Skip to comments.Is evolution fact?
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 think I hear you saying that there are no hateful comments in the RF.
I must disagree.
I think we need to look at it to be able to fix it.
I think I hear you saying that there are no hateful comments in the RF. [excerpt]Not what I said, not what I meant.
As I say, not what he says, but how he says it and how he does it. [excerpt: #47]In my book, thats pathetic.
I commend to your attention Alexander Kalomiros's "The Six Dawns", which can be read here.
Variation within species is a fact since we’re clearly not clones of each other.
But nothing will ever make evolution a fact no matter how much some people wish it to be. All it is is extrapolation and deduction based on the remains of some long dead specimens.
The Lord works in myterious ways. If he decides he wants to use instant creation of kinds as his method, who are we to argue with his intentions?
What did the first cell evolve from then?
It MUST be; for EVERY media outlet claims it to be so.
But science is faith. It assumes that the laws that we observe in our little niche of the universe are the same every where for (almost) all time.
Scientists are in no position to sneer at faith.
Evo scripture....There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
-Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
If you don't believe all of the Bible, why believe any of it?
If you're going to pick and choose, on what basis do you make the determination of what to call true and what to call a lie?
There are some who teach evolution because they believe it to be true.
I know a lot of folks who do not want to live God's laws, so they push evolution. It gives them “proof” that God is false and that they do not need to follow His laws.
They say something, not because of it value in it self; they say it for the value it has in proving their belief in something else.
I find it somewhat pointless to debate faith and belief with Evolutionists (both of which they often deny), so I mostly stick to the scientific and ethical aspects of Evolution.
For the FR-evolutionists, that statement fits them like a glove
Perhaps you should open up enough to hear higher teachings before this span time runs out.
Beware Arjuna, those that worship lessor Gods will go unto them
this span = this life span
Silly man. Corn dogs evolved from pigs!
The theory of evolution is based on a vast amount of scientific evidence. And to date there is no scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.
Some ideas have been examined and dismissed, based on the evidence provided, decades or centuries ago. Until scientific evidence is provided that shows the theory is incorrect or incomplete, why should scientists pay these old ideas any attention?
Or are you suggesting that scientists reexamine old and discarded ideas continually, lest they be thought "close-minded?" Perhaps those proposing these old ideas be reevaluated once again could be troubled to come up with evidence warranting a reevaluation?
Any number of posters here could benefit from a visit to a phrenologist.
Heck, no, I am not suggesting anything. I am stating as fact that you are a very close minded person, more close minded than any IDer on here.
This thread started with a statement:
“The probability of a protein forming by chance would be 1064 [10 with 64 zeros after it] to 1!”
You, instead of refuting that or proving it to be untrue, posted your typical non-sequitur, which is both irrelevant and insulting:
“It is gratifying that so many religious people take an interest in science.
Now if only they would learn something about it...”
Wow, kids, there’s some science for you.
“And to date there is no scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.”
That is incorrect, ridiculously so. In fact much of what ID teaches is exactly that: the inability of evolution theorists to adequately explain a number of phenomena, including the mathematical anomaly which opened this thread. I doubt you have read “Darwin’s Black Box”, or having read it, closed your mind to its implications. Instead you and the other Evos try to divert the discussion by pretending all you opponents are young earthers, or want to impose religion on science, or some other bilge like that.
So as Heinlein said and you are a rather good example of:
“Belief gets in the way of learning.”
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal." Click on my profile page for more guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.
Kind of like multiverse, string and M-theory.
And to date there is no scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.
Except of course what several SCIENTISTS say is scientific evidence that contradicts evolution.
There's a certain amount of faith one must have to confirm evolution. But the cultists don't want any faith to creep into science but their own. Simple as that.
These mathematical projections are useless if the factors are not correctly modeled.
It is common to see mathematicians calculate the odds of all sorts of events as next to impossible; but does evolution actually work in that manner?
Evidence suggests it does not.
Here is an example of two ways of looking at the evidence. You need to roll 25 dice and come up with all sixes. Pretty huge odds against that, eh? Never happen in hours or even days of rolling dice, eh?
Well what if evolution rolls all the dice and keeps the sixes, rolling only those which are not sixes. You'd end up with all sixes in a very short time.
With these two ways of looking at the problem mathematicians who come up with the huge odds are choosing the first method, while evolution works with natural selection--much more akin to the second.
Here is an online lecture that explains it quite well:
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
I shouldn't have to explain all of these things. The information is out there, but creationists just choose to ignore it.
I shouldn't have to explain all of these things. The information is out there, but creationists just choose to ignore it.
Supreme arrogant evo-cultist irony at it's very finest!
The information is out there, but creationists just choose to ignore it. [excerpt]Where did I say that?
Thanks for the ping!
Please stop stalking me. That is against the forum rules.
Please stop stalking me. That is against the forum rules.LOL!
Looks like the coyote is going to try an pull an Obama, refuse to answer legitimate questions by running for cover.
And to you Religion Moderator why is the coyote and other atheists allowed to run their antiG-d crusade on religion threads in the name of science?
The post at 17 was not stalking, it was however taking a dispute from thread-to-thread and therefore was removed.
Coyote never did answer the question about whether or not he was pro-life or pro-abortion.
I wonder why not...
Also, there are few limitations to the religious beliefs a poster may express as long as he complies with the Religion Forum guidelines.
Well a ‘yes’ answer to that question would be anti-FR is all I can guess.
The FR-Evos like operate in the shadow of inference any.
it was however taking a dispute from thread-to-thread [excerpt]Indeed, you are correct.
interesting that the many millions of clear transitional fossils that would have been found throughout the fossil record if the many animals morphed into different types of such, are still not found....fact, end of story.
As long as it is clear they are doing religion, even if they insist it is science they are doing.
As a group, the FR-evos do not now do science, nor have they ever done science. What they do is hijack the science threads for their atheist G-d hating crusades, and that is pretty plain to most people.
Yeah, well, we probably should try to discuss it because I think that might fall under the heading of ‘making it about another poster’ or possibly ‘taking a dispute from thread-to-thread’.
Conservatives are only allowed to play nice, liberals play trashy.
Rulz is rulz.
...we probably shouldn't try to discuss it because...Ugh, lousy typo, sorry!
You are wrong.
As for the topic of the thread, and I say this in all seriousness, I consider the descent of species by gradual modfication from a common ancestor--the fact of evolution, if you will--to be as firmly demonstrated as almost any fact of science. Any theory that does not account for common descent must be considered refuted.
Furthermore, I consider Darwin's theory--the source of modification was the inheritance of random variations of parental traits, followed by the natural or sexual selection of the offspring--to be a more accurate and complete model of its subject than the atomic theory of matter is of its.
I consider the descent of species by gradual modfication from a common ancestor--the fact of evolution, if you will--to be as firmly demonstrated as almost any fact of science. [excerpt]When you say I consider you are asserting this as a belief rooted in faith?
Any theory that does not account for common descent must be considered refuted. [excerpt]Not in empirical science.
Furthermore, I consider Darwin's theory--the source of modification was the inheritance of random variations of parental traits, followed by the natural or sexual selection of the offspring--to be a more accurate and complete model of its subject than the atomic theory of matter is of its. [excerpt]Again, is this a statement of faith or are you asserting this as fact?
"Faith" to me means "acceptance in the abscence of any evidence, and even in spite of evidence to the contrary". In that sense, my considerations are not at all rooted in faith.
Whenever anyone says "this is a fact", it can only ever mean "based on what I have seen and heard, my opinion is that it is true". [excerpt]This is a fact: objects, unless acted upon by another force, are pulled toward the earth.
"Faith" to me means "acceptance in the abscence of any evidence, and even in spite of evidence to the contrary". [excerpt]Exactly.
In that sense, my considerations are not at all rooted in faith. [excerpt]I see.
Of course, same as anyone's. But evidence-based (i.e. informed) opinions outweigh those that are not evidence-based.
This is a fact: objects, unless acted upon by another force, are pulled toward the earth.
Oh, yeah, anyone can test my claim.
The objects I choose are photons. I shine them directly away from the Earth. According to my measurements, they are not slowed down at all, ever, regardless of how far they travel. There may be a change in frequency over distance, but I can exactly explain that purely with kinematics (i.e. geometry), without involving dynamics (i.e. forces) at all. They are not "pulled toward the Earth" in any sense.
You stand refuted. Goodnight.
It depends on if what you are believing is true or not. If creation by The Creator is true than it is not believing this that would get in the way of learning, which it does, by the way.
Not enough time.
You stand refuted. Goodnight. [excerpt]You have refuted my position very nicely.
Evidence that contradicts evolution is edited out by the evolution adherents. It is not unlike how Conservative political viewpoint is edited out of Universities in much of this country. Also, so called global warming "facts" are accepted and anything that contradicts the established accepted viewpoint is edited out. Scientist who dare to contradict the false viewpoints are usually mocked and not accepted. Also, it is claimed that the people who believe differently are stupid and brainwashed. The established elite do what they want with the truth and have plenty of Godless followers eagerly accepting what is put forth as truth. As long as you can believe that there is no God you think you are free from His constraints and can go on living in rebellion from Him.
Look, evolution says that man's moral and intellectual faculties, as well as his mind and his religion, evolved from apes. And, in addition, man's mind is only different from that of apes in degree, not in kind. Do you get the import of this? What does Orthodoxy teach about man's moral and intellectual powers? That they evolved by small improvements from apes?
You should read the chapters on Natural and Sexual Selection in T.H. Morgan's Evolution and Adaptation. It may put some doubts in your mind. There's a link to the book on my FR page.
One arrogant habit (of many) of evolutionists is their insistence that you adopt their definitions for commonly used words like 'proof', 'evidence', 'truth', 'theory', 'fact', 'hypothesis', 'ape', 'human', 'chance', 'verify', 'refute' and, especially, 'science'. There's no reason to even entertain such ridiculous demands--laughing in their face is the only appropriate response. And yet they insist. They must think of themselves as deities or something.