Why I don't believe in evolution...

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,442
2,801
Hartford, Connecticut
✟296,178.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, O. keta, etc.) are born, sexually mature, spawn only once and then immediately die. The rest of the monophyletic group that salmon belong to, including anadromous trout (e.g. Oncorhynchus mykiss) which compete for the same resources, all spawn multiple times during their lifespan. My research indicates that all species of the genus (really all three sub-families) emerged roughly seven million years ago, albeit after a 33 million year gap in the fossil record. Why then the huge disparity in their numbers? The salmon, for the most part, far outnumber their multiple-spawning cousins. If I understand natural selection correctly I would expect the numbers to be reversed, or that the salmon wouldn't have made it very far in the first place.

If you point to an assumedly linked trait of greater egg production caused by the same mutation that causes their post-spawn death, I would point out that the king salmon lays, on average, 2-10x more eggs than any of the other species under consideration yet seems (yes, the population numbers that I use are anecdotal but I bet we could find real numbers that back it up) to be the least represented of all of them. This is the case not only in general (where commercial and sport fishing certainly take their toll) but also in isaolated ecosystems (e.g. Lake Chelan, WA) that see minimal pressure.




Before dismissing Chesterton entirely because his thought was not ... scientific (?):
"But suppose the boy had not been taught by a priest but by a professor, by one of the professors who simplify the relation of men and beasts to a mere evolutionary variation. Suppose the boy saw himself, with the same simplicity and sincerity, as a mere Mowgli running with the pack of nature and roughly indistinguishable from the rest save by a relative and recent variation. What would be for him the simplest lesson of that strange stone picture-book? After all, it would come back to this; that he had dug very deep and found the place where a man had drawn the picture of a reindeer. But he would dig a good deal deeper before he found a place where a reindeer had drawn a picture of a man. That sounds like a truism, but in this connection it is really a very tremendous truth. He might descend to depths unthinkable, he might sink into sunken continents as strange as remote stars, he might find himself in the inside of the world as far from men as the other side of the moon; he might see in those cold chasms or colossal terraces of stone, traced in the faint hieroglyphic of the fossil, the ruins of lost dynasties of biological life, rather like the ruins of successive creations and separate universes than the stages in the story of one. He would find the trail of monsters blindly developing in directions outside all our common imagery of fish and bird; groping and grasping and touching life with every extravagant elongation of horn and tongue and tentacle; growing a forest of fantastic caricatures of the claw and the fin and the finger. But nowhere would he find one finger that had traced one significant line upon the sand; nowhere one claw that had even begun to scratch the faint suggestion of a form. To all appearance, the thing would be as unthinkable in all those countless cosmic variations of forgotten aeons as it would be in the beasts and birds before our eyes. The child would no more expect to see it than to see the cat scratch on the wall a vindictive caricature of the dog. The childish common sense would keep the most evolutionary child from expecting to see anything like that; yet in the traces of the rude and recently evolved ancestors of humanity he would have seen exactly that. It must surely strike him as strange that men so remote from him should be so near, and that beasts so near to him should be so remote. To his simplicity it must seem at least odd that he could not find any trace of the beginning of any arts among any animals. That is the simplest lesson to learn in the cavern of the coloured pictures; only it is too simple to be learnt. It is the simple truth that man does differ from the brutes in kind and not in degree; and the proof of it is here; that it sounds like a truism to say that the most primitive man drew a picture of a monkey and that it sounds like a joke to say that the most intelligent monkey drew a picture of a man. Something of division and disproportion has appeared; and it is unique. Art is the signature of man."

So if I'm reading this correctly, your concern with the theory of evolution is that you don't think it makes sense for salmon, who only spawn once, to out-number other species such as trout's that spawn multiple times in a single life span?

If these are the things that keep a you up at night, im not sure I even want to know your thoughts on the summation of phylogenetic trees across independent fields.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,195
11,428
76
✟367,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, O. keta, etc.) are born, sexually mature, spawn only once and then immediately die. The rest of the monophyletic group that salmon belong to, including anadromous trout (e.g. Oncorhynchus mykiss) which compete for the same resources, all spawn multiple times during their lifespan. My research indicates that all species of the genus (really all three sub-families) emerged roughly seven million years ago, albeit after a 33 million year gap in the fossil record. Why then the huge disparity in their numbers?

Environment. Salmon live most of their lives in the coastal waters. So a lot more food, space, and opportunity there.

The salmon, for the most part, far outnumber their multiple-spawning cousins.

Not surprised. Trout streams and freshwater lakes have a lot less space and food. So smaller numbers.

If I understand natural selection correctly I would expect the numbers to be reversed, or that the salmon wouldn't have made it very far in the first place.

Turns out to be different than you assumed.

Before dismissing Chesterton entirely because his thought was not ... scientific (?):

He wasn't unscientific; he just didn't happen to know a few things. Notice, his acceptance of human evolution. He just incorrectly assumed that human mental functions were unique and that simpler versions of those functions weren't found in other animals.

Dogs and apes (and maybe some others) have a sense of fairness, and act on it. Apes have a theory of mind, and can infer mental states in others. Would you like to learn about that?

But Chesterton really didn't have much information to go on, without a dive into the literature. And much of the evidence we have today, was not known in his day. So it's not laughable. He just didn't know.

Art is the signature of man."

If you extend "man" to other species of the genus Homo, that would be true, so far as we know.

The oldest known artwork goes back to at least 290,000 BC.
Bhimbetka Petroglyphs, Cupules: Prehistoric Art in India

That would have been a bit early for H. sapiens in Asia, but H. erectus and maybe Neanderthals were there.
 
Upvote 0

Sam Saved by Grace

All of salvation is God's doing
Aug 10, 2021
174
56
42
Fort Worth, Texas
✟7,637.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Regarding Gen 1:20, an open expanse is significantly different than a solid dome.

What we have are two translations representing two very different ideas. It's a product of human error. Just one of many discrepancies that come about through translation.

If you're at least willing to acknowledge that modern translations themselves are prone to error, that's fine with me.
Not doctrinal error. Perhaps an inferior wording here or there. That is, in regards to the serious and intellectually honest, formal equivalence translations. There are of course translations that go well beyond simple error. The New World Translation, for example, ignore and manipulate established rules of syntax. Other translations, such as The Message, aren't translations at all, but paraphrases that inject the theological and doctrinal bias of the author. But as a general rule, I suspect the more a translation philosophy veers from formal to dynamic equivalence, the more it subjects itself to human error.

My favored translations are the NASB and ESV, followed closely by the NKJV. The KJV is also fine, though flawed.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,442
2,801
Hartford, Connecticut
✟296,178.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not doctrinal error. Perhaps an inferior wording here or there. That is, in regards to the serious and intellectually honest, formal equivalence translations. There are of course translations that go well beyond simple error. The New World Translation, for example, ignore and manipulate established rules of syntax. Other translations, such as The Message, aren't translations at all, but paraphrases that inject the theological and doctrinal bias of the author. But as a general rule, I suspect the more a translation philosophy veers from formal to dynamic equivalence, the more it subjects itself to human error.

My favored translations are the NASB and ESV, followed closely by the NKJV. The KJV is also fine, though flawed.


It's a change in the original meaning of the text and an error in dynamic equivalence. Whether it's a doctrinal error would fall back on what your doctrine is, because of course different Christians hold different doctrinal beliefs based on various biases and use of different translations and different books in scripture.

You don't think that bad translations have resulted in doctrinal error?
 
Upvote 0

Sam Saved by Grace

All of salvation is God's doing
Aug 10, 2021
174
56
42
Fort Worth, Texas
✟7,637.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
It's a change in the original meaning of the text and an error in dynamic equivalence. Whether it's a doctrinal error would fall back on what your doctrine is, because of course different Christians hold different doctrinal beliefs based on various biases and use of different translations and different books in scripture.

You don't think that bad translations have resulted in doctrinal error?
Definitely. Read the NWT or some bad paraphrase and you are going to run in to serious error.

I don't think the same holds true for faithful, formal equivalence translations produced using sound, Christian scholarship. I believe we can read the Bible and have a great deal of confidence that we are reading the Word of God.

It is true that some people would beg to differ. But it's been my experience that such arguments are espoused by those seeking some sort of intellectual justification for an unbiblical lifestyle or outright unbelief.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,442
2,801
Hartford, Connecticut
✟296,178.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Definitely. Read the NWT or some bad paraphrase and you are going to run in to serious error.

I don't think the same holds true for faithful, formal equivalence translations produced using sound, Christian scholarship. I believe we can read the Bible and have a great deal of confidence that we are reading the Word of God.

It is true that some people would beg to differ. But it's been my experience that such arguments are espoused by those seeking some sort of intellectual justification for an unbiblical lifestyle or outright unbelief.

Ok, so at the end of the day, man has corrupted the Word, just not the translation that you read.
 
Upvote 0

Sam Saved by Grace

All of salvation is God's doing
Aug 10, 2021
174
56
42
Fort Worth, Texas
✟7,637.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Ok, so at the end of the day, man has corrupted the Word, just not the translation that you read.
No, I didn't say that. You are casting my argument in such a light as to support your own bias.

There is a difference between intentional deception and honest mistakes using sound scholarship. You can compare the many honest translations of the Bible and find that they are in agreement on all of the essential doctrines and teachings, and if one falls short in one area, it is made up for in another. You would act as though we had but one static resource. Indeed, a great many Christians often incorporate multiple translations into their devotional readings. The word choices may be different, but they generally all say the same thing and are all well translated from the original Greek. There are other resources available to us as well, such as lexicons and glossaries that are of great help. The Word of God is true, and available.

But if you have your doubts, then perhaps you should not raise objection to Genesis 1:20, or any other scriptures, as you have no real basis on which to do so. Either we have an objective standard or we do not. You cannot have it both ways.

A more relevant discussion, I think, is why I have to defend the integrity of the Bible on a Christian forum.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,442
2,801
Hartford, Connecticut
✟296,178.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, I didn't say that.

Thats what it sounded like to me, but ok.

You can compare the many honest translations of the Bible and find that they are in agreement on all of the essential doctrines and teachings, and if one falls short in one area, it is made up for in another.

It may depend on what you mean by "essential". There are many bodies of Christians, some containing different doctrinal beliefs. What would you consider essential?

You would act as though we had but one static resource. Indeed, a great many Christians often incorporate multiple translations into their devotional readings. The word choices may be different, but they generally all say the same thing and are all well translated from the original Greek.

As mentioned with respect to Gen1:20, in most cases I would agree they're similar, but in some cases there are significant differences in meaning as well. The implications behind the firmament being empty space vs the firmament being a solid dome are vast. Hence why it had become so heated earlier in the discussion. Yet there are biblical scholars taking honest approaches to scripture on both sides, and there are modern translations today, some leaning one way and others leaning the other way.

But if you have your doubts, then perhaps you should not raise objection to Genesis 1:20, or any other scriptures, as you have no real basis on which to do so. Either we have an objective standard or we do not. You cannot have it both ways.

I just don't think it's wise to put everything or to rest everything on inerrancy of translations. I don't think this has anything to do with our level of trust in God or in doubting God. Because it's not God who wrote scripture, so if there is an error, there's no reason to pin that on God.

And not having an objective standard (a perfect translation of God's original message) doesn't mean that I can't hold an opinion on what that standard actually is, or what God intended that standard to be. If someone re-wrote scripture to imply that say, homosexuality was not a sin, I could still hold an opinion on the matter despite knowing that even my own reading and own translation of scripture may also be prone to human error.

And I could raise these objects on the basis of external information. For example, if cultures around the world believed in a solid dome firmament at the time Gen 1:20 was written, I can make an educated guess that this was the original meaning and intent of the author of this passage, despite knowing that errors of man may reside in Genesis' authorship.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sam Saved by Grace

All of salvation is God's doing
Aug 10, 2021
174
56
42
Fort Worth, Texas
✟7,637.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Thats what it sounded like to me, but ok.
Let's not be silly. I am not being unreasonable in distinguishing between obvious, intentional frauds such as the NWT and intellectually honest, scholarly translations. And I think you know that. So, yes, you were casting my argument in a false light.

It may depend on what you mean by "essential". There are many bodies of Christians, some containing different doctrinal beliefs. What would you consider essential?
Don't be obtuse. Ever hear of the Nicene Creed? Or the Five Solae?

I just don't think it's wise to put everything or to rest everything on inerrancy of translations.
Um, I don't. I trust the inerrancy of the original autographs, and the sufficiency of modern translations to convey their truth.

I don't think this has anything to do with our level of trust in God or in doubting God.
It does have to do with your level of trust, and you are doubting God. How could you ever reach such a dubious conclusion?

Because it's not God who wrote scripture
Ah, so that's how. Well, I am afraid you are gravely mistaken about that. I suggest reading what the Bible has to say on the subject. You can start with 2 Timothy 3:16.


And not having an objective standard (a perfect translation of God's original message) doesn't mean that I can't hold an opinion on what that standard actually is, or what God intended that standard to be.
Now I understand why you charge that all Christians fashion a god to their liking. Because that is exactly what you are describing yourself doing, right here. There is an objective standard. And Jesus Christ is the embodiment of that standard. We have His words, and we have the testimony of those who were with Him. We have the teachings of the Apostles. We have the Law and the Prophets. We have an objective standard, and all the pseudo-intellectual double talk and aspersion casting in the world cannot do a thing to change that fact.

If someone re-wrote scripture to imply that say, homosexuality was not a sin...
Very likely in the coming future. But of course that will not change the objective truth that homosexuality is a very grave sin. And we know that such a translation would be bogus the same way we know that the NWT is bogus. We have a textual basis for our Bible. We have a consensus. You seem to be ignoring this obvious fact. Perhaps it doesn't jive with what you want to be true.

And I could raise these objects on the basis of external information.
And herein lies the heart of the problem. Indeed, there are plenty of reasons to object to the scriptures if you appeal to that which is outside of scripture. But that which is outside of scripture is the work of mere men, and is arbitrary, without a solid foundation, and therefore lacking the authority that can only be found in scripture, which is the revelation of the Lord our God, unassailable and beyond all reproach. This is a fundamental truth that must be recognized by all true believers in Jesus Christ. And we hold it to be absolutely true beyond all doubt that God has preserved His Word, exactly as He promised to do. This is something you either accept or reject. There really isn't anything more to say.

Again I note the incongruity that such obvious realities must be defended on a Christian forum.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,195
11,428
76
✟367,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Don't be obtuse. Ever hear of the Nicene Creed? Or the Five Solae?

The "Five Solae" are a modern revision of Christian doctrine, only doctrine for a minority of the world's Christians.

It's absurd to compare such a denominational rule with the Nicene Creed that defines all Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,442
2,801
Hartford, Connecticut
✟296,178.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Let's not be silly. I am not being unreasonable in distinguishing between obvious, intentional frauds such as the NWT and intellectually honest, scholarly translations. And I think you know that. So, yes, you were casting my argument in a false light.

Don't be obtuse. Ever hear of the Nicene Creed? Or the Five Solae?

Um, I don't. I trust the inerrancy of the original autographs, and the sufficiency of modern translations to convey their truth.

It does have to do with your level of trust, and you are doubting God. How could you ever reach such a dubious conclusion?

Ah, so that's how. Well, I am afraid you are gravely mistaken about that. I suggest reading what the Bible has to say on the subject. You can start with 2 Timothy 3:16.


Now I understand why you charge that all Christians fashion a god to their liking. Because that is exactly what you are describing yourself doing, right here. There is an objective standard. And Jesus Christ is the embodiment of that standard. We have His words, and we have the testimony of those who were with Him. We have the teachings of the Apostles. We have the Law and the Prophets. We have an objective standard, and all the pseudo-intellectual double talk and aspersion casting in the world cannot do a thing to change that fact.

Very likely in the coming future. But of course that will not change the objective truth that homosexuality is a very grave sin. And we know that such a translation would be bogus the same way we know that the NWT is bogus. We have a textual basis for our Bible. We have a consensus. You seem to be ignoring this obvious fact. Perhaps it doesn't jive with what you want to be true.

And herein lies the heart of the problem. Indeed, there are plenty of reasons to object to the scriptures if you appeal to that which is outside of scripture. But that which is outside of scripture is the work of mere men, and is arbitrary, without a solid foundation, and therefore lacking the authority that can only be found in scripture, which is the revelation of the Lord our God, unassailable and beyond all reproach. This is a fundamental truth that must be recognized by all true believers in Jesus Christ. And we hold it to be absolutely true beyond all doubt that God has preserved His Word, exactly as He promised to do. This is something you either accept or reject. There really isn't anything more to say.

Again I note the incongruity that such obvious realities must be defended on a Christian forum.

Why would you call the five solae essential doctrine when you know that many Christians deny this reformed position?

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

You keep repeating these comments that appear to be self contradicting.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Inerrancy and error.

First the Bible was wholly inerrant, then we transitioned to an idea of being inerrant particularly with respect to doctrine (as if errors could still exist in other aspects) but even here there is a fine print that needs to be acknowledged.

Then regarding translations, instead of being inerrant you seem to now refer to them as "sufficient" all the while acknowledging that errors in translations have resulted in doctrinal misleadings.

So the point is that mankind's brokenness has resulted in imperfections in scripture. And so long as man acts as a medium in which the Word passes, there will always be errors in how it is presented. And that's all there is to it.

"We have a consensus." (goes on to point toward disputed doctrinal beliefs).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sam Saved by Grace

All of salvation is God's doing
Aug 10, 2021
174
56
42
Fort Worth, Texas
✟7,637.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
I do not hold to any doctrine or teaching that cannot be proven to have been handed down to us by the original Apostles of Christ. Apostolic succession was clearly a system of discipleship and the perpetual handing down of what had been given. It is not a system by which we can introduce new teachings that was not taught by the twelve. If you want to see what the Apostles actually had in mind, look at what is being practiced today in many protestant fellowships and denominations. Making disciples and planting churches that will in turn make disciples and plant churches. That is true apostolic succession. It has nothing to do with a papacy and the continual introduction of new traditions and practices. The original Apostles taught only what they heard from Christ, and we are to teach only what was laid down by the Apostles.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,195
11,428
76
✟367,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I do not hold to any doctrine or teaching that cannot be proven to have been handed down to us by the original Apostles of Christ. Apostolic succession was clearly a system of discipleship and the perpetual handing down of what had been given. It is not a system by which we can introduce new teachings that was not taught by the twelve. If you want to see what the Apostles actually had in mind, look at what is being practiced today in many protestant fellowships and denominations.

I notice "sola fide" is not Biblical. In fact, it's contradicted by the Bible. Granted, not all Protestants follow that new doctrine, but many do.

And yes, those that do can be saved in spite of such doctrines.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sam Saved by Grace

All of salvation is God's doing
Aug 10, 2021
174
56
42
Fort Worth, Texas
✟7,637.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible and gave the world the Bible in the late 300s, any text that was not 100 percent in compliance with Catholic teaching was rejected. It was the Catholic Church that not only preached the Word of God for all of these centuries, but preserved and translated Biblical text into so many languages. So you have the Bible today because of the Catholic Church. "Catholic" means "universal, so as to distinguish from the various Christian religions that splintered from the Catholic Church.
This is not true.

The actual canon had been known to Christians from the 2nd century. Almost every New Testament book had been quoted by early church fathers. The gospels were circulating in the late 1st century. Christians already knew what was canon. We still do. And the apocrypha isn't a part of it.

I do believe in one holy, catholic, apostolic church. But it is an invisible church, spiritual, the boundaries of which are known to God. The church in Rome was part of that universal church, too. And while the church of Rome was starting to go bad as early as the mid 3rd century, it didn't really begin the slide into full blown error until Constantine sunk his pagan claws into it.

For centuries after, it became progressively worse. And while it was due mainly to tyranny, the Roman church was pretty much the only option for a millennia (I would have much sooner joined the Roman church than the Orthodox church). I am sure a sizable portion of the saints in heaven will have come from the Roman church. And of course, there were great champions of the faith that have arisen from the Catholic church, such as Thomas Aquinas, someone greatly admired in reformed circles. I have also found personal edification from reading some of the writings of the Dominican order. And of course there are the classic works, such as the Imitation of Christ, a real treasure. I do believe that there exists saved Catholics today.

I am nowhere near as anticatholic as many evangelicals. I try to be fair in my assessments. But that does not change the fact that the Roman church does practice error. Church tradition is not as authoritative as the teachings of the Twelve. It's just not. And the Roman church does not comprise the entire invisible, universal church. These ideas came later. They were not taught by the earliest church fathers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,195
11,428
76
✟367,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
As such, I have no desire for unity with liberal Christians and those whose focus is set on defending sin in society, and communing with the world.

Every Christian is in unity with all who acknowledge Jesus as Lord and trust in Him. They may be wrong about all sorts of other things, but they remain my brothers in Christ regardless.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,195
11,428
76
✟367,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't believe in evolution because I trust in God.

If you trusted in God, evolution would have nothing whatever to do with it. You might as well disbelieve thunderstorms because you trust in God.

Perhaps you don't know what evolution is. What do you think it is?
 
Upvote 0

Sam Saved by Grace

All of salvation is God's doing
Aug 10, 2021
174
56
42
Fort Worth, Texas
✟7,637.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
If you trusted in God, evolution would have nothing whatever to do with it. You might as well disbelieve thunderstorms because you trust in God.

Perhaps you don't know what evolution is. What do you think it is?
I will not speak for Sapphire, but evolution is supposedly the undirected natural process by which life originated. There was a great, vast ocean. Inside this ocean, amino acids supposedly formed. The amino acids somehow magically arranged themselves into peptides, polypeptides, and eventually proteins. It is not known how. In this massive, primordial soup, somehow these proteins arranged themselves into living cells via a process dubbed "abiogenesis". This is pure speculation - and there are many proposed models relating to this.

And then, for billions of years, we have an ocean filled with single celled organisms. Eventually, these organisms began to mutate into progressively more complex organisms, which in turn mutated into more complex organisms, until we eventually had an very diverse arrangement of organisms, varying in type and complexity. Some branched into what would become various forms of plant life, others, animal life. Eventually, these organisms even obtained the ability to reproduce themselves sexually.

As these organisms became more and more complex through natural selection and random mutation, they eventually left the ocean and would begin to crawl out of the water to eat the plant life that began to grow up onto the land. Eventually, through random mutation, natural selection, and enough time, you had various forms of organisms, plant and animal, living on the land.

And then there was an explosion. In a relatively short span of time, evolution went into hyperdrive, and natural selection and random mutation did it's work. Soon, you had fully formed, sentient animals with complex nervous systems, a vast array a oceanic life, and even land mammals. Over time, primates evolved. And from primates, humans.

The way this occurs is through a process called natural selection. Basically, animals that are weak die off. Animals with good genes survive and are healthy, and pass on those genes. When enough time passes, a species is suited very well to their respective environment. However, if enough time passes, you end up with new species through random mutation. It basically works this way: an animal is born with an abnormality. Most of these abnormalities are bad. And the animal dies. But on occasion, the abnormality allows the animal to do something that others of it's species cannot do, or cannot do as well. Such as if it had a longer neck. Or sharper teeth. Or perhaps something allowing it greater speed. It will pass on it's genes, and soon, you have a larger number of that variant. And because they are more successful in their respective environment, they flourish. If enough of these successful random mutations occur, then voila, you have a new type of creature altogether.

And this pretty much is how all life supposedly came about. It took a long time. Billions of years. But it eventually happened, and is still happening. Humans are becoming taller because women prefer taller men. Humans are becoming stronger and faster become women prefer stronger, faster men. Soon, mutations that lend themselves to certain activities will occur, and because they are both attractive and beneficial, they will spread. Eventually, after a time passes, another species will branch off of humans.

All of this is completely undirected. There is no need for a God. It is completely natural. From gravity causing the Big Bang, to the formation of planet earth and the chemical beginnings of life, to the biological evolution of the great diversity of life, it has been completely undirected and natural. There is no need to invoke a creator.

That is what so-called "science" teaches. And in my estimation, it is completely far-fetched. To say that the above has come anywhere close to having been "proven" is manifestly absurd.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,442
2,801
Hartford, Connecticut
✟296,178.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I will not speak for Sapphire, but evolution is supposedly the undirected natural process by which life originated. There was a great, vast ocean. Inside this ocean, amino acids supposedly formed. The amino acids somehow magically arranged themselves into peptides, polypeptides, and eventually proteins. It is not known how. In this massive, primordial soup, somehow these proteins arranged themselves into living cells via a process dubbed "abiogenesis". This is pure speculation - and there are many proposed models relating to this.

And then, for billions of years, we have an ocean filled with single celled organisms. Eventually, these organisms began to mutate into progressively more complex organisms, which in turn mutated into more complex organisms, until we eventually had an very diverse arrangement of organisms, varying in type and complexity. Some branched into what would become various forms of plant life, others, animal life. Eventually, these organisms even obtained the ability to reproduce themselves sexually.

As these organisms became more and more complex through natural selection and random mutation, they eventually left the ocean and would begin to crawl out of the water to eat the plant life that began to grow up onto the land. Eventually, through random mutation, natural selection, and enough time, you had various forms of organisms, plant and animal, living on the land.

And then there was an explosion. In a relatively short span of time, evolution went into hyperdrive, and natural selection and random mutation did it's work. Soon, you had fully formed, sentient animals with complex nervous systems, a vast array a oceanic life, and even land mammals. Over time, primates evolved. And from primates, humans.

The way this occurs is through a process called natural selection. Basically, animals that are weak die off. Animals with good genes survive and are healthy, and pass on those genes. When enough time passes, a species is suited very well to their respective environment. However, if enough time passes, you end up with new species through random mutation. It basically works this way: an animal is born with an abnormality. Most of these abnormalities are bad. And the animal dies. But on occasion, the abnormality allows the animal to do something that others of it's species cannot do, or cannot do as well. Such as if it had a longer neck. Or sharper teeth. Or perhaps something allowing it greater speed. It will pass on it's genes, and soon, you have a larger number of that variant. And because they are more successful in their respective environment, they flourish. If enough of these successful random mutations occur, then voila, you have a new type of creature altogether.

And this pretty much is how all life supposedly came about. It took a long time. Billions of years. But it eventually happened, and is still happening. Humans are becoming taller because women prefer taller men. Humans are becoming stronger and faster become women prefer stronger, faster men. Soon, mutations that lend themselves to certain activities will occur, and because they are both attractive and beneficial, they will spread. Eventually, after a time passes, another species will branch off of humans.

All of this is completely undirected. There is no need for a God. It is completely natural. From gravity causing the Big Bang, to the formation of planet earth and the chemical beginnings of life, to the biological evolution of the great diversity of life, it has been completely undirected and natural. There is no need to invoke a creator.

That is what so-called "science" teaches. And in my estimation, it is completely far-fetched. To say that the above has come anywhere close to having been "proven" is manifestly absurd.

What about it do you think is absurd? That mutations produce beneficial traits? Or do you just not like the idea that such things like mutations are suggested by some to be Godless?

Also, the Cambrian explosion spanned some 40 million years. It wasn't particularly short at all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0