LOGIC please

[fanatiquefou]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Darwin, before he died..gave up on his theory...maybe it wasn't Dawin but another figure who was instrumental in the theory and it's success.. dunno. Sorry.

I'm sorry, but this really does NOT sound to me like you've done extensive research on evolutionary theories and its background. "Uh, maybe I read it somewhere, gee, I don't know...oh well! I'll use it as a fact anyway!" If you're really interested in studying evolution, then make a point to go to the best sources and be sure of your facts BEFORE you start spouting off. Besides this, your complete lack of knowledge of ANY of the basic vocabulary of science, including exactly what a scientific theory is, belies your claims to have studied evolution in-depth. Try again.

Oh, and by the way, the Darwin story is completely false. There are plenty of articles debunking this myth online, but perhaps you'll be more likely to believe one coming from a Christian website.

 

[rjw]

Hello

I am new to these forums and this subject is one that interests me indeed. Looking around quickly on these boards, I get the impression that they are indeed "Evolutionist" dominated. We'll I've done quite a bit of research on the subject myself. Indeed I believe in creation and this fact alone will get my post shot down and bashed by the people here, I accept that. Bash away. But before you attack explain something to me.

There are many major flaws I see with evolution, I could start naming them but I'll stick with one that is the nail in the coffin for me. This fact that every living organism, indeed EVERY CELL for that matter is built on a highly intricate and advanced system of.. systems (forgive my lack of vocabulary.) What I mean to say is when you study the make up of a cell, each one is made of systems.. You take one of these systems away, or in fact just corrupt one, and the cell will die. Study a cell! It's extremely advanced. To be easier to understand look at any breathing organism. We are made up of quite a few systems. Cardiovascular, respatory, muscular, epidural, etc system for examples, if flawed, we die. We need each system in us AT ONE TIME for us to live. If we're missing one system, the whole organism dies. It's the same with a cell.

So my question is, if even a cell has to have all it's pieces at once to work, how in the world could it evolve? It has to pop in place because for it to randomly come about EVERYTHING about it has to be there at once for it to survive!

And ah mutation. That's what Evolution is supposed to be.. Mutation. Funny thing is, as organisms, there never can be new information added to our make-up. It's impossible. The information can be rearranged, or partially lost... but new information is never added. Why? Because it just doesn't, see it can't exist where it doesn't exist! This is why we didn't evolve from single cell organisms. The information in our genetic makeup has to be there. So yea mutation does occur, but again, it's simply the rearrangement of information, or the loss of.

Of course does this disprove evolution? Well, if you can think logically about it then it will. But if you choose to be deceived into believing a theory even Darwin himself lost faith in, then hey, your own life. You want to live it how YOU want and not be responsible to a creator. That's why this is such an easy escape. But there is a creator, and one day you WILL stand before him on judgment day.

Just the way it is.

But God paid the penalty of your sin. If you just cling to him he will save you. Don't slap him in the face and say "Ha you didn't make all this, it's all a big accident" because he did make it, and on purpose! A plane has to have a blueprint. Just because monkeys have simular blueprints in their design as humans do, does not mean we evolved from them. It simply shows we have the same creator. But we were made for more than throwing poo. We were made for God. It's truly awesome. We can have a relationship with him? It's hard to wrap your mind around! You can know the one that made everything you see.

This is just my view on things. Consider it.

God bless.
moreJesus

PS I think I used the word "indeed" 300 times.. haha.. maybe subconsciencly I think it makes me look smart

Hi MoreJesus

There are many major flaws I see with evolution, …

It is always hard to know what to do with the above. “Major flaws”? What is the difference between a major flaw and a flaw? All scientific theories have their flaws, and some are major, but they are good scientific theories anyway.

I could start naming them but I'll stick with one that is the nail in the coffin for me. This fact that every living organism, indeed EVERY CELL for that matter is built on a highly intricate and advanced system of.. systems (forgive my lack of vocabulary.) What I mean to say is when you study the make up of a cell, each one is made of systems.. You take one of these systems away, or in fact just corrupt one, and the cell will die. Study a cell! It's extremely advanced. To be easier to understand look at any breathing organism. We are made up of quite a few systems. Cardiovascular, respatory, muscular, epidural, etc system for examples, if flawed, we die. We need each system in us AT ONE TIME for us to live. If we're missing one system, the whole organism dies. It's the same with a cell.

To an extent you are saying that we do not have a good scientific theory for the origin of cells/life. And you would be correct for saying so. We have some ideas but no good theory. However, we do have a very solid scientific foundation for arguing evolution. Whether the first cells evolved naturally, whether aliens popped them here or whether God created them – no matter. We have very good evidence that once life got going, it evolved.

To be easier to understand look at any breathing organism. We are made up of quite a few systems. Cardiovascular, respatory, muscular, epidural, etc system for examples, if flawed, we die. We need each system in us AT ONE TIME for us to live. If we're missing one system, the whole organism dies. It's the same with a cell.

No. We all walk around with flaws in us. We can even lose our sight and still survive. Others may help us but such is called a symbiotic relationship. These relationships are common in nature. We take vitamins because our bodies have a “flaw” – they cannot produce them internally so we have to get them from external sources. Cells can also have flaws e.g. not produce the amount of some protein that other “normal” cells do – but they can still survive.

So my question is, if even a cell has to have all it's pieces at once to work, how in the world could it evolve? It has to pop in place because for it to randomly come about EVERYTHING about it has to be there at once for it to survive!

We can model some very complex systems, for example the Citric Acid Cycle (important part of an animal's metabolism). See:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

Several years ago, scientists were able to show how this complex, and seemingly irreducible cycle could have evolved through one of several pathways. Each pathway joined systems of chemical reactions that were used for entirely different functions in a step by step process to build up the cycle. Each intermediate was functional.

That is, there is evidence that these kinds of things can be done. See:-

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec99.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

And ah mutation. That's what Evolution is supposed to be.. Mutation. Funny thing is, as organisms, there never can be new information added to our make-up. It's impossible. The information can be rearranged, or partially lost... but new information is never added. Why? Because it just doesn't, see it can't exist where it doesn't exist! This is why we didn't evolve from single cell organisms. The information in our genetic makeup has to be there. So yea mutation does occur, but again, it's simply the rearrangement of information, or the loss of.

Are you sure about this? Perhaps I need to post some recent articles I put on another board to show that evolution is very different to the evolution you present here.

For example, in a recent issue of Nature researchers showed how entirely different species of yeast evolved two different molecular circuits which produced the same output – to control mating behavior. That is, C. albians (thrush yeast), positively controlled its mating type cells while S cerevisiae (baker’s yeast) negatively controlled the same cells. The latter could well have shared a common ancestor with the former (which was demonstrated via independent phylogenetic analysis). The evidence for this evolution was a third species of yeast called K lactis which had intermediate molecular structures. K. lactis showed how the S cerevisiae system could have build from the C. albians like ancestor via functional intermediates. There was a loss of some information here, but a gain of other information there. No re-shuffling of information at all.

Of course does this disprove evolution? Well, if you can think logically about it then it will. But if you choose to be deceived into believing a theory even Darwin himself lost faith in, then hey, your own life. You want to live it how YOU want and not be responsible to a creator. That's why this is such an easy escape. But there is a creator, and one day you WILL stand before him on judgment day.

You need to be careful about trying to convince others by arguing from dubious premises (Darwin confessed on his death-bead); by arguing from silly premises (I “want to live it how want”); by trying to scare people (“one day will stand before [my] creator on judgment day”).

It hardly makes for logical argument and only puts you in a position of asking for ridicule. So why grumble when you get it MJ (e.g. “this fact alone will get my post shot down and bashed by the people here”)?

But God paid the penalty of your sin. If you just cling to him he will save you. Don't slap him in the face and say "Ha you didn't make all this, it's all a big accident" because he did make it, and on purpose!

If I thought God existed then maybe I would be “slapping” him in the face. But I do not think God exists and you telling me that I am slapping him in the face hardly means that I am. Maybe Allah exists and your rejection of Islam is you slapping Allah in the face?

A plane has to have a blueprint. Just because monkeys have simular blueprints in their design as humans do, does not mean we evolved from them. It simply shows we have the same creator.

This is arguing by analogy. It does not mean that at all. Different “creators” make different planes. One god made black people. Another made white people. A committee of gods made elephants.

Before they all did this, they sat down and had a meeting on the best design. There was a lot of disagreement. Two gods could not quite agree on color. Several others felt a very different morphology would be best.

That is how we got to be.

Prove me wrong?

But we were made for more than throwing poo.

We must have been. We have arms and can throw poo. Using your logic from above, this proves that we were made to throw poo.

We were made for God. It's truly awesome. We can have a relationship with him? It's hard to wrap your mind around! You can know the one that made everything you see.

It would be awesome if it were true.

This is just my view on things.

Fair enough.

Consider it.

Because I disagree with you, do you think I have not therefore considered it?


Regards, Roland

 

[Biologist]

I am new to these forums and this subject is one that interests me indeed. Looking around quickly on these boards, I get the impression that they are indeed "Evolutionist" dominated. We'll I've done quite a bit of research on the subject myself. Indeed I believe in creation and this fact alone will get my post shot down and bashed by the people here,

Could you have possibly done more than a PhD Biologist?

Or even me, I'm just a third year honors student biology major?

The fact of the matter is you have not done "a lot" of anything. Evolution isn't something you can just 'research' on the internet. You need a large background of Chemistry, and Biology. To put it into new prospective it's like trying to understand Biochemistry without General and organic Chemistry, which all three of those classes are required before you take an actual evolution course.

 

[fromdownunder]

Since the Lady Hope story, in the context of Darwin recanting on his deathbed has been mentioned, but not detailed, I thought I might as well fill in some of the gaps.

Lady Hope was a Roman Catholic apologist who dined out for the rest of her life on her claim that she was with Darwin when he died, and he made a claim that evolution is incorrect. She was a liar.

Darwin's daughter Herietta who was at his bedside when he died said many times after his death that Lady Hope was not present at or near his death, and it is entirely possible that she never even met Darwin.

As has already been said above, even AiG list this on one of the "Arguments that Christians should not use" when attacking evolution. I would suggest to the OP that he access this list to save himself further embarrasment.

And another point. Before Darwin's voyage on the Beagle, he was studying to become a Minister in the Church of England, so he was a Christian in every sense of the word. He delayed publication of Origin for decades because of fear as to what it may do to people's belief in Gods, and only eventually published after Wallace independantly came up with exactly the same theory and wrote to Darwin about his findings. Incidentally, Wallace was a Christian also, and as I understand it stayed so for the rest of his life.

And, at least in the first few editions of Origin, Darwin referred to "the Creator", I think in the final chapter, so at that point in his life he still accepted some sort of theistic belief.

I could be wrong, and it does not matter that much, as it is a side issue, but my understanding was that he lost faith and ceased being a deist when one of his children died at a very young age.

And I wonder what Mendel (who is the father of Genetics) did for a living? Was he a Roman Catholic priest? You bet your sweet bippy he was!

Norm

 

[Hydra009]

And another point. Before Darwin's voyage on the Beagle, he was studying to become a Minister in the Church of England, so he was a Christian in every sense of the word. He delayed publication of Origin for decades because of fear as to what it may do to people's belief in Gods, and only eventually published after Wallace independantly came up with exactly the same theory and wrote to Darwin about his findings. Incidentally, Wallace was a Christian also, and as I understand it stayed so for the rest of his life.

IIRC, Wallace was agnostic prior to his brush with evolution and later became a spiritualist. linky

The funny thing about this is that people love to bring up Darwin's deconversion to imply that accepting evolution inevitably leads from Christianity to atheism, yet no one follows the logic consistently to warn impressionable young nonbelievers that accepting evolution will destroy their unbelief.

 

[fromdownunder]

Hydra009, thanks for that. I learn something new every day.

Norm

 

[Chalnoth]

The fact of the matter is you have not done "a lot" of anything. Evolution isn't something you can just 'research' on the internet. You need a large background of Chemistry, and Biology. To put it into new prospective it's like trying to understand Biochemistry without General and organic Chemistry, which all three of those classes are required before you take an actual evolution course.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that at all. The concept of evolution is so incredibly simple that it really doesn't require any deep understanding of the mechanisms which drive it. All that it does require is a good grounding in logical thinking and a little bit of evidence.

 

[Oliver]

Undestanding the concept of evolution may not require an indepth scientific knowledge, but understanding the evidence for it or why some of the common criticism are bogus, is another story.

 

[tocis]

So my question is, if even a cell has to have all it's pieces at once to work, how in the world could it evolve?

So my question is, if you are so very interested in science, why don't you learn about it (at least the basics)? Your "nail in the coffin of evolution" has been debunked a gazillion times on this very forum alone...

Just the way it is.

 

[BandyOne]

I think it was Shaw who said:
Common sense is not very common.

 

[Exhausted]

Hi.

Would you please consider something? Do me a favor... move your arm. Seriously, look at your arm and move it.

Now, how did that happen? You thought and your arm moved. Isn't that pretty much how you picture creation? God thought and man appeared. But... through studying the human body we know that your thought didn't actually "move" your arm. Muscles moved your arm. Your brain just sent the instructions through your nerves to those muscles and they contracted appropriately. Thus your arm moved not because of your brain but because of the system your brain is able to command. What system did God command to create man? What interpreted his thought so that something would actually happen?

You may know how a computer or a car is put together. You may even be able to design one in your head. But that doesn't translate to having a car. You still have to build it here, in the real world. So does God. I refer you to Jesus who didn't appear here as a fully-grown man. He had to start out as we all do. Nine months in a womb, an infant pooping in his diapers, a toddler, then a child and so on. Design doesn't translate directly into production. The design has to somehow be manufactured.

You say that some systems can only be explained if they were created by God? HOW did God create them? Not did God create them, but HOW did God create them? Sure, like your arm God is (I guess) able to simply think and something happens. But HOW?

How?

Okay, it's old, but I just wanted to quote this post for being a wonderful analogy.

On topic, I'd like to put forward a motion with my fellow evil atheists. Shall we just label the clearly uneducated members of this forum, who think they've disproved evolution with the same common fallacies used over and over by every idiotic creationalist ever, as blatant trolls and treat them as such? Because anything else strikes me as a massive waste of time.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

I think it was Shaw who said:
Common sense is not very common.

Or an alternative, Common Sense is like dirt, its everywhere and worthless.

 

[Dr.GH]

Shall we just label the clearly uneducated members of this forum, who think they've disproved evolution with the same common fallacies used over and over by every idiotic creationalist ever, as blatant trolls and treat them as such?

I don't agree. For example, our new friend, MoreJesus. He is a 23 year old graphics designer, and a very full of himself young Christian. He is also woefully ignorant.

He is not a troll in the internet sense of someone who makes outrageous statements merely to provoke responses.

As for his "Christian witness" I am reminded of 1 Corinthians 3 which observes;
1. And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.
2. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,

 

[Dr.GH]

I would also commend the observation of Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274 that

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." Summa Theologica (1273).

Aquinas refers to the Christian father, Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) who advised Christians trying to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). The following translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. {Augustine here has refered to 1 Timothy 1.7}

 

[Exhausted]

Yeah, but I'm more than willing to forget that, because I don't have nearly the patience to deal people like this on a regular basis. Know what? I'm going to make a new thread. "Required Reading for Either Side."

Point taken, though. They aren't doing it on purpose.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I would also commend the observation of Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274 that Aquinas refers to the Christian father, Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) who advised Christians trying to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). The following translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Oh BLESS you Dr. G.H. for interjecting a quote from Aquinas! That was fantastic! Thank you.

(of course I'm doubting there are many in the creationist camp who care about Aquinas or the fact that the Church once housed some of the greatest thinkers, --not that I fully agree with everything Aquinas said, but still...)

Still you are doing the lord's work, my son.

 

[divalishous]

I have not done extensive research on the subject, I merely have a question.

Are most of the debates in this Forum reserved for New Earth Creationists vs. Evolutionists?

 

[Mystman]

I have not done extensive research on the subject, I merely have a question.

Are most of the debates in this Forum reserved for New Earth Creationists vs. Evolutionists?

The term "New Earth Creationist" isn't used a lot here, but I take it that you mean Christians who believe in a literal Genesis, and that the world is only ~6000 years old?

If so, then yes, most debates are between them and evolutionists

But there are a number of other types of creationists here..

 

[tocis]

On topic, I'd like to put forward a motion with my fellow evil atheists. Shall we just label the clearly uneducated members of this forum, who think they've disproved evolution with the same common fallacies used over and over by every idiotic creationalist ever, as blatant trolls and treat them as such? Because anything else strikes me as a massive waste of time.

I admit that I'd love to do that. The only thing holding me back, I guess, is that at least some of them honestly think this nonsense is scientifically sound. In other words, they don't do it intentionally.
Of course I'm just an evil-atheist-disguised-as-heathen, so maybe my vote doesn't count anyway

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I have not done extensive research on the subject, I merely have a question.

Are most of the debates in this Forum reserved for New Earth Creationists vs. Evolutionists?

Welcome to the forum!

To your question: sometimes, it's hard to tell. Some of the creationist regulars here have subscribed to fringe beliefs that won't show up on any resource page on creationism.