Evolution???

[JRKH]

Natural selection makes sense and is obviously a fact. A stupid animal or human is more likely not to survive and procreate.
Evolution does not make sense to me. Darwin admitted that there were none of the required numerous missing links to prove his theory. There should be tons of missing links, if he was correct. Many of the so called examples turned out to be fakes or false leads.
Evolution is a religion that many of those who reject or dismiss the existence of a Creator love to hold to. It gives them something to hang onto.

I think this is well said. It is a religion the same as any other. It requires faith in something that cannnot be proven. The odds of finding an actual, provable “missing link” is virtually impossible since, if “morphing” from one species to another is true, it would occur gradually and subtly that we would not be able to discern itin the fossil record.

I would still like to see some scientists make the most simple form of any sort of life out of a primordial soup with some lightning strikes or whatever. They still can’t even explain what and where a life-force comes from. How does a seed, that has been sitting around for a thousand years, suddenly come to life when some water and the right conditions are present? It was “dead” by all scientific criteria and appearances before that.
I reject evolution.

If science could achieve such a thing as “starting” life as you describe it still would not explain “WHY” that life started. They would know more about the “mechanisms” involved but not the “First Cause”.

If the creation account in Genesis involved evolution, that would mean that God’s Word is inaccurate. Such inaccuracy would make the rest of Scripture suspect.

I know that many share your view. The Church does not.
The account in Genesis describes What God did and the order in which He did it. Science agrees with this in the sense that the general order is pretty accurate. What Genesis does not do is describe things in detail. It does not explain, in scientific terms the development of each day’s work. It isn’t necessarily a question of accuracy but rather one of detail.
Another aspect to consider is that the Book of Genesis was written in a very different time,for a very different audience. It was written so that people of that time and place could understand it.
When Children are small they believe in Santa Claus. Parents encourage this belief in a wonderfully generous, loving and spiritual (magical) person. Later the Children figure out that Santa isn’t real, but the generousity and love and spirituality of that season and the Santa Character indeed IS very REAL. Does that knowledge make all the rest of their parents teaching suspect?? Certainly not. They simply change in their ability to understand and the parents change the way they talk and teach the children. In a sense they evolve - They grow.

The first man was formed from the dust of the earth and God breathed the breath of life into him. Adam was the first human being and he did not “evolve” from a monkey or ape.

Everything on this planet is formed from the products of the planet so your statement is correct. God breathed lfe into everything so your statement is correct. We accept Adam as the first man so your statement is correct.
Just precisely “How” God “formed” man, what mechanism he might have chosen to use, we are not told. It also doesn’t matter.
For we are here - God Loves us - Leads us - Guides us - and lives in our hearts. Everything else is details.

Peace
James

 

[Orogeny]

Evolution does not make sense to me. Darwin admitted that there were none of the required numerous missing links to prove his theory. There should be tons of missing links, if he was correct. Many of the so called examples turned out to be fakes or false leads.

Well, even assuming that you are correct (and you are not), only one transitional form is sufficient. Since Darwin wrote his books, much has been discovered. Don’t you think that perhaps we understand science a bit better now than we did in Darwin’s time?

Evolution is a religion that many of those who reject or dismiss the existence of a Creator love to hold to. It gives them something to hang onto.

You may be right, but that doesn’t actually say anything about evolution, does it.

I would still like to see some scientists make the most simple form of any sort of life out of a primordial soup with some lightning strikes or whatever. They still can’t even explain what and where a life-force comes from.

That is not necessary for us to be able to look at the evidence, see that evolution is a fact, and develop a scientific theory of how it happens.

What if science actually succeeds in creating a primitive form of life? Will you abandon your faith because of it?

How does a seed, that has been sitting around for a thousand years, suddenly come to life when some water and the right conditions are present? It was “dead” by all scientific criteria and appearances before that.

No, it was not “dead” by any scientific criteria.

I reject evolution.

Really? I never would have guessed!

If the creation account in Genesis involved evolution, that would mean that God’s Word is inaccurate. Such inaccuracy would make the rest of Scripture suspect.

Only if your faith is so weak that the entire bible must be read literally or your faith will be harmed.

Adam was the first human being and he did not “evolve” from a monkey or ape.

Well, you got that part right, but I suspect that you don’t understand why.

Peace

Tim

 

[greggy53]

“That is not necessary for us to be able to look at the evidence, see that evolution is a fact, and develop a scientific theory of how it happens.”

**What if science actually succeeds in creating a primitive form of life? Will you abandon your faith because of it?**No, it was not “dead” by any scientific criteria.Really? I never would have guessed! Only if your faith is so weak that the entire bible must be read literally or your faith will be harmed.Well, you got that part right, but I suspect that you don’t understand why.

Peace

Tim

Please forgive my interuption but it seems very convienient for you to demand hard eveidence from those who oppose your veiw, but not require it for your own.

Very important question here: If science can prove that life is accidental ( Time + mutation) What need then is there for a God?
Secular, atheistic science is desperate to demonstrate this, but alas have not found it. They want to get to the planet Mars for this very reason

 

[Mrs_V]

I do, no problem.

 

[Orogeny]

Please forgive my interuption but it seems very convienient for you to demand hard eveidence from those who oppose your veiw, but not require it for your own.

What makes you think I don’t require hard evidence for evolution?

Very important question here: If science can prove that life is accidental ( Time + mutation) What need then is there for a God?

Who said anything about accidental? How would science possibly show that the first life was created accidentally?

Secular, atheistic science is desperate to demonstrate this, but alas have not found it. They want to get to the planet Mars for this very reason

I am neither secular nor an atheist and I would like to see it if it is possible. How does that fit into your views?

Peace

Tim

 

[greggy53]

What makes you think I don’t require hard evidence for evolution?Who said anything about accidental? How would science possibly show that the first life was created accidentally?I am neither secular nor an atheist and I would like to see it if it is possible. How does that fit into your views?

Peace

Tim

I did not mean to imply that you were a secular atheist. I merely stated that that is what they are looking for. the whole premise of Darwinian Evolution is that life is accidental. If life happened accidently in the past, then there must be the possibility of it happening now, and in the future. Science could demonstrate this by observing it (life)coming into existence. Isn’t observation an integral part of the scientific method?. Indeed, with the billions of life forms on this planet I would think that life would be “popping” into existence quite frequently??

 

[kalt]

Natural selection makes sense and is obviously a fact. A stupid animal or human is more likely not to survive and procreate.
Evolution does not make sense to me. Darwin admitted that there were none of the required numerous missing links to prove his theory. There should be tons of missing links, if he was correct. Many of the so called examples turned out to be fakes or false leads.
Evolution is a religion that many of those who reject or dismiss the existence of a Creator love to hold to. It gives them something to hang onto.
I would still like to see some scientists make the most simple form of any sort of life out of a primordial soup with some lightning strikes or whatever. They still can’t even explain what and where a life-force comes from. How does a seed, that has been sitting around for a thousand years, suddenly come to life when some water and the right conditions are present? It was “dead” by all scientific criteria and appearances before that.
I reject evolution.
If the creation account in Genesis involved evolution, that would mean that God’s Word is inaccurate. Such inaccuracy would make the rest of Scripture suspect.
The first man was formed from the dust of the earth and God breathed the breath of life into him. Adam was the first human being and he did not “evolve” from a monkey or ape.

There’s no theory of evolution that says man evolved from monkeys or apes. If that’s your maind stumlbing block to accepting evolution fact, worry no more.

 

[Orogeny]

I did not mean to imply that you were a secular atheist. I merely stated that that is what they are looking for. the whole premise of Darwinian Evolution is that life is accidental.

No, the premise is that life has changed (evolved) over time and the driving force is natural selection.

If life happened accidently in the past, then there must be the possibility of it happening now, and in the future. Science could demonstrate this by observing it (life)coming into existence. Isn’t observation an integral part of the scientific method?. Indeed, with the billions of life forms on this planet I would think that life would be “popping” into existence quite frequently??

Life is evolving (as has been observed), not popping into existence. Nothing in evolutionary theory suggests that life ever “popped” into existence.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Well, even assuming that you are correct (and you are not), only one transitional form is sufficient. Since Darwin wrote his books, much has been discovered. Don’t you think that perhaps we understand science a bit better now than we did in Darwin’s time?You may be right, but that doesn’t actually say anything about evolution, does it.That is not necessary for us to be able to look at the evidence, see that evolution is a fact, and develop a scientific theory of how it happens.

What if science actually succeeds in creating a primitive form of life? Will you abandon your faith because of it?No, it was not “dead” by any scientific criteria.Really? I never would have guessed! Only if your faith is so weak that the entire bible must be read literally or your faith will be harmed.Well, you got that part right, but I suspect that you don’t understand why.

Peace

Tim

Orogeny, how many morphological changes did it take you to go from geological expert to evolution expert?

 

[greggy53]

No, the premise is that life has changed (evolved) over time and the driving force is natural selection.Life is evolving (as has been observed), not popping into existence. Nothing in evolutionary theory suggests that life ever “popped” into existence.

Peace

Tim

I would have to argue that there are two choices open to us:

1. life is accidental (The impersonal + chance) Which is what Darwinian Evolution teaches, and the secular scientific community believes. (It is rather silly to think of life “popping” into existence but that is what Darwinian Evolution proposes)
2. Life was intentionally created at some point in the past by a creator, or creators. And since then life has adapted to it’s environment.( Micro Evolution.)

 

[Orogeny]

Orogeny, how many morphological changes did it take you to go from geological expert to evolution expert?

I really haven’t. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a couple of weeks ago!

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

I really haven’t. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a couple of weeks ago!

Peace

Tim

Ahhhh - I see - they replaced the KJV Bible with the evolutionary bible.

 

[Orogeny]

I would have to argue that there are two choices open to us:

Before I get to your two choices, let me ask you a couple of questions. What is chance to God? Is random possible for God?

1. life is accidental (The impersonal + chance) Which is what Darwinian Evolution teaches, and the secular scientific community believes. (It is rather silly to think of life “popping” into existence but that is what Darwinian Evolution proposes)
2. Life was intentionally created at some point in the past by a creator, or creators. And since then life has adapted to it’s environment.( Micro Evolution.)

Or the third choice which is a combination of your 1 and 2. God created life and life evolved (macro) to what we currently have.

(It is rather silly to think of life “popping” into existence but that is what Darwinian Evolution proposes)

No it doesn’t. Where do you get this silly idea?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Before I get to your two choices, let me ask you a couple of questions. What is chance to God? Is random possible for God?Or the third choice which is a combination of your 1 and 2. God created life and life evolved (macro) to what we currently have.No it doesn’t. Where do you get this silly idea?

Peace

Tim

Almighty God can do what He sets out to do. (There are somethings God cannot do - another discussion)

If God knew what Adam and Eve would look like and they looked like He planned then He had to be instrumental in ensuring that.

 

[c659smith]

If evolution is a proven science then tell me the evolution of one tiny part of the human body and that is the human eye?

 

[Orogeny]

If evolution is a proven science then tell me the evolution of one tiny part of the human body and that is the human eye?

Dang it, you caught us. We never thought about that.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

If evolution is a proven science then tell me the evolution of one tiny part of the human body and that is the human eye?

Find a picture of a chimpanzee. Observe its eyes. The eyes of a chimpanzee are extremely similar to human eyes, the major difference being that chimpanzee eyes are almost always brown, while human eyes are mostly brown but can be other colours.

The human eye and the chimpanzee eye both evolved from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees - an extinct African ape from about five million years ago. That would also have had similar eyes, very probably brown.

The colour differences in human eyes are probably associated with some humans evolving lighter colouration (fair skin for instance) to help with vitamin D production in higher latitudes.

rossum

 

[greggy53]

Before I get to your two choices, let me ask you a couple of questions. What is chance to God? Is random possible for God?Or the third choice which is a combination of your 1 and 2. God created life and life evolved (macro) to what we currently have.No it doesn’t. Where do you get this silly idea?

Peace

Tim

Sorry Tim, but your 3rd choice is really a variation of choice 2.- Life was created.
I think I know what you are trying to get at with your question “What is Chance to God?” that nothing is impossible to God, so he could have made it “look Random” by inventing chance.
Sorry but I can’t buy that either.Randomness, or chance is just what it means, if God interveins then it is no longer random. Randomness explicitly implies no interference from any outside sources. If we introduce anything or anyone else into the equation it is no longer random, and we are back at choice 2.
The “silly” idea that we are here because of randomness or chance has been popular on campuses and with scrientists around the world for the better half of the last centrury.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Evolution does not make sense to me. Darwin admitted that there were none of the required numerous missing links to prove his theory. There should be tons of missing links, if he was correct. Many of the so called examples turned out to be fakes or false leads.

Darwin’s explanation of evolution was *approximately *correct, but required refinement. The modern evolutionary synthesis (as it is called) is a refinement of Darwin’s explanation of evolution.

See my post on theroy vs fact.

 

[Orogeny]

Sorry Tim, but your 3rd choice is really a variation of choice 2.- Life was created.

No, it is a combination of the two.

I think I know what you are trying to get at with your question “What is Chance to God?” that nothing is impossible to God, so he could have made it “look Random” by inventing chance.
Sorry but I can’t buy that either.Randomness, or chance is just what it means, if God interveins then it is no longer random.

Did God create unstable elements that undergo radioactive decay? Can we predict when any specific atom in a mass of atoms will decay?

Randomness explicitly implies no interference from any outside sources. If we introduce anything or anyone else into the equation it is no longer random, and we are back at choice 2.

So your position is that there is no such thing as random. Is there a possibility that there are things that are truly random to our human minds?

The “silly” idea that we are here because of randomness or chance has been popular on campuses and with scrientists around the world for the better half of the last centrury.

No, you claimed that the theory of evolution claims that life pops into existence. That is silly and not part of the theory, contrary to your claims.

Peace

Tim