Why Argue Against Evolution and a Natural Origin?

[pitabread]

So what?

It's gibberish.

At the micro level, adaptations and variations only.

If you examine the fossil record it goes from single celled organisms ~4 billion years ago all the way up to millions of species of multi-cellular organisms today. If you want to call that "at the micro level", fill your boots.

And you do a wonderful job finding proposed connections.

I'm simply pointing out that the fossil record shows observed changes of the biology of this planet over time. If you don't think it does, then I dunno what to tell you.

 

[inquiring mind]

What are the specific mechanisms/processes by which organisms are created supernaturally from scratch?

We have observed mechanisms by which populations change over time. I'm not aware of any observed mechanisms by which organisms are created out of thin air.

Jeremiah 32:17
“Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:”

Jeremiah 32:26-27
Then came the word of the LORD unto Jeremiah, saying, Behold, I [am] the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

 

[pitabread]

Jeremiah 32:17
“Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:”

Jeremiah 32:26-27
Then came the word of the LORD unto Jeremiah, saying, Behold, I [am] the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

So that's a no then.

 

[inquiring mind]

So that's a no then.

Correct, you're not aware of any observed mechanisms by which organisms are created out of thin air.

 

[pitabread]

Correct, you're not aware of any observed mechanisms by which organisms are created out of thin air.

Nobody is. That's the problem.

 

[inquiring mind]

Nobody is. That's the problem.

What problem?

 

[pitabread]

What problem?

That there is no proposed mechanism for the creation of organisms out of thin air.

 

[inquiring mind]

That there is no proposed mechanism for the creation of organisms out of thin air.

It's not a problem for me.

 

[pitabread]

It's not a problem for me.

This is why creationism is doomed to the fringe.

 

[inquiring mind]

This is why creationism is doomed to the fringe.

This world is God's creation. Nothing else makes sense to those who will let themselves see. And, no matter how much we learn... we'll know little of it.

 

[USincognito]

I should save my breath then, but yes as AV said, they may be similar processes, but the difference is in the outcomes.

AV is wrong, he doesn't know what he's talking about and I've had him on ignore for like 10 years.

The process is exactly the same. Mutations cause changes to form or function. Over time those changes can build up to where a descendant population might seem completely different from it's ancestors.

One results in observed adaptation and variations, while the other proposes much more, ‘a complete unobserved change,’ from one kind to another.

"Kind" isn't a scientific concept and this whole "observed" nonsense is right up there with "proof" in the misconceptions department. Scientific observations are not limited to before our eyes and in real time.

..there is no hard evidence that anything like that ever happened.

Your lack of awareness of the evidence is not an indication of it's absence. We have an enormous amount of evidence from numerous lines supporting common descent. 29 of them are listed here:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

No, like lawyers, they know that the truth isn't always what it appears to be.

This pithy riposte doesn't make any sense. As I noted, claiming that scientists and Creationists have the same evidence, but just "interpret" it differently doesn't pass muster. Shared pseudogenes are evidence for common ancestry - period. There is no nuance or "interpretation" involved.

Again, in the interest of saving my breath (since it's not gonna make any difference to you), I'll just go with what AV said (post #73). It's a much better answer than I could give anyway.

As I said, I have AV on ignore so I will never see his nonsense, and if he can provide a better answer than you, then you're in way, way over your head.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This world is God's creation. Nothing else makes sense to those who will let themselves see. And, no matter how much we learn... we'll know little of it.

So why is it that in God's creation, we see such overwhelming evidence for evolution, and none for creation?

 

[inquiring mind]

So why is it that in God's creation, we see such overwhelming evidence for evolution, and none for creation?

Expectation often works that way.

 

[VirOptimus]

Expectation often works that way.

No, thats not why. Its because one is solid science and the other is wrong.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, thats not why. Its because one is solid science and the other is wrong.

See?

 

[VirOptimus]

See?

I think you should educate yourself.

 

[inquiring mind]

Scientific observations are not limited to before our eyes and in real time.

Neither is God's work... but the contrary is posted continually.

 

[VirOptimus]

Neither is God's work... but the contrary is posted continually.

Science does not adress god(s).

 

[USincognito]

Neither is God's work... but the contrary is posted continually.

Non sequitur. Care to address what I actually wrote about?

 

[xianghua]

The fossil record shows that living species have changed through geological time; for example, during the Cambrian period there were no insects or land vertebrates.

not realy since its also possible that groups of creatures were made in different time or that the fossil record just represent the size of the population. so if species a had bigger population then species b it has more chance to leave fossils and this is why we find different creatures at different geological time. remember that even according to the bible all creatures were not made at the same time.