Arikay said:
Actually it is more than just a specific verse, its a theme that runs through out the entire NT.
Really? Now its your turn to present evidence to back up your statements.
Show us how a watch in a box is the same as life and the environment. show us How mutation and natural selection can act on that watch.
Your argument completly ignored the basis of evolution (this basis is accepted by pretty much every creationist group, they don't argue against evolution, but against non constrained evolution which is basically what creationism is about).
Out of curiousity, where are the verses in the bible that predict jesus will be born in a manger, and then the verse that says he is born in a manger? (were you the one talking about that, or was it someone else?)
Arikay,
My theories about creation stem from my faith in Jesus Christ and my ability to decode the Bible. My analogy of a watch is simply an illustration of complexity. The trouble that scientists have, though everyone has proven that science is agnostic, is that they cannot rely on God for their theories. This is somewhat of a bunny trail.
Back to the watch. A watch is a complex piece of equipment. It has many intriquete (spell check) moving parts. They all work in perfect order. If you apply the methodology of mutation and natural selection to the parts of a watch you would never get to a watch.
Imagine that every piece of a watch maps to a specific piece of an organism. Then you take all the pieces of a watch and throw them into a show box and shake it up, you'll never get a completely put together watch, much less functional.
Worse than this, you'll say this is not representative of life or organisms and I say to that, put down the nebulous of organic matter and start using math to figure this out. Even if it were possible to put a watch together just by shaking all of the pieces together, how would you give it life?
Now here's another piece to that argument, this analogy REQUIRES outside influence. Someone must put the watch in the box, someone must have the box, someone must shake the box. So does the primordial soup theory.
Primordial soup, the beginngings of life, require outside influence to begin life...you know how I know that? How many can's of campbells have you opened that had a critter spawn out of it? It has all the ingredients...organic material, in a vaccum...technically life should be starting there. But it doesn't. It requires something to get the process started...what's the outside influence? Where did it come from? Who has control over it? Since there was no intelligent life, and no intelligent designer, what un-intelligent thing decided to add that outside influence?
Haven't you ever wondered why everytime creationist come up with a good refutation about the scientific reason how the earth couldn't have been formed the answer is always more time? Apply the same thing to evolution.
When I was in school, the earth was only a few hundred million years old. Don't tell me it's geology vs biology, the concepts are the same.
Back to biology;
When you see the watch you must think that there is a watchmaker...this doesn't change for organic material. How can you account for no transitional forms? Why can't men mate with ape's/chimps? Why aren't their any man-apes? Why Aren't their apes still turning into humans?
Doesn't it bother you that everytime you don't have an answer the only one anyone can provide you is that it takes so long, no one has ever seen it...but it's basically scientific fact????
I am interested to see what your answers to these questions are.
