i have a book called The Silmarillion. some of the things mentioned in there are hard to believe, but it easily disproves evolution as well, since it is a very accurate history of another real world.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why evolution doesn't work.
- Thread starter Risen Tree
- Start date
You can do what ever you want. But scripture is not evidence that can be used to disprove science. Why do you insist that science is wrong based on your interpretation of scripture? The Church once insisted that the earth was at the center of the universe, to its folly. Almost everyone today recognizes that it is not, and those passages that used to be used to argue against astronomy and physics have either been reinterpreted or devalued, even amongst biblical "literalists." Does that part of history not tell you something about trying to disprove real world observations using man's interpretation of scripture?
Take the following situation:
A woman is missing. The police suspect that she has been murdered because they found a large pool of her blood in her apartment. They believe that the killer has stashed her body but they aren't able to find her despite months of searching. One day a woman reports that she believes that her ex-boyfriend shot the woman during a robbery. The police pick this man up and after a particularly intense interrogation, he confesses to the murder. He signs a confession saying that he shot her, stole her purse, and threw her in to the river. He is found guilty of the crime, but before he is sentenced, her body is found buried in an abandoned lot with a knife stuck in her back and no bullet hole. Now should you use the confession to prove that she was neither stabbed nor buried but rather shot and dumped in the river? Or should you use the data from the crime scene to show that she was stabbed and buried rather than shot and dumped in the river? Furthermore, what does this do to the trial that is still under way?
Think about this and then think what you should do if your interpretation of scripture conflicts with the data from the real world. Do you ignore the data or do you reevaluate your interpretation? If your mother told you that the sky were bright green, do you refuse to look up because you are afraid to find out that she is wrong?
I've said all of this because I want you to realize that you can't use religion (among other things) to judge the accuracy of science. Science is based on empirical data. Thus only empirical data can be used to justify or disprove ideas in science. Thus, if your only argument against the accuracy of evolution is your interpretation of scripture, then you actually have no argument at all. In other words, if your interpretation of the bible is accurate, i.e. a historical genesis, then even people ignorant of the passages should be able to reconstruct the events of Genesis to some significant degree from empirical data. Are you aware of any data that can do this?
So biotechnology is sorcery? Tell that to all the people who live better lives due to these drugs. You better stay away from your doctor, or he might enchant you with Epogen.
And where do you get that I was trying to disprove God. Remember, your interpretation of the bible != GOD.
See the fields of evolutionary computing, genetic algorithms, and genetic programming for starters.
And of course that is why they have the following policy:
We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of Gods natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world, although we preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues. We recognize technology as a legitimate use of Gods natural world when such use enhances human life and enables all of Gods children to develop their God-given creative potential without violating our ethical convictions about the relationship of humanity to the natural world.
In acknowledging the important roles of science and technology, however, we also believe that theological understandings of human experience are crucial to a full understanding of the place of humanity in the universe. Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible. We therefore encourage dialogue between the scientific and theological communities and seek the kind of participation that will enable humanity to sustain life on earth and, by Gods grace, increase the quality of our common lives together.
What are you talking about? What do the dating lives of scientists have to do with anything????
When did I make any claims about a scientist not believing in God? Why do you keep equating evolution with atheism? If that were true, then your denomination would be run by atheists? Of course we all know that ain't true, so why do you keep say it?
Upvote
0
of course not, because it doesn't say so in the bible. silly hypothetical example that isn't in the bible, my mother isn't the bible, so i don't have to listen to her to find the truth.
of course, especially insulin production. all diabetics are evil and should have died long ago, we must smite these evil undead that are plaguing the land.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
<DIR><B>natural selection</B><I> n.</I> The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characters in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
Eccles. 9:11
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Deut. 7:9
Therefore know that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments;
Psalm 37:25
I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
Wild animals did not evolve into domestic animals. You can tame a wild animal, but you can never domesticate a wild animal. God FORMED the domesticated animals out of the earth, the same as He formed Adam out of the earth.
There is no logic or reason at all to Darwin, because it is all based on "IF" and the conditions of "IF" are not meet. No matter how much he thinks they are. His conclusions are based on faulty suppositions.
He has knowledge, but no wisdom to know what to do with that knowledge.
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
</DIR>
Upvote
0
*slaps forehead* Of course! Faulty suppositions! And this whole time I was believing his conclusions were based on research and physical evidence. What would I have done without you, John?
Upvote
0
of course, because he should have been able to find the answer in the bible! it's all there, including the knowledge of how to build a motor-car. why the hell do all these 'scientists' waste time making preposterous, and incorrect, theories, test them so much that only prove them more wrong, then apply that false knowledge to make a working machine?
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
That plain and simply is NOT true.
I am not going to think about nothing that is the work of satan to destroy people. I pay taxes, people get paid to deal with that stuff. It's not my job or concern.
If you trust in the best doctors, and the best drugs, guess what, your still going to die. It is only through the power of God and the cleansing blood of Jesus that you inherit eternal life.
Me? Your the one that wanted to talk about single scientists. Let 'em do what they want, if they want to get married, let them get married, if they want to stay single, let them stay single.
Ok, I here is your chance. Tell me what our world would be like if Darwin had never been born, and there was no theory of Evolution. How much different would our life be today?
Upvote
0
LOL!!!! If evolution is not science, why is it the foundation of all modern biology. You can use all the rhetoric you want, but it still cannot change the scientific facts, reseach, and experience that have gone into the study of the diversity of life, and still does.
Ohh, JohnR7 says that Darwin's conclusions are nonsense. That'll fix em! Please, Darwin was one of the greatest scientific minds in the last two centuries. Did you know that if he had never written a lick about evolution, he'd still be known as the foremost authority on barnicles that ever lived?
Here is Darwin's logic. Please tell us where the nonsense is. If you can't do that, then please stop bearing false witness.
- There is variation in populations. (Variation)
- This variation has a heritable component. (Heritability)
- More offspring are produced then are able to contribute to the next generation. (Differential reproduction, i.e. selection)
- Heritable triats that positively influence reproductive success, will increase in the population and negative triats will decrease. (Adaptation)
Tell that to Galieo, who was placed under life-long house arrest for saying that the earth revolved around the sun. (A short biography if you need remembering.)
Oh, thank you for paying taxes. Because of your gifts to the federal government, I get paid to study evolution. Thank you.
Really? I see Christians dieing all the time. You should be careful though, only through dying in a heroic battle is anyone insured to be granted eternal bliss in the Elysian Fields.
Umm. "a single population biologist" == "one population biologist"
Wallace would not be forgotten about.
Well, we couldn't explain much about the biological word, and whole industries wouldn't exist. Kind of how astronomy would be different if we didn't have the theory of gravity.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Now play nice. I'm sure JohnR7 knows evolution is not science because the Holy Spirit tells him so. That settles the debate right there, doesn't it?
Never mind the logic, I think you should take JohnR7's word for it. The man's an expert when it comes to nonsense.
Now you're talking nonsense. Elysian Fields are a Pagan myth. Everybody knows that when you fall in a heroic battle you go to Valhalla.
DIE, HERETIC!
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
I promised I would look into this quote.
Full quote:
"If the building blocks of RNA were available in the pre-biotic environment, if these combined to form polynucleotides, and if some of the polynucleotides began to self-replicate, then the RNA world may have emerged as the first form of life on Earth9,10. But based on current knowledge of prebiotic chemistry, this is unlikely to have been the case. Ribose, phosphate, purines and pyrimidines all may have been available, although the case for pyrimidines is less compelling11,12. These may have combined to form nucleotides in very low yield13,14, complicated by the presence of a much larger amount of various nucleotide analogues. The nucleotides (and thei ranalogues) mayeven have joined to form polymers,with a com-binatorial mixture of 28,58-, 38,58- and 58,58-phosphodiester linkages, a variable number of phosphates between the sugars,D- and L- stereoisomers of the sugars, a- and b-anomers at the glycosidic bond,and assortedmodificationsofthe sugars,phosphatesandbases (Fig. 2). It is difficult to visualize a mechanism for self-replication that either would be impartial to these compositional differences or would treat them as sequence information in a broader sense and maintain them as heritable features.
The chief obstacle to understanding the origin of RNA-based life is identifying a plausible mechanism for overcoming the clutter wrought by prebiotic chemistry. Several avenues of investigation are being pursued. Perhaps there were special conditions that led to the preferential synthesisofactivatedb-D-nucleotides or the preferential incorporation of these monomers into polymers. For example, the prebiotic synthesis of sugars from formaldehyde can be biased by starting from glycoaldehyde phosphate, leading to ribose 2,4-diphosphate as the predominant pentose sugar15. This reaction can occur starting from dilute aqueous solutions of reactants at near-neutral pH when carried out in the presence of certain metal-hydroxide minerals 16. The polymerization of adenylate, activated as the 58-phosphorimidazolide, yields 28,58-linked products in solution, but mostly 38,58-linked products in the presence of a montmorillonite clay 17. Thus, through a series of biased syntheses, fractionations and other enrichment processes, there may have been a special route to a warm little pond of RNA. Another approach is to hypothesize that life did not begin with RNA; some other genetic system preceded RNA, just as it preceded DNA and protein (Fig. 1). This approach has met with substantial progress in recent years,"
What we have here is the classic creationist misquote. That is, a scientist legitimately sets up the problems and difficulties with a theory, then goes on to describe the solutions to the problem. However, the creationist quotes only the problem and ignores the solution.
IOW, false witness.
I suggest we treat any other quotes from scientific articles by Chase as false unless and until we can show that they are honest. I presume he will accurately quote Behe and other creationists.
BTW, anyone wanting a PDF copy of the paper, just go to my profile and e-mail me.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Originally posted by JohnR7 You have your Bible. What you want me to read it to you?
Now, when you thought science backed the Bible, then science was right. Now that you think science contradicts the Bible, you are against science. The Biblical creation stories are not literal. You don't take them literal because you have stated that Adam was created on day 8!
Oh sorcery & witchcraft. Now there is a good argument for evolution. The devil did it.
LOL!. No, it's not. Remember, Satan had nothing to do with creation. Read your Bible. Therefore the devil didn't put anything into creation; it was all God. Thus, all the evidence in creation that shouts "evolution!" had to be put there by God. Unless, of course, you wish to claim God is the devil. In which case why are you worshipping him?
You should listen to what your saying. Rhetoric may make you feel good, but it does not disprove God.
YOU are the only one here saying evolution disproves God. The rest of us are saying that evolution does not disprove God, but rather only one method that God is said to have created by. Instead of creating by poofing species into existence, Christians simply believe God created by evolution! Even Darwin stated it that way:
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.
You just don't get it, do you? You keep trying to make a conflict where there isn't any. Or maybe you do get it. But as an atheist this is the only way to disprove Christianity. My hypothesis that you are an undercover atheist is gaining support.
As far as you single modernist biologiest, who you claim do not believe in God. Maybe that is why they are still single. The women are looking for God fearing men.
The claim was that no single population biologist doubted evolution. How in the world did you mangle that to be biologists who are single? Eldredge, Miller, Ayala, Mayr, etc. etc. are all married. All prominent evolutionists. Darwin was married and had 9 or 10 kids.
Now, when you thought science backed the Bible, then science was right. Now that you think science contradicts the Bible, you are against science. The Biblical creation stories are not literal. You don't take them literal because you have stated that Adam was created on day 8!
Oh sorcery & witchcraft. Now there is a good argument for evolution. The devil did it.
LOL!. No, it's not. Remember, Satan had nothing to do with creation. Read your Bible. Therefore the devil didn't put anything into creation; it was all God. Thus, all the evidence in creation that shouts "evolution!" had to be put there by God. Unless, of course, you wish to claim God is the devil. In which case why are you worshipping him?
You should listen to what your saying. Rhetoric may make you feel good, but it does not disprove God.
YOU are the only one here saying evolution disproves God. The rest of us are saying that evolution does not disprove God, but rather only one method that God is said to have created by. Instead of creating by poofing species into existence, Christians simply believe God created by evolution! Even Darwin stated it that way:
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.
You just don't get it, do you? You keep trying to make a conflict where there isn't any. Or maybe you do get it. But as an atheist this is the only way to disprove Christianity. My hypothesis that you are an undercover atheist is gaining support.
As far as you single modernist biologiest, who you claim do not believe in God. Maybe that is why they are still single. The women are looking for God fearing men.
The claim was that no single population biologist doubted evolution. How in the world did you mangle that to be biologists who are single? Eldredge, Miller, Ayala, Mayr, etc. etc. are all married. All prominent evolutionists. Darwin was married and had 9 or 10 kids.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
</DIR>
<DIR>Instead of using Darwin's description of natural selection, you chose to run to a dictionary. Nice duck. You're only real answer here is "the conditions of "IF" are not met"
Let's see if that is correct.
"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization" No doubt about that one. Look at any population and you see immense variation. Even among humans, and humans have less genetic variation than a single population of chimps in central Africa. Visit a medical school anatomy class and you find out that the inside anatomy of humans also varies from individual to individual enough that surgeons have to learn these alternate anatomies to do surgery correctly. So that "if" is met.
if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed;"
Darwin is right. He documented the struggle for existence in Origin enough. And every biologist studying birthrates in the wild knows that every species produces more offspring than live to adulthood. Populations in the wild tend to remain constant, yet the birth rate is far above that. Only in rare cases of exploiting untapped resources -- such as humans in the last 200 years or so -- do you see population increases. And everyone knows humans can't sustain their population increases, thus the emphasis on family planning and birth control.
"if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. " This too has been documented in numerous population genetics studies. One of the most thorough is a recent one:
Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Reznick, DN, Shaw, FH, Rodd, FH, and Shaw, RG. 275:1934-1937, 1997. The lay article is Predatory-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, pg 1880. In this one the environment was known enough so that the scientists were able to predict, beforehand, which variations would be preserved. And then the experiment came out exactly as predicted.
So, contrary to your assertion, all the "ifs" in natural selection have been shown to be fact. Therefore Darwin's conclusion is assured.
As to domesticated animals, that simply is untrue. The recent studies showing the ancestors of dogs as wild wolves show that. Also, remember that in recorded history wild horses were domesticated. Repeatedly.</DIR>
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
This is the ostrich maneuver. John, scientists are not known for latching onto "nonsense" conclusions. Instead, conclusions are rigorously tested in an effort to show them false. Darwinian evolution has survived test after test. In fact, it has survived so many that there is really only one piece of data out there yet untested that could falsify it: finding mammalian fossils in pre-Cambrian strata. All the other tests have been performed.
For a while there, you were off the kick of evolution = atheism. What brought you back to it?
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Originally posted by JohnR7 That plain and simply is NOT true.
Sorry, John, but yes it is. The Bible says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable: Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5. From this Christians latched onto Ptolemaic astronomy because it had the earth at the center of the solar system and thus immovable. The Church fought a rear-guard action against heliocentrism for about 100 years, but finally gave in when Kepler finally falsified it. The Catholic Church learned from this mistake and never again incorporated a scientific theory as part of its theology. Unfortunately, the Protestants weren't paying attention and some Protestants incorporated the scientific theory of creationism into their theology. Now they are stuck and their human pride won't let them change.
If you trust in the best doctors, and the best drugs, guess what, your still going to die.
True, but biotechnology is extending that life and the quality of it by the use of Darwinian evolution. New drugs and treatments are coming every couple of months.
It is only through the power of God and the cleansing blood of Jesus that you inherit eternal life.
So? This has nothing to do with evolution and evolution has nothing to say about this. Why do you insist on making a conflict where there isn't one? Do you want Christianity to lose?
Ok, I here is your chance. Tell me what our world would be like if Darwin had never been born, and there was no theory of Evolution. How much different would our life be today?
NONE of the medical drugs or treatments in the last 50 years would be here. They are all based on evolution being true. Also, the genus of wheat-rye hybrids (a major food source) called triticale would not exist. The new generation of computer chips would not exist, because they are being designed by Darwinian selection, not humans.
Christianity would be extinct because the bad designs in nature would have to be attributed to a cruel, stupid God with Alzheimer's and no one would trust or worship such a god.
Should I go on?
Sorry, John, but yes it is. The Bible says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable: Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5. From this Christians latched onto Ptolemaic astronomy because it had the earth at the center of the solar system and thus immovable. The Church fought a rear-guard action against heliocentrism for about 100 years, but finally gave in when Kepler finally falsified it. The Catholic Church learned from this mistake and never again incorporated a scientific theory as part of its theology. Unfortunately, the Protestants weren't paying attention and some Protestants incorporated the scientific theory of creationism into their theology. Now they are stuck and their human pride won't let them change.
If you trust in the best doctors, and the best drugs, guess what, your still going to die.
True, but biotechnology is extending that life and the quality of it by the use of Darwinian evolution. New drugs and treatments are coming every couple of months.
It is only through the power of God and the cleansing blood of Jesus that you inherit eternal life.
So? This has nothing to do with evolution and evolution has nothing to say about this. Why do you insist on making a conflict where there isn't one? Do you want Christianity to lose?
Ok, I here is your chance. Tell me what our world would be like if Darwin had never been born, and there was no theory of Evolution. How much different would our life be today?
NONE of the medical drugs or treatments in the last 50 years would be here. They are all based on evolution being true. Also, the genus of wheat-rye hybrids (a major food source) called triticale would not exist. The new generation of computer chips would not exist, because they are being designed by Darwinian selection, not humans.
Christianity would be extinct because the bad designs in nature would have to be attributed to a cruel, stupid God with Alzheimer's and no one would trust or worship such a god.
Should I go on?
Upvote
0
Perhaps you can explain how those odds were figured?
The "I smell a rat here" warning light has just gone off.
I do not remember any such pictures - could you provide a few citations?
Your 'conclusion' omits so much detail and information as to be meaningless.
In reality, the improperly-referred to "gill slits" in the human embryo develop into structures of the face and neck, the thyroid and parathyroid actually are derived from pharyngeal pouch tissue.
The evolutionarily important aspect of the pharyngeal apparatus is the fact that that the embryoes of other creatures - including fish - have the same apparatus. In fish, the pharyngeal arches form gills, hence, I suppose, the genesis of the out-of-favor term "gill slits" in human embryoes.
Comparing the development of the structures derived form the pharyngeal apparatus clearly incidactes the common origin of animals. The re-working, redundancy, and wholly inefficient series of events that lead, in humans to the structures of the face and neck, in fish to the gills and related structures, screams evolution.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
