity are abiogenesis and evolution connected? NO!

All theories have boundaries. Cell Theory does not explain Gravity. Gravity does not explain nuclear fusion, etc. Evolution has the boundary of the first life. Evolution assumes the first life exists. It is only after the first life exists does evolution happen.

If you want quotes, why not go back to the source of evolution, Darwin?

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

See? No connection. Even should God zap the first life into existence directly, evolution happened. We are still descended from an ape-like ancestor.

lucaspa · Jul 1, 2004

dstauff said:
I'm not quite sure where to begin so riddle me this: If dinosaurs evolved into whales and dolphins, the dinosaurs would have had to acquire blow holes, fins and a tail, and the lung capacity for swimming under water for lengths of time, just to name a few.

Who said dinos evolved into whales and dolphins. One species of theropod dinos evolved into birds, but the rest of dinosaurs went extinct without ancestors.

Lets focus on the tail. Now a dinosaur would have had to walk around with half a tail for a while because a tail could not appear completely in just one generation. Now what is the advantage of having half a tail on land?

Tails come in all lengths on land animals now. What's the advantage of the different lengths. Also, have you looked at sea otters and sealions lately? Both have tails partly adpated to providing propulsion in water but not as adapted as the tail of whales. They are doing just fine, arent' they?

So there is the answer to your question.

BTW, your argument is not new. It was first voiced by Georges St. Mivart in 1865!. Only he used the argument "what use is half a wing". Darwin answered him in Origin of the Species 6th edition. Interested in reading the answer? Go to http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_07.html

lucaspa · Jul 1, 2004

ChristianRanger89 said:
I would really like to see an animal change into something else

I'm not funyun but I can give you the information you seek. Here is a thread on observed instances of animals (and plants) changing into something else: a new species. http://www.christianforums.com/t155626

If we truely came from apes I will repeat this why isn't it still happening?

I answered that in a previous post: because it happened! Remember, the population that is transitioning still has to earn a living. Which means it has to at least be able to compete with any species that occupies the niche it is transforming into. Since humans already exist and are well-adapted, any ape with a variation toward what you would think of as "human" -- bipedalism, bigger brain, etc. -- is not going to do as well as his fellow apes already very well adapted to their current lifestyle. And that ape can't do as well at being humans as humans! So it is at a disadvantage both in its present way of earning a living and in the proposed way of earning a living. It is doomed to failure.

And the Big Bang...what's it saying we came outta chance?

The Big Bang theory does not give a cause of the Big Bang itself. Big Bang simply states that the universe came into existence as an infinitely small, infinitely not speck of matter/energy/spacetime. Now, there are several hypotheses out there as to the cause of the Big Bang. I've listed them in the thread http://christianforums.com/t43923

Notice that one of those hyotheses is that God caused the Big Bang. This is what many Christians believe. See www.reasons.org. One of the hypotheses -- Quantum Fluctuation -- is indeed that it happened by chance.

However, we did not come out of chance. Physics, chemistry, and natural selection are not chance! They may not be intelligence, but they are not chance, either.

if so what is the sole purpose of life?

There does not seem to be a sole purpose. Even Jesus did not give you one purpose. Remember, when asked he said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself" That is two purposes of life.

lucaspa · Jul 1, 2004

ChristianRanger89 said:
If there is no God no soul within us WHY do we even need to be here if there is no life after our physical death?

You said it yourself: to take care of your wife and kids and do what you can to provide a good future for your kids. What's wrong with that purpose?

no because we will all die some day there is no immortality as we all know.

There is a certain immortality in 1) your genes and 2) your ideals. After all, did the martyrs dies only because they were to get a life after death? If so, why did Paul postpone his death as along as possible? Paul tried to avoid death because he wanted his ideas and the gospel to survive, and those had a better chance of doing so if Paul had more time to spread the gospel!

CR, while you can have purpose by having faith in God, you can also have purpose while believing God does not exist. Give it up. You don't prove God by saying "life has no purpose without God". That is demonstrably untrue.

For instance, David Hume is still remembered today for 1) his demonstration of the basis of knowledge and 2) his demolition of the formal logical arguments for the existence of God. So, he has a bit of immortality

Ben Draws has a bit of immortality in that the United States still exists as one nation. In 1864 he was a Union soldier up for re-enlistment. He could have gone home and had fun. Instead he said "If new men won't finish the job, old men must and as long as Uncle Sam needs a man, here is Ben Draws." Two months later he was KIA at Spotsylvania Courthouse. He had a purpose and it was different than belief in God.

you see I am gonna use my life to serve the one who made us when I die I know where I am going

Actually you don't know where you are going, because that decision is God's and, since you don't seem to be following what God outlined to do to show your beliefs, there is some doubt as to your fate.

do you know the theroies of evoulution is 100% correct? If so please prove it to us all.

Yes, I do know common ancestry and natural selection are 100% correct. After all, God told us that in His Creation. Why would you doubt God's word?

lucaspa · Jul 1, 2004

ChristianRanger89 said:
um how about the other comment about the dinosaurs changing into whales... I really don't understand that or heard of it I won't say much then... well in the non-creationist mags and stuff they clearly say that let's take a Brachiosaurus could not ever survive underwater because of its mass weight and size and the pressure of the water would crush its lungs but it did have nose that was something like a blowspout. So is that theroy wrong? If some are wrong and some are right how can evolution even be believed if there are alot of deception in it?

CR, your confusion comes from the fact that a theory has a lot of hypotheses within it. Evolution states that plants and animals have common ancestors and that populations of plants and animals transform into new species over generations. It also states that natural selection is the means of getting the designs in plants and animals during the transformation.

Now, within evolution, there was a hypothesis that Brachiosaurus lived in swamps and spent a lot of its time underwater. That hypothesis was stated in the 1890s. or earlier. Now, when we have a hypothesis like this, we can go back to God's Creation and let God tell us if the hypothesis is wrong. This is what happened. The evidence God left us in His Creation showed that it was impossible for Brachiosaurus or other dinos like it to have lived in swamps and spend time underwater. Yes, it's nostrils were on the "top" of its snout, but that had nothing to do with living in water.

Instead, the evidence said that Brachiosaurus lived on land and probably lived in herds like modern elephants. Traveling around a range eating plants.

Is that clearer?

lucaspa · Jul 1, 2004

ChristianRanger89 said:
A basic theory...*sigh*... ok then I'll tell you this much it clearly states how orgins of life began

This is what Darwin said:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Now, you have a problem with that origin of life? Why? Isn't it what you believe?

Now, Darwin later speculated on exactly how God might have "breathed" life into existence. That is, Darwin speculated that God might have used chemistry to create life. Later research has shown that indeed this is how God did it: chemistry. Since the chemistry still exists, you can use the same chemistry and make life in your kitchen.

not one person has ever proven the bible wrong yet so which one has the upper hand?

A literal interpretation of the Bible has been shown to be wrong many times! After all, Christians used to think the Bible said the earth was flat. The Church Fathers all thought this. Christians also used to think the Bible said the earth did not move. This idea of the Bible is what got Galileo into trouble. But Christians decided that their interpretation was wrong.

Christians then thought that the earth was young and that there was world-wide Flood, based on the Bible. But again, they decided their interpretation was wrong when they listened to God in His Creation tell them the earth was hundreds of millions of years old and there never was a world-wide Flood. This happened by 1831.

You seem to be stuck on a literal interpretation of the Bible despite what your fellow Christians have found and told you. See the first quote in my signature.

lucaspa · Jul 1, 2004

dstauff said:
In response to L'Anatra: In school, we were taught that mammals had descended from dinosaurs.

You must have been asleep that day. Mammals and reptiles had a common ancestor. Dinos descended from reptiles.

The human eye is one of the most complex structures in the universe; howerver, it would be useless if it were half-developed or there were no nerves to send its impulses, but evolution requires it to develop over time. So what is the advantage of half an eye?

In the land of the blind, the half-eyed animal is king.

Do you know what a paramecium is? It's a one-celled organism that lives in ponds. It doesn't have an eye. Instead, it has a spot on the cell membrane that has a lot of proteins that can detect light, a lot like the pigments in the retina of your eye. No nerves, no brain, yet it finds it's "eyespot" very useful. Can you figure out why?

I suggest you read Climbing Mt. Improbable for an eye-opening experience of all the living animals that have "half-developed" eyes!

You have a very misinformed and wrong notion of evolution. You should really be angry at the people who, claiming to be about God, so misled you about God and how He created.

Arikay · Jul 1, 2004

I think you missunderstood the argument. The general ID argument about the eye is that it is impossible for it to evolve so it must have been created. By showing how the eye could have possibily evolved through evolution alone, it shows that the argument is wrong.

Smidlee said:
So all this is basic on faith and not on hard evidence. First it seems foolish to claim the eye is flawed when mankind can't creat anything close to the eye none the less better. Evolution explanation of eye and their defense it's not by design seems to be very weak and should be questioned.

lucaspa · Jul 1, 2004

dstauff said:
In response to notto: Although you gived an unrealistic way of the evolution of the eye (you have no way of proving it)

Please tell us, in detail, why it is "unrealistic"?

you forget that the eye needs other functioning structures too, such as nerves to carry impulses and a brain to receive the impulses.

No, it doesn't. There is a species of jellyfish that lives in lakes in the Phillipines that has a highly developed pinhole and camera eye like us but does not have a brain! Does quite well. The eye is useful in tracking sunlight so that the jellyfish swims from east to west so it doesn't retrace it's path over areas that it has already eaten from.

The odds of all of them "evolving" together is staggering. In other words, impossible.

They don't have to evolve together. That is the strawman. They evolve sequentially. One after the other.

jb-creation · Jul 1, 2004

As to the eye, things are far more complex than you give them credit for. Each step that seems so simple is, in fact, immensely complex, involving numerous biochemical factors. First of all, the light-sensitive spot you take as the first step is already incredibly complex. Next, that simple cup shape requires a host of other molecules to be formed and maintained. The systems that operate within the eye are far more complex than you have been led to believe.

L'Anatra · Jul 1, 2004

jb-creation said:
As to the eye, things are far more complex than you give them credit for. Each step that seems so simple is, in fact, immensely complex, involving numerous biochemical factors. First of all, the light-sensitive spot you take as the first step is already incredibly complex. Next, that simple cup shape requires a host of other molecules to be formed and maintained. The systems that operate within the eye are far more complex than you have been led to believe.

So?

Arguments from incredulity aren't exactly useful or honest.

Starstreak M86 · Jul 1, 2004

Aggie said:
It's hard not to suspect that ChristianRanger89 is a troll when the origin of life view in his profile is theistic evolution...

Aggie,
And the fact that he's only 15 years old, but his profile says that he has been a Christian for 14 years!

Aduro Amnis · Jul 1, 2004

He He...

Starstreak M86 · Jul 1, 2004

Gracchus said:
Why should we concern ourselves with death and what comes after, if we trust the Lord to deal with us justly and mercifully? Most Christians are a sorry lot, fearing death, which ends pain, and professing beliefs that are belied by their actions. They huddle fearfullly in their churches for empty reassurance and do not know how to walk with the Lord, even alone and without human comfort.

They worry, and pray, as if the Lord had not already considered their needs. If they truly knew the Lord, they would walk without fear.

----------------------------------------------------------------
*You must spread some reputation around before giving more to Gracchus.*

Starstreak M86 · Jul 1, 2004

Aduro Amnis said:
He He...

Aduro Amnis,
Hehe!

So, he's been a Christian since he was 1 year old? Hmm...

Suspicious, ain't it?

Oliver · Jul 1, 2004

jb-creation said:
The systems that operate within the eye are far more complex than you have been led to believe.

Or maybe the processes known as "evolution" can achieve much more than you've been led to believe (i.e. lead to systems as complex as the eye).

Do you honestly think that the whole scientific community don't realize how complex a human eye is?

P.S: I wouldn't try and justify a theory by this (argument from authority), but what you're using is another fallacy: incredulity.

dstauff · Jul 1, 2004

__________________

The War in Iraq Cost the United States
$119,000,000,000+

Instead, we could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for
39
years.

This topic is not relevant to this forum. Second of all, if we would not have fought the war in Iraq there is no assurance that "every child in the world" would still be living because Saddam and regimes like his would be running loose committing genocide without anyone to keep them in check. You don't get the big picture. Dictators like Saddam will not stop at their own country. They WILL go after the West. The last time we tried appeasement WWII broke out.

JohnR7 · Jul 1, 2004

Aduro Amnis said:
Instead, we could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations

Actually, Bill Gates and Ted Turner are working on a program to immunize every child in the world.

JohnR7 · Jul 1, 2004

Starstreak M86 said:
Aggie,
And the fact that he's only 15 years old, but his profile says that he has been a Christian for 14 years!

We do start sunday school at the age of one. At first about all they can do is sing and march around the room, but it is a start.

Evolution is very obvious that is not true at all

a post by Alan Smithee

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

HI

Legend

Follower of Christ

Contributor

Atheist Turned Christian

Self-proclaimed reincarnation of Eugene V. Debs

Atheist Turned Christian

Atheist Turned Christian

Senior Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency