Darwin or Design?

[Michael_G]

No, they don’t say God couldn’t have possibly done it. They say God, apparently, didn’t do it.
If someone wants to believe in creationism, I won’t mock them, though I’ll disagree…

where in all of public media, gov’t education, universities is it ever taught that evolution is in someway guided by God, not there, it is taught is a complete given by purely natural means thus entirely elimating God from the equation. You believe evolution is completly demonstrated, pray tell what is mechanism for life sprining from non life, it is pure speculation, since it has never been observed, and is therefore completly outside of science . Where has anyone ever seen a dog produce anything other than a dog, or any kind produce a new higher form of life, never been observed, therefore it is outside of science it is speculation.

As far as letting an athiest tell us what evolution why not look at all those early church fathers, the majority claimed a six day creation event…

Let’s take a look at Scripture instead of the Athiest:

Genesis 1-2: God created the entire universe and everything in it including Adam and Eve in six days.
(It should be noted that the word day in the Jewish language “Yom” can mean a literal 24hr period or an extended period of time; such as in 2Peter 3:…However when ever the word day is used in conjunction with morning and evening it is meant as a 24 hour period. This is exactly How Genesis is written in the creation account.)

Genesis 1:27 God created man and woman directly on the sixth day, if evolution is true, God created man and woman indirectly over billions of years.

Exodus 20: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Genesis 1:31 God pronounced everything He created including man very good. But if evolution is true God pronounced millions of years of human sin and death, very Good Romans 6:23, 1 Corinthians 15:26

Psalms 148"5 Creation is instantaneous by divine fiat, not millions o of years of gradual evolution

Mat 19:4-5, Luke 11:50-51 Jesus taught that God made man and woman at the beginning. But if evolution is true man and woman would have appeared very late in the evolutionary scale.

Romans 5:12-14, 1Corinthians 15:21-22 Sin and death entered through Adam, twice stated to be the first man. But if evolution is true, men sin, and death had also existed for hundreds of thousand of years prior to Adam Romans 6:23

Psalms 19:1 …" The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork."

Psalms 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

**Romans 1:**22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

**Romans 1:**20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

2 Pet 3:1-9
This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. **For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: **Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

 

[ricmat]

This is a fascinating subject (ID versus Darwinian Evolution). I’m not an expert on any of it, although I’m an engineer by training, and have been watching from the sidelines.

Isn’t the essense of the ID argument based on probabilities? It’s not that random mutations coupled with natural selection could NOT have led to higher life forms, but just that from a probability perspective, it’s so highly unlikely as to be impossible “without help?”

I really don’t know the answer to this, but to those who think that evolution via random mutation is essentially proven – has there been any analysis done of say one particular organ or system where you calculate what changes are required to evolve from point A to point B. Then look at the probability of random mutations doing it, and what “population” size is required, and how many generations of successive and non-lethal random mutations would be needed?

Is there enough time since the big bang for anything coherent to have evolved by random chance?

It seems to me that I saw some statement somewhere that given the time since creation (which we think we know), and the total number of particles of all types in the universe (which we think we know), that even if every particle were actively engaged in some sort of molecular random mutations, that on the time line you’re still a few dozen orders of magnitude short of enough time for anything sensible to appear.

But again, I’m not an expert so I’m just interested if you think the above has been “refuted.”

 

[Orogeny]

I don’t ascribe to a young Earth, and the Big Bang is essentially a theory that rids the Universe of the necessity of God. I hope you don’t ascribe to that one too.

You do realize, don’t you, that it was a Catholic priest that first theorized the big bang? Quite frankly, there are many people who dislike the big bang simply because it gives the universe a beginning and therefore may represent the creation event.

I love you science minded folks who jump all over me because I God forbid think God literally created modern man from nothing, put him in the Garden of Eden where the man fell from God’s grace.

Quit playing the pity card. It is very unbecoming.

Peace

Tim

 

[Saint_Michael]

Evolutionists always revert back to their fossil record but where are the millions of transitional species in the fossil record?

We have millions of fossils of organisms from millions of years ago. For evolution to be true the forming of higher life forms from lower life forms gradually, would’ve produced even more transitional species fossils than actual specimens we currently have. They aren’t there, they’ve never been found and we’ve been looking for going on 200 years now. And they shouldn’t be hard to find is the crazy thing, there should be billions of transitional species out there to be discovered in the Earth’s crust, they should be no harder to find as regular fossils of extinct species. But they aren’t there aside from a few that are being debated. But there should be no debate, they should be overwhelming in their number.

What we see in the fossil record, over and over and over again is one species abruptly and quickly overtaking another. That is why evolutionists are changing their tune to not slow impercetpable mutations but quick spurts in the mutations because that is what the fossil record shows, and that goes against what evolutionists have preached for 140 years now.

 

[Orogeny]

Adam and Eve must be literal, evolution and mitochondrial DNA leave zero room for a literal Adam and Eve.

So…are you saying that DNA is false? What exactly are you trying to say?

The Church must hold true to their faith and not allow itself to give in to scientific data that appears to debunk our faith.

Should we ignore scientific data if it appears to debunk your interpretation of the scriptures?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Evolutionists always revert back to their fossil record but where are the millions of transitional species in the fossil record?

They are all over the place.

We have millions of fossils of organisms from millions of years ago. For evolution to be true the forming of higher life forms from lower life forms gradually, would’ve produced even more transitional species fossils than actual specimens we currently have.

We do. Every fossil is a transition fossil.

They aren’t there, they’ve never been found and we’ve been looking for going on 200 years now. And they shouldn’t be hard to find is the crazy thing, there should be billions of transitional species out there to be discovered in the Earth’s crust, they should be no harder to find as regular fossils of extinct species. But they aren’t there aside from a few that are being debated. But there should be no debate, they should be overwhelming in their number.

You need to study a bit before you make statements like that. Even ONE transitional fossil will invalidate instant creation.

What we see in the fossil record, over and over and over again is one species abruptly and quickly overtaking another. That is why evolutionists are changing their tune to not slow impercetpable mutations but quick spurts in the mutations because that is what the fossil record shows, and that goes against what evolutionists have preached for 140 years now.

We? How much time have YOU spent studying fossils? Do you suggest that the very first scientific explanation for something is the only valid explanation for all time? Should we not change if we have evidence that requires a different explanation?

Peace

Tim

 

[Saint_Michael]

They are all over the place. Peace

Tim

Only if you use the current evolutionist definition of what a transitional form, if all organism are in transition then we are all transitional forms.

You know what I’m talking about, and you know there aren’t any. Where are the fossils showing speciation? Where are the fossils of arms becoming wings? They don’t exist and for evolution to be true they would exist in the millions.

The fossil record shows one species coming about while another goes extinct. For the amount of species we have fossils of these intermediate fossils would be abundant. They aren’t and you know it, hence why evolutionists are saying evolution happened in quick busts, not slow impreceptable changes. Of course because that’s what the fossil record shows, and that negates the need for intermediate fossils.

 

[AquinaSavio]

They are all over the place.

Could you give an example, please?

We do. Every fossil is a transition fossil.

Evolutionists have found no fossils for transitional forms. Where is the skeletal evidence of a bat turning into an opossum? How could those bats have survived while their wings were shrinking?

You need to study a bit before you make statements like that. Even ONE transitional fossil will invalidate instant creation.

Then why don’t the 200 years of finding no transitional forms not invalidate evolution?

 

[Saint_Michael]

We? How much time have YOU spent studying fossils?

Peace

Tim

Ad hominem attack aside, I say “we” as in humanity as whole, “we” haven’t found any.

 

[Orogeny]

where in all of public media, gov’t education, universities is it ever taught that evolution is in someway guided by God, not there, it is taught is a complete given by purely natural means thus entirely elimating God from the equation.

Where in all of public media, gov’t education, universities is it ever taught that mathematics, accounting, chemistry, pharmacology, computer science, etc… is in some way guided by God, not there, is taught is a complete given by purely natural means thus entirely elimating God from the equation. Those evil mathemeticians, accountants, chemists, pharmacists, computer nerds, etc…

You believe evolution is completly demonstrated, pray tell what is mechanism for life sprining from non life, it is pure speculation, since it has never been observed, and is therefore completly outside of science . Where has anyone ever seen a dog produce anything other than a dog, or any kind produce a new higher form of life, never been observed, therefore it is outside of science it is speculation.

You believe that you understand what you are arguing. You don’t. Evolution has nothing to do with life springing from non-life or a dog producing a non-dog.

As far as letting an athiest tell us what evolution why not look at all those early church fathers, the majority claimed a six day creation event…

The majority? Not all of them?

Many (most) also believed the sun and stars orbit the earth. They were wrong about that, but that is understandable since that was the science of their day. You can’t very well expect them to hold to a scientific theory several hundred years in the future.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Ad hominem attack aside, I say “we” as in humanity as whole, “we” haven’t found any.

No ad hominem, but in any case “we” have found them. “You” need to do some research.

Peace

Tim

 

[Saint_Michael]

No ad hominem, but in any case “we” have found them. “You” need to do some research.

Peace

Tim

So will you go on record saying that evolutionists aren’t changing strategy to quick bursts in evolution in short time frames is more likely than slow impreceptable changes over millions of years? And are they not doing this because of the woefully inadequate fossil record to support the theory of slow mutations over millions of years?

 

[Magicsilence]

No ad hominem, but in any case “we” have found them. “You” need to do some research.

Peace

Tim

Oooh Oooh Pick me!!:bounce:

I want to see them. And photographs mind.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Orogeny]

Could you give an example, please?

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

That’s a start.

Evolutionists have found no fossils for transitional forms. Where is the skeletal evidence of a bat turning into an opossum? How could those bats have survived while their wings were shrinking?

The term is paleontologists, not evolutionists.

Bats into possums? Where did you learn that?

Then why don’t the 200 years of finding no transitional forms not invalidate evolution?

That sounds a bit like the question “Do you still beat your wife?” The question is based on a false premise so it can’t be answered as phrased.

Peace

Tim

 

[Alberich]

To believe the Church I am required to believe that the Church is lead by the Holy Spirit and unable to err when pronouncing matters ex-cathedra. If the Pope came out and told me I am required to believe I am a chimp-man hybrib then all I have to do is look at scripture and realize that contradicts God to the very core. The Church would cease to be true because it floundered on the very cornerstone of our faith, our creation by a personal loving God IN HIS IMAGE. Was God a chimp man? How were we created in HIS image if we are chimps-men? I would be free to leave since infalibility would be completely debunked.

You guys sound like the Mormons who just can’t accept American Indians are not Jews but of Asiatic descent. The DNA proves it but they scramble and try to come up with alternative theories. I would have more respect if they just said DNA SmeeNA they’re Jews and stuck by their guns. Now they just sound ridiculous trying to explain why there isn’t a trace of Hebrew DNA in American Indians yet the BofM labels AI’s the principle ancestors of Jewish tribes that immigrated to the Americas and filled the lands with their descendants.

Fact is the Church taught for about 1,950 years exclusively we are created beings in God’s image in line with scriptures, to say now we are really chimp-men, well??? To remain faithful and believe that I think is stretching the bounds of reason. Pick your side.

Not to quibble, but you really should pick a side, too: Either one can use DNA to prove thing scientifically or not.

But to get back to the argument about the Church being led by the Holy Ghost–either it is or it ain’t. There is no possibility that it is currently led by the Holy Ghost, but may not be in the future. That flies in the face of Scripture.

Pax tecum,
Alberich

 

[Orogeny]

Oooh Oooh Pick me!!:bounce:

I want to see them. And photographs mind.

Peace and God Bless.

See the link in the post following yours.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

So will you go on record saying that evolutionists aren’t changing strategy to quick bursts in evolution in short time frames is more likely than slow impreceptable changes over millions of years? And are they not doing this because of the woefully inadequate fossil record to support the theory of slow mutations over millions of years?

It’s not a “strategy”, it is a mechanism. Evolution is a fact. How it occurs is the theory and is up for debate. Gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium is one of the debates.

I am willing to go on the record that the fossil record is adequate but still lacking. Therefore, research continues.

Are you willing to give evidence to the contrary?

Peace

Tim

 

[Michael_G]

You believe that you understand what you are arguing. You don’t. Evolution has nothing to do with life springing from non-life or a dog producing a non-dog. The majority? Not all of them?

Peace

Tim

pray tell then since evolution is teaching all life sprouted from some soup mix, and thus we all have a common ancestor, if life coming from nonlife is not what evolution teaches then you ought to be able to tell just what evolution is, veruses what I have stated. You are talking balony as far as I see here and I think you know it.

 

[Saint_Michael]

But to get back to the argument about the Church being led by the Holy Ghost–either it is or it ain’t. There is no possibility that it is currently led by the Holy Ghost, but may not be in the future. That flies in the face of Scripture.

Pax tecum,
Alberich

That wasn’t my argument at all, when asked if I would leave the Church if the Pope definfed evolution as a dogma, I said yes. Obviously then I would come to the conclusion that the Church was never lead by the Holy Spirit to have it err on such a grand scale, not that it “stopped” being lead but once was. Dismissing a literal account of Adam and Eve makes Genesis a lie, and Jesus ignorant, as He was a believer in a Genesis 2 minded creation of man.

 

[Orogeny]

pray tell then since evolution is teaching all life sprouted from some soup mix,

No, evolution is not teaching all life sprouted from soup mix. Do some studying before you continue to make such ridiculous statements.

and thus we all have a common ancestor,

Yes, we have a common ancestor.

if life coming from nonlife is not what evolution teaches then you ought to be able to tell just what evolution is, veruses what I have stated. You are talking balony as far as I see here and I think you know it.

Evolution is about the change in life over time. It matters not to evolutionary theory how life began.

Peace

Tim