Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does evolution contradict creationism?
Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; evolution; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 851-900901-950951-1,0001,001-1,048 last
To: Thatcherite

I don't know if it pays well. They make millions selling creation science crap. I think it would be funny if you would apply. I will help you with the ap. ;-)


1,001 posted on 12/24/2004 1:34:08 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 997 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

When the facts aren't on the creationist side, which is most of the time, they try to get you angry and think they won. It is typical rhetorical tricks over scientific fact.


1,002 posted on 12/24/2004 1:35:28 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine; derheimwill
Der from post 994:It's legitimate to say, "I believe someone was here, I'll go look for footprints." What geologists 200 years ago were doing is to declare anything they found to be a footprint. Then, funded scientists came along and said, "Bad Science = Bad Hypothesis," which is equally wrong.

BDK:Der, this a bunch of nonsense. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Flood geology was rejected long before there were "funded" scientists.

At this point, while you say you don't want a flame, war, you keep asking for one. This whole post in the main, was pretty out there. I suggest you refrain from further comment on the issue until you have researched it.

T:Maybe I am misunderstanding post 994 and derheimwill will correct me; but the latter sentences (requote coming up) in it seemed to indicate a (partial? grudging?) acceptance of the mainstream science position that no evidence exists for a global deluge and that it has been searched for fairly and open-mindedly:

der also from post 994:Most people doing creation research nowadays are doing so for un-scientific reasons - to convince religious groups to not listen to the non-religious research. As a Christian, I find this disturbing. It leads to people parroting the preacher and convincing themselves they are saved (because they know the right words to say), when they are not.

T:Am I right here der, or have I misunderstood you?

1,003 posted on 12/25/2004 2:43:16 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Bdk suggested that no scientists were funded before the "rejection" of flood geology (200 years ago). I chose not to respond. As to your specific question, I am not accepting the "mainstream" position, merely acknowledging it. I agree I need to do more research, if I am to continue defending my position on this thread.


1,004 posted on 12/25/2004 2:51:06 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1003 | View Replies]

To: shubi

God created evolution. How's that?


1,005 posted on 12/25/2004 2:55:50 PM PST by BJungNan (Did you call your congressmen to tell them to stop funding the ACLU? 202 224 3121)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan

Evolution is a fact. God created everything.
Therefore, God created evolution.


1,006 posted on 12/25/2004 6:27:12 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1005 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

Bdk suggested that no scientists were funded before the "rejection" of flood geology (200 years ago).

Der, there was no such thing as a geology degree 200 years ago. Most of the geologists back then were folks, who, for lack of a better description, had too much time on their hands :-)

You can find sime nuggets in Peter Bowler's book "Evolution, History of an Idea"..

Merry Christmas... Happy researching..

Big.


1,007 posted on 12/25/2004 7:30:38 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1004 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I've got a few seconds to spare. If you've got the proof, I'd like to see it.

Oh my gosh. Is this like a fetish subject or yours?

1,008 posted on 12/25/2004 9:21:14 PM PST by BJungNan (Did you call your congressmen to tell them to stop funding the ACLU? 202 224 3121)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

...and you bailed on me in the middle of the last thread. Where did you go?


1,009 posted on 12/25/2004 9:23:27 PM PST by BJungNan (Did you call your congressmen to tell them to stop funding the ACLU? 202 224 3121)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan
...and you bailed on me in the middle of the last thread. Where did you go?

You mean after post 1,083 in the "Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists" thread, I assume. I judged you to be unfit for human discourse. You're on Virtual Ignore, where you will remain. Now you know.

1,010 posted on 12/26/2004 5:03:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry (PatrickHenry's law: If each event in a causal chain is natural, the totality is natural.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1009 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Virtual Ingnore sounds really good. Of all the years I have been posting on FR, I have never come across anyone like you. And in the other thread I saw that others have the same impression of you. That should bother you. But perhaps rather than confronting it, it is easier for you to use the virtual ignorance button instead. Whatever works.


1,011 posted on 12/26/2004 8:21:35 AM PST by BJungNan (Did you call your congressmen to tell them to stop funding the ACLU? 202 224 3121)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1010 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

:-)


1,012 posted on 12/26/2004 8:25:53 AM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1010 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Placemarker


1,013 posted on 12/28/2004 1:57:23 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1012 | View Replies]

To: shubi

bookmark


1,014 posted on 12/28/2004 6:05:55 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1013 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
If you guys can believe a blind stupid "force" allowed US to come about with our several trillion cells working in complete sychronicity, producing millions of proteins, duplicating themselves with an error rate of 1 gene error in 10 million copies. That "evolution developed the human brain, the five senses.

That evolution dictated we loose our fur (to what evolutionary advantage?). And that we became upright with the loss of land speed due to the loss of two legs for locomotion. That all the specifics of every organ is contained within the genetic code in each and every cell...except the sex cells which only have half the genes of the individual. And that all the specific cells for every organ KNOW where to go to form the human body while still in the womb. That the human brain has more connections than all the telephone systems in the world put together, and those connections pre-wired in the genetic code.

Well I guess I can EASILY believe the pre-flood earth existed in different physical circumstances than today, including an atmosphere that contained no dust or salt crystals so that moisture could precipitate as rain...never before seen until some change in the atmosphere, including the possible introduction of inter-stellar masses of water, earthquakes (look what one did under the Indian Ocean!) Water is still not drained from the land that was flooded!

Also the Bible does not indicate if the flood was local or global, arguments are made for both viewpoints. The best arguments are for a flood, ONLY where man existed, since it was his sin that was being judged.

Now you guys postulate a mechanism for all of speciation that nobody has ever observed, the fossil evidence is in direct contradiction to this theory...and yet you still believe in THIS theory, contrary to all the evidence, modern science, information theory, irreducible complexity, and just plain common sense that no natural processes can produce something as incredible as consciousness, or self-awareness. A quality that is obviously transcendental to sheer matter.

And you base this belief, starting from a mediocre scientist from the 19th century who knew hardly anything about cells, nothing about DNA, who's own words about the fossil record have been falsified, and who believed in Lamarckian inheritance. Hardly a credible source to invest so much time and effort to prop up this rickety and moth-eaten theory. It's days are numbered, so is the hiding place for your unbelief. Agnostics and atheists will have to find a new way to throw rocks at God. Meanwhile many of us will give honor to God for the wonders of HIS creation. And we will marvel at the stupidity that unbelief can generate.
1,015 posted on 01/03/2005 9:25:30 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 959 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
Welcome Back! Did you have a good holiday?

I'm too busy right now to reply to such a long post but I'll get back if no-one else does.

1,016 posted on 01/03/2005 11:23:48 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1015 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Yep! Went to NYC. I was contemplating the Island of Manhattan, which took human beings with all their industry and intelligencer and the resources of a great nation about 200 years to build. I had to keep jumping out of the way as new (little buildings) spontaneously erupted out of the sidewalk.

And consider that Manhattan is FAR LESS COMPLEX than a single living cell, cannot self-replicate, nor repair itself. And does not produce products for distant cities it knows nothing about.
1,017 posted on 01/03/2005 2:46:16 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1016 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"That evolution dictated we loose our fur (to what evolutionary advantage?"

So we could wear Calvin Klein jeans without hurting ourselves.


1,018 posted on 01/03/2005 6:28:45 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1015 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"And does not produce products for distant cities it knows nothing about."

I think NYC still has some manufacturing left despite the liberals there.

I think NYC knows about most if not all the cities in the world.


1,019 posted on 01/03/2005 6:30:48 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1017 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"Now you guys postulate a mechanism for all of speciation that nobody has ever observed"

I think we have seen DNA now on an electron microscope.


1,020 posted on 01/03/2005 6:32:34 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1015 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"And you base this belief, starting from a mediocre scientist from the 19th century who knew hardly anything about cells, nothing about DNA, who's own words about the fossil record have been falsified, and who believed in Lamarckian inheritance. Hardly a credible source to invest so much time and effort to prop up this rickety and moth-eaten theory. It's days are numbered, so is the hiding place for your unbelief. Agnostics and atheists will have to find a new way to throw rocks at God. Meanwhile many of us will give honor to God for the wonders of HIS creation. And we will marvel at the stupidity that unbelief can generate."

Darwin was a Genius. He stopped believing Lamarck after he figured out how it really worked, but he didn't come real close to understanding genetics.

No one is throwing rocks at God. I believe in God and understand evolution is a fact. We might be throwing rocks at your conception of God.

God made man in His image and man returned the favor.


1,021 posted on 01/03/2005 6:37:01 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1015 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
Yep! Went to NYC. I was contemplating the Island of Manhattan, which took human beings with all their industry and intelligencer and the resources of a great nation about 200 years to build. I had to keep jumping out of the way as new (little buildings) spontaneously erupted out of the sidewalk. And consider that Manhattan is FAR LESS COMPLEX than a single living cell, cannot self-replicate, nor repair itself. And does not produce products for distant cities it knows nothing about.

As I've said before you should steer clear of humour. Invective seems to suit you better.

Although your Manhattan analogy is nothing to do with biological evolution I would point out that Manhattan is perfectly capable of replicating itself (were such a bizarre thing to be required), it does repair itself, and it does produce goods for distant cities it knows nothing about. (to see this you have to see Manhattan as a complete system, including the people in it, and its internal and external communication and transport links)

1,022 posted on 01/04/2005 12:48:19 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1017 | View Replies]

To: shubi
And besides ENTIRELY missing my point...you point is?

Like I was saying...cells within human organs produce proteins that are used by other cells they know nothing about, unless you want to speculate that cells have an extensive memory and actually know (are conscious) of what they are doing?

Either way you have the problem in the evolutionary paradigm. If cells are conscious of what they are doing, and why they are doing it, and where to send the manufactured proteins, then where does that intelligence reside? From where did that come? It only speaks of purposeful design. If cells do not know why they are manufacturing proteins for other cells, then why (according to evolution) would they be doing something they have no way of knowing how, or if it benefits them?

Either way you have intelligence on a cellular level that is beyond incredible, not to mention a communication and feedback system that would be more mysterious than God.

Or you have a designed system that was fit together by a master designer for a purpose that it accomplishes far better than my example of Manhattan, which does know why it exists, what it manufactures, and where it sends the products. (Which was my orginal point...get it?) And that ONLY because it is inhabited and built and designed by intelligent beings...excepting the liberals and lawyers who basically fulfill the role of parasites.
1,023 posted on 01/04/2005 5:51:14 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1019 | View Replies]

To: shubi

zip it!


1,024 posted on 01/04/2005 5:51:57 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1018 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Yep we have...incredible isn't it? Tell me which came first the cell nucleus with its controlled water environment, controlled temperature range all built out of proteins, or the DNA, which specifies the proteins? And remember DNA is a very delicate substance, it has to have this controlled environment to function. Not to mention transcription processes and little factories to build the proteins...a process far more complex than any human factory...evolution has some splaing to due!
1,025 posted on 01/04/2005 5:57:22 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1020 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Read Romans...see what the Scripture says about those that WORSHIP the creature and creation rather than the creator. YOU are throwing rocks at God, even though subconsciously, or do you think sin is all a conscious act?

My concept of God is based on Scripture, experiences, and observation of nature and life, and a knowledge of human history.

If we are created in the image of God, then our emotions, feelings, desires, are some reflection of His, even though debased at this point. God does get mad...just like us (but in righteousness).

And imagine this: You go to a lot of effort to build a beautiful house, invest a lot of time, money, resources, sweat and tears. You built this house specifically for somebody that you actually love...you did it as an act and showing of that love.

They move in and not only do they trash your house, but they pretend that either the house always existed, or somebody else built it. They look right at you and while you show them the deed of ownership, and you pretend to not see or hear them. Maybe you are a far more elevated being, but if somebody did that to me, I would kick their ass, and kick them out of my house.
1,026 posted on 01/04/2005 6:10:12 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1021 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

You had no point that was in any way related to the Theory of Evolution.

Biology doesn't care who or what created it. You will just have to live with that fact. I know it is tough for you, but try.


1,027 posted on 01/04/2005 6:25:40 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1023 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
My humor and invective are BOTH better than your understanding of physical processes, or you science. Something like a human city has everything to do with biology, evolutionary or not. A city is built by us, (biological beings). A city is designed (although most very badly)

A single cell within any of us is far more complex, purposeful, and DESIGNED than any human city. It does things beyond its own capabilities, or in organization with other cells beyond its own capacity to know what, or why, it would do such a thing.

A single cell in the eye knows nothing of quantum waves, or photons, but in concert with various other cells, working synchronously at amazing speeds and with the human brain it assimilates billions of photons per second, adjusts for color, contrast, brightness, depth, flips the image 180 degrees and constructs them into a real-time video of the external world, and this without a conscious thought all day long.

That anyone in this day and age could pretend that this SYSTEM is NOT designed is a fool. You can call that invective, but I think it is an OBVIOUS truth only lost on devotees to the temple of evolution.

Why should I be easy on any of you? You have accepted a lie, (for you own reasons). Fine...but you proselyte others into your doctrines and do not allow the truth to be taught, and you pervert and limit the biological sciences. You are the false prophets of this age.
1,028 posted on 01/04/2005 6:26:58 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1022 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"My concept of God is based on Scripture, experiences, and observation of nature and life, and a knowledge of human history."

How nice.

My concept of God is based on a study of the Bible and fact.

I prefer my unknowable God to your canned one.


1,029 posted on 01/04/2005 6:27:39 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1026 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Your TOE is as divorced from reality as you are in your worship of a conveniently distant creator
1,030 posted on 01/04/2005 6:28:59 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1027 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
"My concept of God is based on a study of the Bible and fact."

The Pharisees could say the same. Great rock throwers at God also. Your intellect is darkened, you will never come to a knowledge of God though study. It is why you are enraptured by ToE. It massages a fallen intellect but does nothing for your faith. Ask Darwin's wife.
1,031 posted on 01/04/2005 6:33:58 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"Fine...but you proselyte others into your doctrines and do not allow the truth to be taught, and you pervert and limit the biological sciences. You are the false prophets of this age."

We don't tell people "if you don't believe that Noah put all the animals on a wooden boat for a year to save them from a non-existant worldwide flood, you are not Christian".

We don't tell people that the dino bones were placed in the strata less than 10,000 years ago, or the Bible is a pack of lies.

We don't try to force people to believe things that are just contrary to observed fact.

You need to look up prosyletize. We don't want to force you to think science is fact, but it would be nice if you would actually understand the science before you attempt to argue against it.

Scientists are not prophets. Scientists do not look for God. They just observe, collect data and put it into coherent systematic principles called "theories".

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890


1,032 posted on 01/04/2005 6:37:59 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1028 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Incoherent


1,033 posted on 01/04/2005 12:47:00 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"The Pharisees could say the same. Great rock throwers at God also. Your intellect is darkened, you will never come to a knowledge of God though study. It is why you are enraptured by ToE. It massages a fallen intellect but does nothing for your faith. Ask Darwin's wife."

The Pharisees could say the same. (Two can play the Pharisee game lol)

My God is impervious to rock throwing. (Two can play the literalist game ;-))

I understand science. Sorry you don't understand biology.
I don't believe in the rapture, either, sorry. How simplistic literalists took a greek word that looks like rapture and converted it into a literalist dogma boggles the mind. LOL

Unlike pagans, I do not attempt to contact dead people.
Would you pass a message to the lady for me? I understand she was a very kind and devout woman. Tell her I admire her character and the genius of her husband. Thank you.


1,034 posted on 01/04/2005 12:53:38 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1031 | View Replies]

To: All

Does any of the Jehu post that this replies to make any sense to any of you?

What the heck is "cellular intelligence"? This is a new one and I can't tell if he is making this up or if it is some new creationist crapsite talking point.


1,035 posted on 01/04/2005 12:57:39 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1023 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"Tell me which came first the cell nucleus with its controlled water environment, controlled temperature range all built out of proteins, or the DNA, which specifies the proteins? "

First you tell me which came first, the chicken or the egg? lol

Please PLEASE!! Get it through your head that biology doesn't care where life came from or who designed or did not design it. Biology deals with the life we have.

Creationists have injected the strawman of creation into the Theory of Evolution. Creation is NOT IN THE TOE!!!!
NADA, NOT THERE, NUNCA, NYET, LO, NO, ZERO , so please don't argue this way anymore. It just is a complete waste of your and my time.

Come up with a more interesting creationist crapsite talking point and we will discuss that. LOL


1,036 posted on 01/04/2005 1:04:36 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1025 | View Replies]

To: shubi
ToE infers life arose entirely by materialistic processes. It is still shown as such in primary school textbooks. The story of life crawling out of the slime is all from YOUR side of the isle. Sorry but you evolutionists tarred yourself with this brush, you will have to live with the results.

If ToE pretends to explain speciation, then at what species does it start the story? Frogs? Lizards? Trilobites? Algae? Funny you guys massage this theory to AVOID and EVADE the evidence of the discoveries of science since Darwin.

This theory was only credible for about 30 or 40 years. And it is YOU guys that have to invent incredible variations of this theory to account for the real evidience of the fossil record which (against all your protests) still indicates the sudden appearance (creation?) of species. And no transitory species that are not simply labeling games by the devout.
1,037 posted on 01/05/2005 7:19:34 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1036 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"ToE infers life arose entirely by materialistic processes."

First, as I have repeatedly instructed,creation is not in the ToE; so your use of "arose" is questionable.

Assuming you have understood what the science says in the ToE now, and that evolution only deals with "results of matter" (the definition of materialistic), I don't think you can say that and be intellectually honest.

Life IS different than minerals or chemicals just laying there. That said, you can't get science to investigate anything other than what can be observed. Science deals with practical reality.

Your belief in God is not threatened by the fact of evolution, UNLESS you interpret the Bible in such a way to be unable to accept that FACT. If as I believe, God created evolution, evolution is not entirely materialistic, is it?

Thus, your statement that evolution infers materialism is wrong.


1,038 posted on 01/05/2005 11:35:36 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1037 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"The story of life crawling out of the slime is all from YOUR side of the isle. Sorry but you evolutionists tarred yourself with this brush, you will have to live with the results."

No, you creationists tarred biologists with this brush. As I have repeatedly said, and I am beginning to think that you are not debating in good faith, abiogenesis and creation is not in the Theory of Evolution. IT IS NOT THERE! You are creating the essential strawman that makes your interpretation of Scripture palatable to you. Biology doesn't give a hoot about creation. Biology deals with the life we have and have had on this planet.


1,039 posted on 01/05/2005 11:39:12 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1037 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"If ToE pretends to explain speciation, then at what species does it start the story? Frogs? Lizards? Trilobites? Algae? Funny you guys massage this theory to AVOID and EVADE the evidence of the discoveries of science since Darwin. "

ToE does not "pretend" to explain speciation. It explains speciation insofar as our knowledge goes at this time.

ToE postulates that a single cell is the common ancestor of all life on Earth. This is a Theory incorporated in the ToE called the Theory of Common Descent. There is not as much evidence for this as there is for the fact of evolution. There are other explanations that could work, but so far all indications are that a single cell developed into all the life you see on Earth. God was pretty smart to be able to do this, wasn't he?

Uh, it is you and your buddies at AIG that ignore the science. I mean, really, you can't even accept the fact that biology doesn't care about initial creation and it is not in the ToE.


1,040 posted on 01/05/2005 11:44:12 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1037 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"This theory was only credible for about 30 or 40 years. And it is YOU guys that have to invent incredible variations of this theory to account for the real evidience of the fossil record which (against all your protests) still indicates the sudden appearance (creation?) of species. And no transitory species that are not simply labeling games by the devout."

Nice use of gratuitous assertions.

What contradictory evidence do you have that life was created specially by God in each instance? Why would God need to work that hard? Why would God make the Earth change so much that whole "kinds" like the dino kind disappeared and he had to specially create a whole bunch of other things?

The fact that there is continuum of transition among species and that they are hard to tell apart when close in relationship and that scientists argue about the extent of closeness, validates evolution.

It would appear to me that it is your side that uses games and rhetorical tricks to argue, since you have no evidence or facts on your side.


1,041 posted on 01/05/2005 11:50:18 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1037 | View Replies]

To: shubi
ToE does not "pretend" to explain speciation. It explains speciation insofar as our knowledge goes at this time. ToE postulates that a single cell is the common ancestor of all life on Earth. This is a Theory incorporated in the ToE called the Theory of Common Descent.

Your previous two posts were telling me that ToE does not incorporate the idea (theory) of where life came from, but right here you tell me it does...sigh!

There is not as much evidence for this as there is for the fact of evolution. There are other explanations that could work,

Name them!

but so far all indications are that a single cell developed into all the life you see on Earth. God was pretty smart to be able to do this, wasn't he?

NO! The indications are that single-celled life first existed in the early seas, reduced the early atmosphere to an oxygen bearing atmosphere, capable of supporting multicellular life. Then about half a billion years ago life exploded into existence on this earth in almost all its basic forms...NOT a slow progression of ever more complex life. That is the evidence. Yours is an interpretation of that evidence, through an already convinced mind that evolution is a "fact!" Maybe it did work that way, but the evidence is against ToE and for special creation. If God is the problem for science, then don't even mention Him, but at least interpret the data as it is, not as you want it to be...that is not science.
1,042 posted on 01/05/2005 2:54:38 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1040 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

s--ToE does not "pretend" to explain speciation. It explains speciation insofar as our knowledge goes at this time. ToE postulates that a single cell is the common ancestor of all life on Earth. This is a Theory incorporated in the ToE called the Theory of Common Descent.

j--Your previous two posts were telling me that ToE does not incorporate the idea (theory) of where life came from, but right here you tell me it does...sigh!

The Theory of Common Descent postulates all life came from an original one celled form. It DOES NOT speculate what created that first form.

Is the reason you feel threatened about it that it does not postulate special creation, a continuing intervention by God? Then I would suggest to you that you change your notions of what Genesis means.

Don't you think God is smart enough to create a system and leave it alone? He could intervene anytime he wants, but since He is non-temporal it would make no difference as far as we are concerned.


1,043 posted on 01/05/2005 3:42:20 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1042 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"NO! The indications are that single-celled life first existed in the early seas, reduced the early atmosphere to an oxygen bearing atmosphere, capable of supporting multicellular life. Then about half a billion years ago life exploded into existence on this earth in almost all its basic forms...NOT a slow progression of ever more complex life. That is the evidence. Yours is an interpretation of that evidence, through an already convinced mind that evolution is a "fact!" Maybe it did work that way, but the evidence is against ToE and for special creation. If God is the problem for science, then don't even mention Him, but at least interpret the data as it is, not as you want it to be...that is not science."

I am afraid the above is not supported by evidence. But as the article said, one could postulate other manners of descent for instance that there were several lines of descent rather than just one etc.

There is no evidence that life exploded onto the scene suddenly, unless you define suddenly as 100 million years. Also, since almost none of the life forms from the Cambrian exist today, that supports evolution rather than some poofing. No one has observed poofing, except in San Francisco and that is something entirely different...;-)


1,044 posted on 01/05/2005 3:48:08 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1042 | View Replies]

To: shubi

creationist defeat bookmark

prediction of repitition of same point already refuted bookmark


1,045 posted on 01/06/2005 6:20:28 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1044 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Yes to God can do it anyway He wants. Whether God was some harried busybody creating every detail of life I don't know. Probably not. Seems to me God makes living things, including other beings of a high order. Maybe they had something to do about the blueprints of life. Everything (biological) on this earth appears to have been designed, and that at certain distinct stages. Thus blue-green algae to condition a proper atmosphere. When that is ready then the introduction of most of the forms of life...all at once. Later we have mammals and the environment that they are best suited for. Almost as if the earth was being specially prepared for us.

I have stated my theological opposition to ToE. Simply that it discounts and stands in opposition to the doctrine of original sin and redemption. That may not mean anything to you. But if I accept that premise, then eventually I have no need of a Redeemer. It is why much of Christianity is weak. Just like the early Church, once you dilute the truth with the surrounding pagan belief systems, you loose the power and miracles of the early Church. You get the Dark Ages. Same thing IMO. You accept false theories, the pagan theory of ToE, of our day (disguised in the Priestly robes of science) and you weaken and eventually destroy your faith. You go ahead and do that, I refuse.
1,046 posted on 01/06/2005 2:11:55 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1043 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
"I have stated my theological opposition to ToE"

To bad that has nothing to do with biology. Did you ever consider the theology is off base?

In any event, having you talking about theology and unable to admit any science that contradicts it is not worthy of discussion. I would advise you not to participate in threads where science is involved and you might lose your "faith".

You also might consider that if biology destroys your faith, your faith may need some improvement. It is illustrative of what I have noticed about many on your side of this "debate". They are afraid to accept the facts of science because they are afraid they will lose Salvation.

If they really understood Christian theology, they would know God's Grace does not work that way. It matters not if you believe science or not, you are only saved through belief in Jesus Christ.

God doesn't care if you think yom is 24 hrs or the Ark was real. He doesn't care if you think evolution was created by Him , either. He only cares about one thing.
1,047 posted on 01/06/2005 2:33:20 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1046 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Ark Mark


1,048 posted on 01/07/2005 3:11:02 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1047 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 851-900901-950951-1,0001,001-1,048 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson