Posted on 12/14/2008 8:37:32 AM PST by tpanther
Strength For The Journey New Creation People Part 1 August 4, 2005 Is Evolution A Fact?
READ: Genesis 2:1-7, Hebrews 11:1-3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. —Hebrews 11:3The theory of evolution is not without its problems. One scientist says this about life starting on its own: "Amino acids would have to be arranged in an exact sequence to form a protein . . . just like the letters in a sentence. Mere laws of chemistry and physics cannot do that. The probability of a protein forming by chance would be 1064 [10 with 64 zeros after it] to 1!"
Many people assume the theory of evolution to be true. But can it be scientifically proven? Something is considered scientifically true only if it can be repeatedly verified under laboratory conditions. The claim that life sprang up on its own out of a long impersonal process cannot pass this test of truth. That is why evolution remains only a theory.
So if you're ever tempted to doubt the Genesis account of the creation story, consider the alternative. The odds against even a simple protein creating itself are astronomical. How much more reasonable to believe God and His Word: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:3).
Isn't it more reasonable to believe that God designed and created the universe? (Genesis 1:1). — Dennis Fisher
All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small, All things wise and wonderful— The Lord God made them all. —Alexander
All creation points to the almighty Creator.
I wish people would not confound evolution per se with a theory of evolution (like Darwin’s original, long since replace with the more refined neo-Darwinian synthesis, or Lamark’s long since discredited at the gross morphological level, though there are hints at a possible Lamarkian mechanism at the biochemical level).
Evolution is the undoubted fact that allele frequencies change over time. What may be debated is whether the neo-Darwinian synthesis provides a complete account of this phenomenon and suffices to explain speciation completely. What should be doubted by all, and flatly rejected by theists of every persuasion, is the adduction of atheism from a naturalistic account of biological diversity.
You have evidence of a single protein creating itself?
++++++++++++
It has been a long time since I read that.
Isn't that the story where the spirits of the dead Martians sent the spirit of the dead Earthlings back to earth so they could be reincarnated?
Or am I thinking of another of his stories?
Ad hominem fallacy
False. Evolution is a process by which one form of life becomes another. It is not concerned with the origins of life.
Debunked too many times to count, most recently right here:
post # 310
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2145556/posts?q=1&;page=301
huh?
What many theistic evolutionists fail to understand. Neo-Darwinism entirely discounts the supernatural. A Supreme Being, according to the neo-Darwinist, has no more relivance than Santa Claus or the Boogyman visa vis the creation of the Universe.
Your response does not merit an answer
Isn’t that the story where the spirits of the dead Martians sent the spirit of the dead Earthlings back to earth so they could be reincarnated?
Or am I thinking of another of his stories?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Perhaps you’re thinking about some book from Jos. Smith.
It would not, then, be “Evolution”. It would be evolution by intelligent design.
Reread my post.
“It would not, then, be “Evolution”. It would be evolution by intelligent design.”Or maybe variation within a kind.
good comeback!
What's going to be there that wasn't there the first time? Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, nor require that the process be undirected.
That’s not a debunking. It’s a statement that a couple of biologists who believe(d) in evolution also supported a hypotheses of abiogenesis. Many biologists believe in both evolution and God. One does not invalidate the other.
“What's going to be there that wasn't there the first time? Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, nor require that the process be undirected.”LoL!
In his work on the Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, he [Darwin] takes for granted, that no sensible person would believe, that God ordained the variations of the crop and tail feathers of the pigeon, or the variations of the frame, and mental qualities of the dog. "But," he says, "if we give up the principle in one case, no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief, that variations, which have been the groundwork through Natural Selection of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided."
Again, speaking against the idea that the detail of structure was made for the good of its possessor, he says: "Some believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight men or the Creator, or for the sake of mere variety, such doctrines, if true, would he absolutely fatal to my theory." [ref]
Besides, Rev. Darwin would have a cow if he ever heard that people had turned his purely undirected naturalistic process into a God directed process.
You can’t have it both ways, either evolutionists DO address origins or the godless liberal NEA evo-atheists should stop suing to silence dissenters of the cult of evolution/creationists.
those aren't HIS intentions, those are your intentions...
God says he didn't use evolution...You're trying to make a liar out of God...
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.