Why I Reject Evolution

[Aeneas]

Ya...I can't figure out what your saying.

It seems pretty straightforward. .7 * .05= .035

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Completely out of left field here but can I at least hope we mutate in the manner of the Xmen Marvel universe?

 

[JackGreden123]

I'm not an atheist by choice, I was raised that way, but I'm here to find religion. Just by reading what your views on evolution, I may have some answers, if you are willing to have an open mind. There is a theory that explains where we come from, or how the laws of science came to be. The first theory is much more complex and has to do with the god particle, and the second is the outer-planetary theory of infinite time looping. This basically says that the big bang was not only the beginning of the universe, but also the end of it, as I believe that time is not a linear idea. Basically saying that the same explosion that ended everything also started everything. I know you may not believe an atheist, but I'm just giving my two cents on what I was taught. If their is further proof to suggest that evolution is false, feel free to reply.

 

[tyronem]

I'm not an atheist by choice, I was raised that way, but I'm here to find religion.

Friend, I too was raised an "atheist", if you want a religion there are plenty of catholic churches around that will do that nicely , but if you want to find a faith that is fulfilling in every way, that faith is Christianity with faith in Christ alone

I'm going to digress slightly here from evolution and let you in on something you've probably never been told

The true meaning of an atheist is someone who believes they have proven God does not exist. If you think you have managed that I would be very interested in hearing how.

If instead you had not proven God did not exist and simply laid claim to agnostic, the true meaning of an agnostic is someone who has researched all possible avenues looking for God and not found Him anywhere. - side note here, agnostic is Greek for without knowledge, the Latin translation is Ignoramus

If neither of the two above is true, then comes the realization that the self labeling of atheism is actually just denial and nothing but you and your own desires stand between you and Jesus Christ.

God Bless

Ty

 

[Schroeder]

hi all,

Glaudys wrote: I am glad to see you recognize that evolution follows natural laws just like any other scientifically described process in nature.

That is absolutely true and I am in complete agreement wth you.

Problem #1: The creation was a miracle. Miracles cannot be defined through natural laws, otherwise, by definition, they are not miracles. Evolutionist continue to want to explain miracles by natural laws. Can't be done! As soon as an evolutionist can scientifically explain to me how Mary wound up pregnant, I'd be willing to listen.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

they would tell you she got nocked up by someone other then joseph. And you have to argue the point of evolution is fact the theory useing this fact is not. the theory of evolution and evolution are not the same thing. I think this is were you should start the debate. The rest is just live and learn. debate and get better as you go. just admit your learning or adjusting or whatever.

 

[Schroeder]

how about people read godsplanforall.com its a site with a different take on this subject. Its not so far off the wall interesting if anything.

 

[WingsLikeEagles]

We Christians do not need to reject the theory of evolution on moral grounds or because it is not compatible with the Biblical account--it can be refuted on scientific grounds. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D has done an admirable job of refuting TOE scientifically and Cornell scientist, Dr. J.S. Sanford has challenged the TOE at a genetic level. Read Sanford's book Genetic Entropy to see why the TOE is an hypothesis that simply breaks down under the pressure of more and more data that leads away from it. The TOE can only be stretched so far (not that the evolutionists are not clever in the convolutions that they build into it). The evolutionists are likely to cling to it until they find something acceptable to replace it (and that definitely will not be special creation since they have long ago rejected that as a possible hypothesis). Perhaps they will follow Francis Crick and adopt the "spaceman hypothesis". Although how they think that solves any problems, I do not know. Theistic evolution could be a way out for some of them but Sarfati has clearly shown that theistic evolution does not work either. We live in interesting times.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

tyronem

Say, tyronem; I have a joke for you.

(from the Wizard of Id, years ago)

A group of religious peasants arrive before the king and ask him for asylum in his country;

"We would like to have asylum in your country, sire."

The king asks, "What religion are you?"

"We are the cult of the sevent-day buddhistic holy rolling, wild-eyed Baptalopians of the 7th order of Nazarite acolytes in the third realm of Episcomethalodians."

The king then asks, "Who is persecuting you?"

"Who isn't?":o

 

[jackmt]

Atheists need to prove evolution true so they can escape their responsibility to God. If evolution is true, then God has given them that out. If God created by evolution, then we become judges of His Word. Are we to believe a man who refuses to believe in God? Do we trust in a man who believes that since there is no God, all is permissible? Will he not then feel no compunction about falsifying data to advance himself and his theories? Will he not slavishly serve the agenda of those in whose hands are his future? The whole system lends itself too easily to intellectual dishonesty. We know of all too many "discoveries of science" that are still taught to children in textbooks though they have been known to be hoaxes for decades.

I recall one eminent philosopher of science (his name escapes me for the moment) rejecting a theory of how the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly and not over hundreds of thousands of years as the prevailing theory had it. The man agreed with the evidence provided and acknowledged that it better explained the formation. So why did he reject the theory? His words, "It sounds too biblical." His criterion was that all acceptable theories be incompatible with Scripture. But the theory didn't require any reference to the bible. It could have been a localized flood at some time other than the biblical flood. Is this the kind of thinker you trust in? (Jer.17:5) This is not an isolated case. Evolutionists have an attitude that prevents any contradictory evidence into their thinking. They do not look for truth: they are sure they have found it. But God is not mocked.

Evolution is not science. Evolutionary theory fail the tests for scientific theories. Nor is Creationism science. But science bears out God's Word.

 

[begt]

Atheists need to prove evolution true so they can escape their responsibility to God. If evolution is true, then God has given them that out. If God created by evolution, then we become judges of His Word. Are we to believe a man who refuses to believe in God? Do we trust in a man who believes that since there is no God, all is permissible? Will he not then feel no compunction about falsifying data to advance himself and his theories? Will he not slavishly serve the agenda of those in whose hands are his future? The whole system lends itself too easily to intellectual dishonesty. We know of all too many "discoveries of science" that are still taught to children in textbooks though they have been known to be hoaxes for decades.

I recall one eminent philosopher of science (his name escapes me for the moment) rejecting a theory of how the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly and not over hundreds of thousands of years as the prevailing theory had it. The man agreed with the evidence provided and acknowledged that it better explained the formation. So why did he reject the theory? His words, "It sounds too biblical." His criterion was that all acceptable theories be incompatible with Scripture. But the theory didn't require any reference to the bible. It could have been a localized flood at some time other than the biblical flood. Is this the kind of thinker you trust in? (Jer.17:5) This is not an isolated case. Evolutionists have an attitude that prevents any contradictory evidence into their thinking. They do not look for truth: they are sure they have found it. But God is not mocked.

Evolution is not science. Evolutionary theory fail the tests for scientific theories. Nor is Creationism science. But science bears out God's Word.

Atheists, like me, don't think a god exist at all so there's no motive for escaping anything. The god of the bible makes absolutely no sense to me. An omnipotent being is obsessed with small insignificant human beings?- it would be as if I had a bizarre relationship with a bunch of ants. Or that I, as a grown man, would find pleasure and meaning in spending my whole life playing with small children in a sandbox.

Atheists don't think everything is permissable. On the contrary, atheists are (for the most part) very nice people who are much less likely of committing crime in the US compared to religious people. Under special circumstances I would potentially sacrifice my life to save yours, even though we view the world very differently.

I would like you to point out what you don't agree with evolution. Evolution is based on the following (to be brief):

1. The environment is constantly changing.

2. Individuals in different populations have varying success in passing on their genes.

3. Ultimately, genetic variation stems from mutations in sex cells (most mutations are harmless, some are harmful, a few are beneficial), as a result of a less than 100% accurate DNA-replication.

What these premises mean is that some individuals will pass on their genes to a greater extent than others. In effect, over time, the composition of the population changes; it evolves. Over thousands and millions of years this form of microevolution accumulates to the point that a new species is formed. Macroevolution has taken place.

There are many examples of this. Go to talkorigins.org for example. Or google speciation.

 

[Greg1234]

An omnipotent being is obsessed with small insignificant human beings?

Taxation included. Don't forget taxation.

 

[begt]

Taxation included. Don't forget taxation.

Well, if god exist he must be mentally ill. Some rehab needed definetly.

 

[Smidlee]

The whole idea of nature as your creator is a nature god. everyone believes in a god , a spirit one or a natural one. (a superior god or inferior god)
The reason I reject evolution is it's nothing more than a god of the gaps. Anything we don't know is assumed evolution did it. What we learn about how protein folds and reacts with other proteins is mind bogging. Could even a super computer running since the beginning of time be able to find the right genetic sequences for the right combination of proteins that allows us to actually "see"?

 

[jackmt]

Atheists, like me, don't think a god exist at all so there's no motive for escaping anything. The god of the bible makes absolutely no sense to me. An omnipotent being is obsessed with small insignificant human beings?- it would be as if I had a bizarre relationship with a bunch of ants. Or that I, as a grown man, would find pleasure and meaning in spending my whole life playing with small children in a sandbox.

Atheists don't think everything is permissable. On the contrary, atheists are (for the most part) very nice people who are much less likely of committing crime in the US compared to religious people. Under special circumstances I would potentially sacrifice my life to save yours, even though we view the world very differently.

I would like you to point out what you don't agree with evolution. Evolution is based on the following (to be brief):

1. The environment is constantly changing.

2. Individuals in different populations have varying success in passing on their genes.

3. Ultimately, genetic variation stems from mutations in sex cells (most mutations are harmless, some are harmful, a few are beneficial), as a result of a less than 100% accurate DNA-replication.

What these premises mean is that some individuals will pass on their genes to a greater extent than others. In effect, over time, the composition of the population changes; it evolves. Over thousands and millions of years this form of microevolution accumulates to the point that a new species is formed. Macroevolution has taken place.

There are many examples of this. Go to talkorigins.org for example. Or google speciation.

That you explain your atheism by saying the God of the bible makes no sense to you says one of two things: either you understand (correctly) that the debate is really between the God of the bible and atheism, or that you fail to recognize that their are other options for the anti-biblicists; i.e., the question of the existence of God need not refer to the bible.

As to the motive of escaping God; you can only persist in your atheism if science provides you an acceptable explanation of how creation can exist without a creator. If science demonstrated acceptably that evolution were impossible and the evidence shows a young earth, I assume you would have to be a creationist. So, as I said, atheists need something like evolution to be true so they may persist in their rejection of God. I never had a problem with the concept of God, but that alone doesn't fulfill my responsibilty to Him, just as your inability to make sense of the God of the bible does not relieve you of your responsibility to Him.

Could God create another infinite being? I think not. (And that is not an argument against God or His omnipotence.) However large an infinite God made finite man we would be just as large and just as tiny relatively speaking. There is no theoretical limit to the infinite or to the infinitessimal. So size is not an issue. Or perhaps it is, if it serves to help us to be humble before Him (Ps. 8:3,4). We are, after all, smaller than the stars.

Most atheists are not nice people. The world's greatest atrocities were committed by atheists. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Che, Pol Pot, etc. They and their followers are responsible for over 100,000,000 deaths in the last century alone. And they were heavily influenced by Darwinian ideas. And you will tell me of the Crusades. But they were committed by an apostate and pagan Roman Catholic church, not by Christians by and large. The atheists I know, like most liberals I know, are nice people until you disagree with them. And everything is allowable to an atheist; by definition he has no one higher than himself to answer to. If he appears moral, it is because his current behavior suits his purposes for the moment. "It's not illegal if you don't get caught," says the atheist, tongue in cheek. But to be fair, the same applies to Christians and everyone else. They call it 'free will', I call it 'enlightened self-interest.' We are driven by our programming, not by anything as silly as free will.

As to your evolutionary criteria, I will answer seriata.

1. The environment is in a constant state of flux, seeking stasis, not development.

2. "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology; it is true under all interpretations of its non-logical parts. Those most fit to reproduce will tend to reproduce the most. This is true for creationists as well as evolutionists and so is evidence of nothing relevant.

3. Populations require stasis and they will kill off mutations, even beneficial ones, that distinguish an individual from the crowd. You remember grade school, right? Bear in mind that mutations occur in individuals, not in populations. A mutation, if it is to benefit the species as a whole, must be spread throughout the population completely and quickly. But it tends to be passed on to very few individuals and so is diluted by half with each succeeding generation and therefore becomes increasingly ineffectual.

I remember the front cover of Time magazine many years ago, showing Wilt Chamberlain and Johnny Schumacher. The former is a very black man, descended from the Watusi tribe, about 7' 5". (By the way, the Watusi tribe were neighbors of the Pygmies, average height of 4' 10 or so.) The latter is a very white Germanic man about 5' tall. The article claimed that they differed in genetic make up by about 40 genes (out of more than 20,000). I learned from a geneticist recently that we all differ in those same 40 genes. They are the limits within which we all vary and the reason why I don't look like you and you don't look like Joe Shmoe down the street.

Thank you in advance for your civility; I can read it in your writings. I am sure you are an exception to my general experiences with atheists.

I just remembered something. I received an email the other day touting the proof of evolution and expressing glee at creationists having to admit they were wrong. The article says it only took 60 days for a yeast cell to evolve into a multicellular organism in a lab with the pressure applied being selective breeding, the same process by which the variations in the domestic dog and Japanese koi and flowers are produced. So, it happened very quickly, in an unnatural setting, and they want to call it proof of millions of years of natural evolution. Nothing is said about succeeding generations and their characteristics. I suspect that, like the dog, koi, and flowers, if left to themselves, they would quickly devolve back to their original forms or into a form that shares the best genes from among the newly isolated population; i.e., survival of the fittest.

Further, most of what we tend to see as evolution is in fact, devolution. Viral mutations are the perfect example of this. Their mutations are the loss of genetic information, thereby rendering the host's immune system useless until it produces another antibody suited to the new version. Fruit bats, insectivore bats, vampire bats, etc., all devolved from a common ancestor that was an omnivore through loss of genetic information through the 'use it or lose it' principle because of isolated populations with limited foods available and a restricted gene pool. Those that had the genes that helped them survive tended to survive and reproduce; those that did not died and so were removed from the gene pool. No mutations are necessary to explain variations within a specie.

Micro-evolution can produce all the variations within a species, or kind. Macro-evolution has never been seen; it is presumed.

The article can be read at www.blog.xanthippa.com. That is close enough to get you there. It might be blog.xanthippa's.com but I am not sure.

 

[jackmt]

Skywriting;

Re your signature: One can learn nothing with logic unless one has first learned something without it. I don't know who said it, but I say "amen."

 

[jackmt]

Friend, I too was raised an "atheist", if you want a religion there are plenty of catholic churches around that will do that nicely , but if you want to find a faith that is fulfilling in every way, that faith is Christianity with faith in Christ alone

I'm going to digress slightly here from evolution and let you in on something you've probably never been told

The true meaning of an atheist is someone who believes they have proven God does not exist. If you think you have managed that I would be very interested in hearing how.

If instead you had not proven God did not exist and simply laid claim to agnostic, the true meaning of an agnostic is someone who has researched all possible avenues looking for God and not found Him anywhere. - side note here, agnostic is Greek for without knowledge, the Latin translation is Ignoramus

If neither of the two above is true, then comes the realization that the self labeling of atheism is actually just denial and nothing but you and your own desires stand between you and Jesus Christ.

God Bless

Ty

One ought not try to prove much using etymology. While the 2 words agnostic and ignoramus do indeed come from the same root, they have developed very different usages. The former is, etymologically, a - not gnosos - know -ic - like or "like (I) don't know.". The latter is i(n) - not gnosos - know amus - we or "We don't know." Clearly usage has departed from etymology. There are many things of which anyone is ignorant, but that does not make one an ignoramus. Other words from the root are dia-gnosis, pro-gnosis, i-gnore, (ig)noble, notion, note, and hundreds of others, including Latin words from know, (ac)knowledge, kin, can, kind, etc. And how could I forget Gnostic?One ought not read into them anything beyond their current usages or the values they had when written or translated.

Words don't mean; people mean. And they use words to express those mental meanings from their minds.