Eight objections to evolution

[Wrangler]

LOL The scriptures do not say the earth is flat.....LOL
Why did the Jews and Christians believe that the world was flat and the sun and moon and stars moved around it?

Sometimes it’s hard to believe you’re a Christian. Ever hear the term adverse witness?

 

[Wrangler]

True. Real science supposed to be observable and testable.
Theory of evolution (TOE) is neither.
It is known as a theoretical science which operates on a much lower standard of evidence which is based on speculation and assumption. It's closer to philosophy than science.
Microevolution happens.
Mutations happen.
Natural selection also happens with factors such as weather or food supply.
Those moths changed colour over time because the trees changed colour over time, that's not evolution that's natural selection.

But macroevolution never happens.
A species of animal doesn't come from another species of animal. It's never been observed and not even genetic engineering can acheive it

Well said! Every educated person must grasp this.

 

[Wrangler]

there's no doctrine in Genesis that doesn't also appear elsewhere in the Bible.

Are you serious? The Biblical narrative flows from the 1st 11 chapters of Genesis. Either YHWH, an eye witness to events, created the heavens and the Earth in 6 literal days or he didn’t. If you can’t believe that, it begs the question of what else in Scripture is not true and reliable?

I personally accept the eye witness account of an all knowing, all powerful Creator who loves me so much he sent his only begotten son to personally save me over egotistical fools with an anti-God agenda.

 

[Armour of God]

Well said! Every educated person must grasp this.

I know both sides of the argument. I used to be an atheist because I believed in theory of evolution. I'm greatful to God for opening my eyes and seeing the lie for what it is.

The most frustrating thing I found with grailhunter is that he doesn't know the scientific argument for intelligent design and continually tried to say that it supports theory of evolution which is totally incorrect...

He refused to watch any videos that Deb or I posted. Meanwhile I took my time to watch his videos and responded to them.

He refused to look into the theory of intelligent design. His confirmation bias wouldn't allow him to be honest with himself and listen to the other side of the debate.

In the end he just resorted to name calling.

 

[Wick Stick]

Are you serious? The Biblical narrative flows from the 1st 11 chapters of Genesis. Either YHWH, an eye witness to events, created the heavens and the Earth in 6 literal days or he didn’t. If you can’t believe that, it begs the question of what else in Scripture is not true and reliable?

I personally accept the eye witness account of an all knowing, all powerful Creator who loves me so much he sent his only begotten son to personally save me over egotistical fools with an anti-God agenda.

The creation story is covered in Job 38-41 in more detail than it is in Genesis 1.

Also, I don't believe in a literal six 24-hour days for creation. And that does beg a question - not of what is true and reliable - but of what is literal or figurative. That's a good question that we should ask.

 

[Wrangler]

the most frustrating thing I found with grailhunter is that he doesn't know the scientific argument for intelligent design and continually tried to say that it supports theory of evolution which is totally incorrect...

He refused to watch any videos that Deb or I posted. Meanwhile I took my time to watch his videos and responded to them.

He refused to look into the theory of intelligent design. His confirmation bias wouldn't allow him to be honest with himself and listen to the other side of the debate.

In the end he just resorted to name calling.

That's how I see it also. He's intelligent but that gift has blinded him to his own glory to the point he need not educate himself on a competing idea! (It's sad how the Original Sin plays out still.)

I used to be an atheist because I believed in theory of evolution.

IMO, this distills the whole debate down to its essence! Humbling facts for evolutionists should be:

1. No species has ever been observed turning into another species (one poster was wise enough to not fall for word play and properly defined species as functionallybeing able to produce (fertile) offspring).
   • This one fact should reduce TOE to a mere godless hypothesis.
   • Pathetic how prideful scientists and educators dismiss empirical science to advance a material, godless hypothesis. (They excuse themselves of this burden due to LONG TIME. Convenient rationalization to cloak atheistic religion in scientific dressing).
2. There are no transitional species,no missing links in the entire fossil record - for humans or any other species on earth. Evolutionists claim fossils, like Lucy, are early man, such claim falls short of an actual transitional species.
   • This is another example of evolutionists invoking Strawman.
   • Honestly, you pointed out @Grailhunter use of this particular fallacious reasoning so often and effectively, I felt embarrassed for him.
   • It's like he's blind to the weakness of his position because he emotionally and ego invested in it. I'm a mature man and am confident in my conclusions even while acknowledging the valid points of the opposing side. Our society is so dumbed down we seem to think that all evidence must support only one side. See cancel culture.
3. Unreliable carbon dating.
   
   • The Ark Encounter has an exhibit of a plane that crashed near the pole during WWII and was found some 30 feet under ice.
   • Ice samples were send to 3 different labs. Results varied wildly with the most recent indicating the ice was 500 years old.
   • Question for the educated; Given carbon dating is inaccurate for a sample of known age, how can it be trusted for the age of unknown samples?
4. The fossil record better supports the flood than any other explanation.

• Evolutionists and Creationists rely on the same body of evidence.
• When one thinks about the mechanism of fossilization, especially those containing soft tissue, it requires rapid burying before predation or scavenging. Random burying or a massive flood in a one time event explain the evidence. IMO, random burying does not explain the fossil record nearly as well as a worldwide flood (due to how many fossils are found).

And getting back to your point, TOE convinces young people there is no God. Ever been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky? It explains two types of science, observational and historical. Historical science makes certain assumptions that students should be taught and how these don't hold up to scrutiny, LONG TIME, constant rate of change, constant laws of physics, just to name a few. (I'm ashamed that I used to be a rabid TOE guy, myself.)

The 2 theories, Intelligent Design (Creationism) and Evolution, should be taught side by side, which a book I read 30 years ago, An Incomplete Education, alluded to indirectly, just as different mathematical approaches are taught to solve a problem. I'm pleased that Christians have led the world in education for centuries AND that emerging evidence in the last half century has made godless interpretations of the world around us untenable to those who humbly study the arguments on both sides.

 

[Wrangler]

The creation story is covered in Job 38-41 in more detail than it is in Genesis 1.

Not sure what your opposition is to the concept of beginning. Deriving principles and historical facts elsewhere doesn't take away the need to understand our beginning, our genesis, in one place.

 

[Wick Stick]

Not sure what your opposition is to the concept of beginning. Deriving principles and historical facts elsewhere doesn't take away the need to understand our beginning, our genesis, in one place.

I'm not anti-Genesis. I've spent more time studying Genesis than probably any other book of the Bible. Genesis is dear to me.

When I say "there's nothing in Genesis that isn't elsewhere" that could also go for every other book of the Bible. In fact, it SHOULD go for every book of the Bible. If a doctrine is derived only from a single passage, that's suspicious, and probably means that someone is misunderstanding something.

I am anti-stupidity. I think the church has done some stupid things by mis-understanding Genesis. One I pointed out before: a bad formulation of Original Sin led to the church denying burials to stillborn babies. Another: the church suppressing and executing scientists for formulating heliocentrism, because the theologians believed Geo-centrism was the Biblical position, to the exclusion of all others.

Here in this topic, my objection is to the idea that "if Genesis 1 isn't literal, we can throw the whole Bible out." That's some real dumb hyperbole. I'm sure we all have some difficulty with one passage or another. Should we throw out all of Christianity every time someone disagrees with our reading of a passage? That's what's being suggested and it's bs.

 

[Wrangler]

This will be my last post in this thread diverting from evolution to the merits you give for discarding Genesis And other Scripture.

That's what's being suggested and it's bs.

I used to think as you do. Now I recognize Genesis as the bulwark against BS, particularly chapters 1 - 11. To wit.

If a doctrine is derived only from a single passage, that's suspicious, and probably means that someone is misunderstanding something.

Not sure how you elevate this evolution discussion to doctrinal foundations. Perhaps that should be its own thread? Please start one. I’m curious what others think.

I am anti-stupidity.

Indeed.

 

[Wick Stick]

This will be my last post in this thread diverting from evolution to the merits you give for discarding Genesis And other Scripture.

I used to think as you do. Now I recognize Genesis as the bulwark against BS, particularly chapters 1 - 11. To wit.

Not sure how you elevate this evolution discussion to doctrinal foundations. Perhaps that should be its own thread? Please start one. I’m curious what others think.

Indeed.

I didn't actually advocate for discarding Genesis. If that's what you understood... then you didn't understand.

But you're right, we're off-topic. So... evolution?

I don't care to make scientific objections to evolution. I find that dull. I have moral objections to evolution.

I read about half of Origin of Species at one point. I eventually set the book down, because I found it to be terribly racist. I did not find a man who came up with a theory based on careful observation of finches. I found a man who wanted a scientific basis for discriminating among different races of men. I suspect Darwin arrived in the Islands with his conclusions already in hand.

And that's how Darwin's paper has been used, ever since - to justify violence between peoples because one side or the other is "more evolved." Rubbish.