What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[Inan3]

Evidence says that if God created the heaven and earth, which is a question not answered by science in and of itself, God did not do in the way described in a literal reading of the Genesis account.

This is different from "Evidence says God did not create heaven and earth". The above is what Skaloop meant.

In truth "evidence" has nothing to do with it because there is no such evidence nor could there be.

BUT

Tell me what this evidence is that says that "God did not do in the way described in a literal reading of Genesis account"

 

[NailsII]

Oh come on, you're just going round in circles now.

We've already covered this!!!

So I guess you havn't watched the video i linked you then.

So you must have lied.

How un-christian of you.

 

[TheOutsider]

In truth "evidence" has nothing to do with it because there is no such evidence nor could there be.

BUT

Tell me what this evidence is that says that "God did not do in the way described in a literal reading of Genesis account"

For starters, men and women have the same number of ribs.

 

[NailsII]

In truth "evidence" has nothing to do with it because there is no such evidence nor could there be.

BUT

Tell me what this evidence is that says that "God did not do in the way described in a literal reading of Genesis account"

Jason and the argo's is based on a true story, but look how it has been distorted through time.
My guess is that the bible is the same....

 

[Skaloop]

Tell me what this evidence is that says that "God did not do in the way described in a literal reading of Genesis account"

For starters, it says the Earth came before the Sun. The evidence shows that to be false. Then it says that there were plants before there was the Sun. The evidence shows that to be false. Then it says that whales and birds came before any other animals. The evidence shows that to be false.

It also says that there was light before there was the Sun or stars, that the stars are embedded in a firmament above the Earth, and that there was water above this firmament. The evidence shows this to be false.

 

[Inan3]

Inan3:
So god thinks that slavery and abuse of women is OK?
And you want to associate with these ideas?
It is the literal word of god, you cannot pick and choose. The quotes I have chosen are immoral, not from a loving god who created everything - they are there purly to justify man's obsession with destruction.

I never said that but He also, does not approve of many other things that go on in the earth. There will be a day of reconing and at that time He will deal with what has been done whether right or wrong and your's or my opinion will amount to nothing.

You don't have to tell me about the litera Word of God. I don't pick and choose. But it's obvious some do.

I thought atheists were amoral. So, who are you to say what is immoral or not? They are there to point out the immorality of man and to put a limitation upon it but they are not there to justify man in anyway. If you understood the whole of God's Word you would know that.

I would argue that the way you are perceiving things is very wrong.

You can argue all you want but you have no idea how or why I perceive things AND who are you to make that judgement?

It is the direct order and justification to kill every man, woman and child except for the virgins!!! I don't care how much they [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed god off, if he wanted them dead so badly he should have done it himself - he has done it before so the bible tells us. If you even attempt to justify this then you have some serious issues that might require professional help.

Firstly to suggest that God should have killed them Himself shows your ignorance of the scriptures and the relationship of God with man.

I do not need to justify the actions of God. Just because you don't understand them does not mean they are unjust though. Rather I would say your perception is off due to ignorance of Who He is. As an atheist DO NOT perceive to understand ANYTHING about God or the scriptures because you are on the wrong side of comprehension of spiritual things.

I don't think you understand the core of this - Behe has no evidence and no defence against the evidence.

If he was there he would probably just sit in the corner and look embarrassed (ok, maybe that is a little harsh).

If you have watched the first half you may now understand how overwhelming the evidence is for evolution.

For your information, this testimony was enough to make Behe change his mind. In his new book he accepts that evolution is a real and measurable phenomenon.

As a matter of fact I found in listening to this man that if he is the "big guns" then you don't have much. I was not impressed with his presentation at all. I found him rather taken up with himself. An attribute that repulses me rather than draws me in.

I still would rather have had Behe there if nothing more than to confirm what he said.

 

[Split Rock]

I thought atheists were amoral.

Where did you get that strange idea from?

 

[Skaloop]

As a matter of fact I found in listening to this man that if he is the "big guns" then you don't have much. I was not impressed with his presentation at all. I found him rather taken up with himself. An attribute that repulses me rather than draws me in.

Which has no relevance to the veracity of his statements. He could be the most pompous, arrogant, narcissistic jerk to ever walk the Earth, but what he said would still be true.

 

[TheOutsider]

As a matter of fact I found in listening to this man that if he is the "big guns" then you don't have much. I was not impressed with his presentation at all. I found him rather taken up with himself. An attribute that repulses me rather than draws me in.

I still would rather have had Behe there if nothing more than to confirm what he said.

"Taken up with himself"? Sorry that he was talking over your head. Is there anything in his presentation that you would like to argue against? And Behe was invited, but chickened out.

Ken Miller is a Catholic, btw.

 

[Inan3]

For starters, it says the Earth came before the Sun. The evidence shows that to be false.

How so?

Then it says that there were plants before there was the Sun. The evidence shows that to be false.

How so?

[/QUOTE]

Then it says that whales and birds came before any other animals. The evidence shows that to be false.

How so?

It also says that there was light before there was the Sun or stars, that the stars are embedded in a firmament above the Earth, and that there was water above this firmament. The evidence shows this to be false.

How so?

 

[Inan3]

"Taken up with himself"? Sorry that he was talking over your head. Is there anything in his presentation that you would like to argue against? And Behe was invited, but chickened out.

Ken Miller is a Catholic, btw.

No, not talking over my head but talking about himself.

I heard him say that....And your point about him being Catholic

 

[Inan3]

Which has no relevance to the veracity of his statements. He could be the most pompous, arrogant, narcissistic jerk to ever walk the Earth, but what he said would still be true.

Or not. As far as I heard he really didn't present anything.

 

[Inan3]

Where did you get that strange idea from?

From one of your own on one of these threads we go back and forth on. They came right and told me that atheists were amoral (not immoral).

 

[Skaloop]

How so?

The Earth formed from the solar dust that surrounded the Sun after its formation. The Sun came first.

How so?

The Sun existed before the Earth, so clearly it existed before plants did. Furthermore, plants cannot survive without sunlight, so the Sun has to be present for plants to exist.

How so?

For starters, whales evolved from land mammals, as evidenced by the fossil record. So land mammals had to exist prior to whales. And birds evolved from reptiles, so reptiles had to exist before birds. This is all shown by various lines of evidence, including fossils and genetics.

How so?

Light is produced by the Sun and by stars. If the Sun and stars did not yet exist, light did not exist. There is no firmament above the Earth for the stars to be embedded into, and even if you take a broad definition of firmament to just mean sky or heavens, the stars still are not embedded in it. Finally, nobody has ever detected a huge mass of water above the Earth, much less any sort of firmament holding it up.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The Earth formed from the solar dust that surrounded the Sun after its formation. The Sun came first.[/color]



The Sun existed before the Earth, so clearly it existed before plants did. Furthermore, plants cannot survive without sunlight, so the Sun has to be present for plants to exist.



For starters, whales evolved from land mammals, as evidenced by the fossil record. So land mammals had to exist prior to whales. And birds evolved from reptiles, so reptiles had to exist before birds. This is all shown by various lines of evidence, including fossils and genetics.



Light is produced by the Sun and by stars. If the Sun and stars did not yet exist, light did not exist. There is no firmament above the Earth for the stars to be embedded into, and even if you take a broad definition of firmament to just mean sky or heavens, the stars still are not embedded in it. Finally, nobody has ever detected a huge mass of water above the Earth, much less any sort of firmament holding it up.

Scientifically, Genesis is ridiculous. Genesis cant be used as an argument against science because its science is so flawed it fails at the elementary school level.

 

[TheOutsider]

Or not. As far as I heard he really didn't present anything.

You must have some weird definition of evidence that no one else in the world has ever heard of. Are you upset that he didn't quote more scripture?

 

[FishFace]

How so?

If there was no sun, the earth would fly off into space.

How so?

The sun has existed at least as long as the earth, and plants haven't been around for all that long at all, in the grand scheme of things - they evolved after animals colonized the land, if I recall.

How so?

Whales evolved from mammals - that's why we have a fossil transition from things which look rather like horses or cows all the way to whales. In between, there are fossils with progressively useless back legs, and in the middle, the organism has legs such that it could both swim and walk.

How so?

No stars, no light.

Of course, you could claim that God did it all by miracles, but that's not science, since you've got no evidence at all.

 

[FishFace]

Or not. As far as I heard he really didn't present anything.

Were you listening to the part where he demolished irreducible complexity?

 

[Skaloop]

The sun has existed at least as long as the earth, and plants haven't been around for all that long at all, in the grand scheme of things - they evolved after animals colonized the land, if I recall.

You mean flowering plants, right? Because surely plants in general were around before land animals, who would need the oxygen produced by photosynthesis.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

You mean flowering plants, right? Because surely plants in general were around before land animals, who would need the oxygen produced by photosynthesis.

Actually, I'm pretty sure algae give off more oxygen than plants.