1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

So what's wrong with evolution?

Discussion in 'NonChristian Help Forum' started by Lunar, Jun 21, 2008.

  1. Lunar

    Lunar New Member

    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Alpha and Omega;53897)
    This is another problem. That to me is a huge cop out on evolutions part.
    Are statements about, say, the first-century Roman Empire "cop-outs" because we've never directly observed them?(Alpha and Omega)
    How many thousands of animals have short life spans and should not be evolving ever couple million years but maybe ever couple decades or so. Take for example the fruit fly from egg to maturity it takes 9 days something should have evolved from the last 100 years at least or so. How many generations of fruit fly is that? To say it takes millions of years I would agree with say animals that have large life spans but not animals that have short ones.
    Aha, but that's exactly the case. We have witnessed speciation within the fruit fly - in fact, there's ample literature concerning the speciation of the Drosophila melanogaster (which I mentioned in my last post!)(Alpha and Omega)
    The cause of evolution is adaption to the environment by a species. That statement is incorrect. Somethings must cause somethings to happen. If the paperweight fell on your foot the cause (gravity) produces the effect (pain) they are not interchangeable.
    I have no idea what you are trying to communicate to me.I just gave you an example in which a cause was also an effect. Clearly, some effects must also be causes. Otherwise, how would more than one cause-effect sequence have ever occurred? I'll try phrasing an example in some more familiar terminology.Cause: GodEffect: Creation of Adam and Eve ->Cause: Adam and EveEffect: Fall of Man ->Cause: Fall of ManEffect: Worldwide suffering ->Cause: Worldwide sufferingEffect: Skepticism of God's existence and discussion of such on message boardsAnd so on.(Alpha and Omega)
    Natural selection implies that it is an effect (not cause) of a changing environment. That is why certain characteristics are chosen because they are better (for lack of a better word) to suit the current environment. The environment changes = causenatural selection = effect
    What would be more accurate is this:Cause: Variation + heredity + limited resourcesEffect: Natural selectionCause: Natural selectionEffect: Evolution(Alpha and Omega)
    We are not isolated systems. We are open systems.
    This is correct. That is why the criticism does not apply.(Alpha and Omega)
    But we still die. Therefore, entropy is applied to an open system (us).
    Our inability to achieve immortality is a problem of limited technology (or theology, depending on who you ask). It has nothing to do with whether we have sufficient energy to reverse entropy in that particular case.What the second law is saying is that things will tend towards disorder in the absence of an input of energy. The earth receives energy from the sun, therefore it will not necessarily tend towards disorder.
     
  2. Genesis 1:21 "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."Genesis 1:24-25 "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
     
  3. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    (Sola_Scriptura;53982)
    Genesis 1:21 "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."Genesis 1:24-25 "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
    Hey Sola. Nice to hear from you. Yea, those scriptures itself defeat the theory of Evolution.
     
  4. Nice to see you again, superjag. :) how are you doing, friend?
     
  5. Shornaal

    Shornaal New Member

    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Sola_Scriptura;53982)
    Genesis 1:21 "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."Genesis 1:24-25 "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
    Sso just because goat farmers two thousand years ago knew goats walked on four legs and only gave birth to other goats that proves that the goats were created by a flying invisible space jew?
     
  6. Alpha and Omega

    Alpha and Omega New Member

    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Shornaal;53999)
    Sso just because goat farmers two thousand years ago knew goats walked on four legs and only gave birth to other goats that proves that the goats were created by a flying invisible space jew?
    who says that God is a jew?
     
  7. Lunar

    Lunar New Member

    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    (thesuperjag;53983)
    Yea, those scriptures itself defeat the theory of Evolution.
    If you are a biblical literalist, then yes, that would settle the matter. However, does it not strike you as odd that the inerrant truth seems to so greatly conflict with what we observe in the world? Is it believed that the evidence for evolution all a deliberate deception by God?I'll not attempt to persuade you away from biblical literalism, but I will reiterate what I said before - God, if he exists, is most likely not a deceptive God. If the bible is true, it ought not to conflict with scientific observations. Thus, if no quarrel can be found with the scientific observations, perhaps the interpretation of the bible is incorrect.
     
  8. Shornaal

    Shornaal New Member

    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Alpha and Omega;54009)
    who says that God is a jew?
    Jesus was a jew so God is at least 1/3 part jew.That is if you believe in the holy trinity.
     
  9. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."The Bible tells us that God created everything (Genesis 1:1) and that he created each creature "according to its kind", which refutes evolution. God didn't make the wild beasts produce men, he made the wild beasts produce "according to their kinds". Evolution kicks God out of the picture of creation and states that we evolved from lower species, without the need of a Creator.If the Bible, God's word, tells us that he created everything by himself (Isaiah 44:24), without the need of an evolutionary process, as God's children and followers of Christ, we should believe him.Are you going to listen to the Creator or man?Romans 1:25 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."Romans 3:4 "....let God be true, and every man a liar..."
     
  10. Take God's word for it....Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."Genesis 1:21 "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."Genesis 1:24-25 "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
     
  11. Alpha and Omega

    Alpha and Omega New Member

    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Lunar;54044)
    If you are a biblical literalist, then yes, that would settle the matter. However, does it not strike you as odd that the inerrant truth seems to so greatly conflict with what we observe in the world? Is it believed that the evidence for evolution all a deliberate deception by God?I'll not attempt to persuade you away from biblical literalism, but I will reiterate what I said before - God, if he exists, is most likely not a deceptive God. If the bible is true, it ought not to conflict with scientific observations. Thus, if no quarrel can be found with the scientific observations, perhaps the interpretation of the bible is incorrect.
    Which scientific observations does the Bible conflict with?
     
  12. Shornaal

    Shornaal New Member

    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Sola_Scriptura;54059)
    Take God's word for it....Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."Genesis 1:21 "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."Genesis 1:24-25 "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
    You want us to believe in God because God wrote the Bible, but since we don't believe in God we don't believe he wrote the bible.It's circular logic, so now the only reason to believe in God is faith, but what says I should have faith in the christian God?Why not have faith in the Gods of Norse?
     
  13. Lunar

    Lunar New Member

    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Alpha and Omega;54093)
    Which scientific observations does the Bible conflict with?
    The ones from the beginning of the thread that provide incontrovertible evidence of evolution, both on the micro and macro scale.
     
  14. Vindicated

    Vindicated New Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    void rant (char logic[10], char deductive_reasoning[10]){Lunar, i would like to introduce you today to what i like to call logic and deductive reasoning. As humans we think we are so smart. some of us think we are smarter than others, but in reality no one is smart, some of us are just a little bit less stupid than othersBacterial Flagellum - The bacterial flagellum is the most complex rotary motor known to man. Oddly enough man cannot replicate it, and it is found on a variety UNICELLULAR bacterium. Since these bacterium are unicellular it can be said that they are the least complex form of life. (You and i have billions of cells)--- if your car breaks down with it spontaneously fix itself? or will it not run until someone with enough knowledge about cars comes along and fixes it (or hell freezes over, whichever comes first)---your right! your car WILL NOT fix itself. How did the most complex rotary motor of all time spontaneously generate? (Mazda would love to pop one of these babies in the RX-7)now i will explain to you just how complex this is. The flangellum can spin 100,000 RPM's and stop and spin backwards that fast in a split second. Put your car in reverse at 3,000 RPM's and see what happens. You will undoubtedly drop your transmission.not only does this sucker do all of that but, it doesn't require gas! (a bit of sarcasm)So the simplest living organisms are actually more complex than modern science can even fathom. Biologists are examining nanoseconds in time and expecting to predict how we all arrived here. It's interesting how the field of science is supposedly dedicated to making observations and analizing data, then its their presuppositions that flex the data to fit their agenda.evolution is a biases political machine and cant even be considered a philosophy. The food industry relies on the fact that evolution doesn't happen. Imagine if an amoeba evolved in your grape jelly.... can you say sued? Grape jelly sits in a jar on a shelf with everything needed for the alleged "abiogenesis" to happen. It has sunlight from the window, chemical compounds, and energy. Humans cannot even get to the bottom of the ocean. What on EARTH makes you think someone can tell you what happened millions and billions of years ago, if we cant even fully explore this giant rock we live on...} // end rant// I for one trust in Jesus// NOTE : Richard Dawkins is the posterchild of a person who thinks hes smarter than the world (less stupid) and attempts to push this// agenda as far as he possibly can... No amount of mental gymnastics can eliminate the possibility of God. To say that you // know with certainty that God does not exist it to admit that you are indeed, attempting to force your presuppositions on the facts
     
  15. Shornaal

    Shornaal New Member

    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually the Bacterial Flagellum's rotary motor was initially used to expel cells from it's system which would develop to become new Bacterial Flagellum. After a mutation which caused the Bacterial Flagellum to slough off cells from it's outer dermis the "motor" did not have a function and served no purpose. Now evolution could have taken two diffrent paths as in some Bacterial Flagellum the motor began to atrophy and degenerate to nothing while a separate subspecies evolved from a group of mutated Bacterial Flagellum fissioned from a single entity. These Bacterial Flagellum had grown monofilament threads attached to it's motor and could use it to navigate and propel itself towards any source of nutrition.Now since the ones who had developed these propelling filaments had an advantage over their not so mobile cousins they quickly took over, efficiently devouring any nutritients causing the Bacterial Flagellum without propulsion filamements to starve and slowly die off, incapable of reproducing due to lack of nutritents.
    evolution is a biases political machine and cant even be considered a philosophy. The food industry relies on the fact that evolution doesn't happen. Imagine if an amoeba evolved in your grape jelly.... can you say sued? Grape jelly sits in a jar on a shelf with everything needed for the alleged "abiogenesis" to happen. It has sunlight from the window, chemical compounds, and energy.
    Actually if you took grape jelly, put it on a barren rock in space with access to a sun and water for trillions of years it might evolve life.The reason it doesn't happen in a jar is because of the slow process and the lack of energy transferred into it, also it might be missing some of the components that existed when life was created on earth.Instead of quoting Chuck Missler try understanding what you are talking about and not just throw other people's quotes around, it makes you look uneducated.
     
  16. Lunar

    Lunar New Member

    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Vindicated;55429)
    Lunar, i would like to introduce you today to what i like to call logic and deductive reasoning.
    I'm a philosophy major. I TA'd a course in deductive logic last semester. (But more on that later.)(Vindicated)
    Bacterial Flagellum - The bacterial flagellum is the most complex rotary motor known to man. Oddly enough man cannot replicate it, and it is found on a variety UNICELLULAR bacterium. Since these bacterium are unicellular it can be said that they are the least complex form of life. (You and i have billions of cells)
    Please read the original post before replying. The irreducible complexity argument, and in particular the one concerning bacterial flagellum, has been debunked. For more information on the evolution of bacterial flagellum, watch this link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4(Vindicated)
    So the simplest living organisms are actually more complex than modern science can even fathom.
    There is a vast wealth of information on the bacterial flagellum. Are you arguing that we do not understand it? It is very well documented.(Vindicated)
    The food industry relies on the fact that evolution doesn't happen. Imagine if an amoeba evolved in your grape jelly.... can you say sued? Grape jelly sits in a jar on a shelf with everything needed for the alleged "abiogenesis" to happen. It has sunlight from the window, chemical compounds, and energy.
    What? That doesn't prove that life doesn't emerge from non-life. That just proves that life doesn't emerge from non-life in a grape jar.Since you seem to be a fan of deductive logic, allow me to show you how you just committed the most basic error in all of deductive logic: inferring a universal from an existential. Let's look at the form of your statements."There exists a situation in which life could not evolve from non-life." (A grape jar.)"Therefore, in all situations life could not evolve from non-life."This is an invalid inference. Would you like to see why? Well, let's look at another example:"There exists a dog that is brown.""Therefore, all dogs are brown."Those two sentences are of the exact same logical form. However, the latter one - the one which was inferred - is false. I suspect that your inference is also false.Also you once again proved that you didn't read the opening post, because conflating abiogenesis with evolution is a fallacy which I specifically mentioned.(Vindicated)
    Humans cannot even get to the bottom of the ocean. What on EARTH makes you think someone can tell you what happened millions and billions of years ago, if we cant even fully explore this giant rock we live on...
    Now you're just criticizing science in general. Do you think we can definitively say how old the earth is? How the stars and planets formed? How the continents and landmasses formed? Or heck, what happened in the first-century Roman Empire? Those things all took place a long time ago too. You seem so intent to demean humanity's ability to use science to yield truth.But I suppose that's the obvious conclusion to reach from this: People who don't believe in evolution just don't believe in science.(Vindicated)
    I for one trust in Jesus
    Congratulations?(Vindicated)
    NOTE : Richard Dawkins is the posterchild of a person who thinks hes smarter than the world (less stupid) and attempts to push this agenda as far as he possibly can... No amount of mental gymnastics can eliminate the possibility of God. To say that you know with certainty that God does not exist it to admit that you are indeed, attempting to force your presuppositions on the facts
    Richard Dawkins has nothing to do with this discussion, nor does atheism, so I have no idea why you brought him up.
     
  17. For Life

    For Life New Member

    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    You want us to believe in God because God wrote the Bible, but since we don't believe in God we don't believe he wrote the bible.It's circular logic, so now the only reason to believe in God is faith, but what says I should have faith in the christian God?
    Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_RazorIt basically says given two theories the simplest one is probably correct. Wouldn't believing in God and God's Word be much more simple than believing in man's theory of evolution? Can you imagine a being that is smarter than you, and more powerful (infinitely so)? Why would it be difficult for God to create this world? I don't think it would be. I think it is much more unlikely that some big bang spewed junk into the Universe and after a few billion years this world just popped up and evolved into what we see now.
     
  18. Lunar

    Lunar New Member

    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    (For Life;55438)
    Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_RazorIt basically says given two theories the simplest one is probably correct. Wouldn't believing in God and God's Word be much more simple than believing in man's theory of evolution? Can you imagine a being that is smarter than you, and more powerful (infinitely so)? Why would it be difficult for God to create this world? I don't think it would be. I think it is much more unlikely that some big bang spewed junk into the Universe and after a few billion years this world just popped up and evolved into what we see now.
    For Life:You should read that article before you post on it. Occam's Razor does not say that the simplest of two theories is probably correct. It says that, all other things being equal, the simplest theory is correct. Meaning that, if two theories are identical in terms of evidence and explanatory power and all the other things that are good for scientific theories, then we can say that the simpler one is better.But the God hypothesis and the evolutionary hypothesis are not identical, either in terms of evidence, or in explanatory power. Evolutionary theory trumps God on both counts. So, Occam's Razor is totally irrelevant in this case.Your argument essentially entails that the only virtue in a scientific theory was simplicity. That's just patently untrue, for obvious reasons.
     
  19. For Life

    For Life New Member

    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the God hypothesis and the evolutionary hypothesis are not identical, either in terms of evidence, or in explanatory power. Evolutionary theory trumps God on both counts. So, Occam's Razor is totally irrelevant in this case.Your argument essentially entails that the only virtue in a scientific theory was simplicity. That's just patently untrue, for obvious reasons.
    I see that you have already come to your own conclusion and no amount of words will cause you to change your mind. I honestly don't see how you could say that the evolutionary theory trumps God in both explanation and evidence. What in nature couldn't be explained by a Creator? The fact that we are here and everything else that exists is here is evidence of God. Evolutionary Theory trumps God? Ha, not on Evolutionary Theories best day.
     
  20. Veronica Moser

    Veronica Moser New Member

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Evolution does not trump God. All truth is self-consistent.
     
Loading...