F
FuzzyBunny116
Guest
I voted yes, “guided” evolution.
- Status
C
CheesusPowerKid
Guest
as long as God did it, I’m good with it…if He used evolution, I see no problem. I heard something that made sense: Both the Earth and the Holy Scriptures are from God, therefore they cannot contradict each other. So if we find evidence of evolution, then it can’t contradict scripture because God is behind both of them…therefore leading to the guided evolution theory, where God’s seven days were seven days in HIS time, not ours. Makes perfect sense to me
M
Melchior
Guest
Only micro-evolution. Change within species. Macro-evolution is a modern myth. I am sure there are more mysteries to unravel in science. I am equally sure that science with leave Darwinism in the dust.
God created Adam and Eve essentially as the the Bible describes. Perhaps not detailing every aspect (why would it?) but that they evolved from different species is simply silly - not to mention cruel.
Mel
God created Adam and Eve essentially as the the Bible describes. Perhaps not detailing every aspect (why would it?) but that they evolved from different species is simply silly - not to mention cruel.
Mel
A
anawim
Guest
Dittos
2
2shelbys
Guest
Exactly and it already has. It just takes some people a long time to face uncomfortable truths.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I voted for “guided evolution.” Now, I wish I had voted “other.” I firmly believe that God created everything, “visible and invisible.” I’ve no idea how He did it.
A
anawim
Guest
What paragraph number(s) refer to evolution?
B
bogeyjlg
Guest
Unguided evolution doesn’t work. Even scientifically. It contradicts the law of entropy.
The law of entropy basically states that everything moves to be in its lowest energy state.
The **theory **(and i emphasize theory) of evolution says that life gets gradually more complexe.
So basically… we should actually be de-evolving.
The law of entropy basically states that everything moves to be in its lowest energy state.
The **theory **(and i emphasize theory) of evolution says that life gets gradually more complexe.
So basically… we should actually be de-evolving.
O
Orogeny
Guest
It does? Interesting. Too bad scientists don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics (the entropy thing).
It does? Too bad scientists don’t know that.
I’ll be charitable and not respond with my first thought regarding this statement.
Peace
Tim
B
bogeyjlg
Guest
So are you criticizing my response or scientists who ignore the basics?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Since scientists don’t ignore the basics, I guess I am criticizing your response.
Peace
Tim
B
bogeyjlg
Guest
So you disagree then that the theory of evolution contradicts the law of entropy?
So you accept unguided evolution?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Yes. And by the way, it is the second law of thermodynamics, not the law of entropy.
No.
Peace
Tim
B
bogeyjlg
Guest
O
Orogeny
Guest
M
Melchior
Guest
You wouldn’t post a link to Michael Moore’s website for an explanation that would support the claim that Howard Dean is not a liberal would you? Wouldn’t be credible would it?
Mel
D
Donald45
Guest
I couldn’t vote, since the poll is structurally flawed. It offers one a choice between “guided (theistic) evolution” and “regular (atheistic) evolution,” as though this were the only way to formulate one’s scientific and theological positions. Of course, this is a false dilemma, a false “either/or.”
Also, the poll commits what philosophers call a category fallacy by blending together two distinct areas of inquiry into a single ideological position. By way of contrast to this, I consider myself not a “guided evolutionist,” nor a “regular evolutionist.” Rather, I hold simultaneously to both a theology of divine creation, and to the scientific theory of organic evolution. I endeavor not to pronounce upon science in the name of theology, nor on theology in the name of science. Each is its own distinct area of inquiry, and to confuse them is to engage in both bad theology and poor science.
Truly,
Don
Also, the poll commits what philosophers call a category fallacy by blending together two distinct areas of inquiry into a single ideological position. By way of contrast to this, I consider myself not a “guided evolutionist,” nor a “regular evolutionist.” Rather, I hold simultaneously to both a theology of divine creation, and to the scientific theory of organic evolution. I endeavor not to pronounce upon science in the name of theology, nor on theology in the name of science. Each is its own distinct area of inquiry, and to confuse them is to engage in both bad theology and poor science.
Truly,
Don
O
Orogeny
Guest
What do you not find credible about TalkOrigins?
In any case, ok, here is a link to a guy who has a PhD in chemical engineering who happens to be an evangelical Christian. Maybe he is not credible either.
members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
Peace
Tim
B
bogeyjlg
Guest
This argument is going nowhere. We are argueing on two different levels of evolution. Small, gradual changes cannot explain the huge leaps and great complexity for something such as an eye to evolve.
2
2shelbys
Guest
This has been argued back and forth in many threads but the fact of the matter is that every pro-evolution site you go to including talkorigins is riddled with “maybe”, “probably”, “believed to be”, and similar verbage. NOTHING about evolution is proven. Every chain of supposed evolution has huge holes in it. On the other hand, the case against evolution has some rather strong scientific support.
There are two places to look for verification of Evolution: the fossil record and breeding experiments with animals. If the Evolution theory is correct, the fossil record should show innumerable slight gradations between earlier species and later ones. Even Darwin was aware, however, that the fossil record of his day showed nothing of the sort.
The fossil record still shows exactly what it showed in Darwin’s day-that species appear suddenly in a fully developed state and change little or not at all before disappearing… Paleontologist Stephen Stanley writes that “the fossil record does not convincingly demonstrate a single transition from one species to another.” The scientific evidence shows that “Evolution” (meaning macro-evolution) has never occurred, not even once, ever.
Since we do not see species changing into other species in the fossils, the only other place to look is breeding experiments. But here the evidence also goes against Evolution. Breeders can change the color of a pigeon or the size of a cow to some degree, but they can only go so far. In fact, all breeders have the same experience: If they try to go too far in one direction, the animal or plant in question either becomes sterile or reverts back to type. If you have a thousand-point mutation in the genes of a fruit fly, a statistical impossibility, it is still a fruit fly. Modem genetics shows that DNA programs a species to remain stubbornly what it is. There are minor fluctuations around a norm, but nothing more. Dogs remain dogs; fruit flies remain fruit flies, chimps remain chimps, humans remain humans.
All the major body plans we see today in animals and insects appeared at once in the Cambrian era, a fact which does not fit Evolution’s model. Many species like the lungfish, various reptiles, and numerous insects have not changed at all in over 300 million years despite major shifts in their environment, which flatly contradicts the theory of Evolution.
A biologist who works at the American Museum of Natural History summed the situation of evolutionary theory today: "We know that species reproduce and that there are different species now than there were a hundred million years ago. We know there are species present now that have been unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Everything else is propaganda.’
It was recently discovered that the earliest “modern man” and the (currently accepted) most advanced “ancestor” that Evolutionists try to connect actually co-existed. This rules out evolution from one to the other as impossible.
There are two places to look for verification of Evolution: the fossil record and breeding experiments with animals. If the Evolution theory is correct, the fossil record should show innumerable slight gradations between earlier species and later ones. Even Darwin was aware, however, that the fossil record of his day showed nothing of the sort.
The fossil record still shows exactly what it showed in Darwin’s day-that species appear suddenly in a fully developed state and change little or not at all before disappearing… Paleontologist Stephen Stanley writes that “the fossil record does not convincingly demonstrate a single transition from one species to another.” The scientific evidence shows that “Evolution” (meaning macro-evolution) has never occurred, not even once, ever.
Since we do not see species changing into other species in the fossils, the only other place to look is breeding experiments. But here the evidence also goes against Evolution. Breeders can change the color of a pigeon or the size of a cow to some degree, but they can only go so far. In fact, all breeders have the same experience: If they try to go too far in one direction, the animal or plant in question either becomes sterile or reverts back to type. If you have a thousand-point mutation in the genes of a fruit fly, a statistical impossibility, it is still a fruit fly. Modem genetics shows that DNA programs a species to remain stubbornly what it is. There are minor fluctuations around a norm, but nothing more. Dogs remain dogs; fruit flies remain fruit flies, chimps remain chimps, humans remain humans.
All the major body plans we see today in animals and insects appeared at once in the Cambrian era, a fact which does not fit Evolution’s model. Many species like the lungfish, various reptiles, and numerous insects have not changed at all in over 300 million years despite major shifts in their environment, which flatly contradicts the theory of Evolution.
A biologist who works at the American Museum of Natural History summed the situation of evolutionary theory today: "We know that species reproduce and that there are different species now than there were a hundred million years ago. We know there are species present now that have been unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Everything else is propaganda.’
It was recently discovered that the earliest “modern man” and the (currently accepted) most advanced “ancestor” that Evolutionists try to connect actually co-existed. This rules out evolution from one to the other as impossible.
- Status