Why Argue Against Evolution and a Natural Origin?

[pitabread]

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.

Based on what we have learned, it appears that live evolved over time.

Ironically, it seems that it is creationists who have blinded themselves to God's creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ironically, it seems that it is creationists who have blinded themselves to God's creation.

Whose creation?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Expectation often works that way.

You really don't get science, do you?
Although I have a feeling that there is no point, because no matter what evidence you are presented, you still won't accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

No, according to the Bible, all creatures were made in two days (water creatures and fowl on Day Five, and land animals on Day Six along with Adam). Totally different to what we see in paleontology.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

Or, God designed the process of evolution and turned it loose, resulting in the biological diversity we see today. That would square with what science has discovered as well. What is your objection to it?

 

[pitabread]

Whose creation?

I'm talking about what creationists believe.

E.g.: creationists believe the Earth is God's creation, but they ignore it when it becomes inconvenient to their beliefs.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Do you really think that this is plausible? Do you think that during the entire 120 million years of the Lower Palaeozoic (the Cambrian to Silurian periods) there were ammonites, belemnites, fishes of modern types, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, turtles, crocodiles, whales, dolphins, seals, walruses and sirenians, and penguins and great auks living in the oceans, but they were so rare that none of them were preserved as fossils, and then that during the Mesozoic era ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, ammonites and belemnites suddenly became so abundant that the rocks are crowded with their fossils?

 

[inquiring mind]

Or, God designed the process of evolution and turned it loose, resulting in the biological diversity we see today. That would square with what science has discovered as well. What is your objection to it?

God’s creation doesn’t need to square with science (evolution in this case), it’s the other way around. But, to answer your question, your suggestion seems different from what Genesis 1:24-28 and Genesis 2:7 tell us. Although I think it is possible the days of Creation were not days as we know them, and could have covered great expanses of time, still there does not appear to be room, or a speculated fit, in the wording of those verses for the macroevolution of man.

 

[Speedwell]

God’s creation doesn’t need to square with science (evolution in this case), it’s the other way around. But, to answer your question, your suggestion seems different from what Genesis 1:24-28 and Genesis 2:7 tell us. Although I think it is possible the days of Creation were not days as we know them, and could have covered great expanses of time, still there does not appear to be room, or a speculated fit, in the wording of those verses for the macroevolution of man.

That depends on what we think those texts have to tell us.

 

[Kaon]

Evolution (as a whole, including macro, common descent, etc.) has the law, science, academia, and even some religious affiliations on its side, fully supportive, and even protective… which makes it pretty much factual by most standards... doesn’t it?

Is this the, now, standard of humans - to take consensus between human "officials" as truth for life?

When will humans stop letting other humans rule their mind, bodies and spirits - that we have been convinced we don't have (yet those who exploit us surely believe we do)?

 

[inquiring mind]

That depends on what we think those texts have to tell us.

That is often true, but God says He created mankind in his own image, not something that would eventually be, and God formed man from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul. I used to entertain the possibility of what you suggest, but there just doesn't appear to be any wiggle room there.

 

[pitabread]

That is often true, but God says He created mankind in his own image

Do you believe that God is a bipedal ape?

 

[xianghua]

Or, God designed the process of evolution and turned it loose, resulting in the biological diversity we see today. That would square with what science has discovered as well. What is your objection to it?

that we can explain it without it. and thus we dont need such an explanation.

 

[xianghua]

Do you really think that this is plausible? Do you think that during the entire 120 million years of the Lower Palaeozoic (the Cambrian to Silurian periods) there were ammonites, belemnites, fishes of modern types, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, turtles, crocodiles, whales, dolphins, seals, walruses and sirenians, and penguins and great auks living in the oceans, but they were so rare that none of them were preserved as fossils, and then that during the Mesozoic era ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, ammonites and belemnites suddenly became so abundant that the rocks are crowded with their fossils?

as i said: its possible that different kinds of creatures (different groups) were made in different time. but we also need to be open to the second option.

 

[Speedwell]

that we can explain it without it. and thus we dont need such an explanation.

We do, since you offer no explanation of your own. All you ever do is try to discredit evolution, but you give us no reason for wanting to do so nor do you offer any alternative explanation except "it must have been designed" which is no explanation at all.

Why do you want to explain the diversity of life without evolution? What difference does it make to you, given that God is author of our existence in any case?

 

[Speedwell]

as i said: its possible that different kinds of creatures (different groups) were made in different time. but we also need to be open to the second option.

No reason to, unless you can give us some reason to suppose such a thing actually happened.

 

[xianghua]

We do, since you offer no explanation of your own. All you ever do is try to discredit evolution, but you give us no reason for wanting to do so

since evolution is just a theory i see no problem to believe that its not true.

 

[Speedwell]

since evolution is just a theory i see no problem to believe that its not true.

You can believe that the theory of evolution is not true if you want. But you spend a lot of time and effort trying to convince the rest of us that it isn't true--you must have some reason for that. It's not as if the theory of evolution does you any harm, or that other people accept it does you any harm, either.

 

[xianghua]

You can believe that the theory of evolution is not true if you want. But you spend a lot of time and effort trying to convince the rest of us that it isn't true--you must have some reason for that. It's not as if the theory of evolution does you any harm, or that other people accept it does you any harm, either.

i do have a good reason to reject it. for instance: we know that its very unlikely that if we had a self replicating car it will evolve into something like an airplane. so its also true for living creatures.

 

[Speedwell]

i do have a good reason to reject it. for instance: we know that its very unlikely that if we had a self replicating car it will evolve into something like an airplane. so its also true for living creatures.

If the "self-replicating car" exhibited randomly distributed heritable variation and its generations were subject to the right sort of natural selection, why would it not?