Evolution vs. God: Shaking the foundations of Faith

Way of the Master ministries ^ | Oct 2, 2013 | Ray Comfort

[redleghunter]

If you are familiar with Ray Comfort and the man on the street Way of the Master ministries, you will like this video. WoM ministries produced the linked youtube 30 minute video on Evolution vs. God. Ray and crew go to two CA universities to interview and debate science students and science faculty on Darwinian evolution.

So please set aside a half hour from your busy schedule and enjoy "Evolution vs. God."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ#t=743

[redleghunter]

A brilliant approach by the WoM crew. Christians are told their faith is blind. After viewing this video you find just how much those who cling to atheism and evolution take that "blind leap into the dark" faith with evolution.

[Tenacious 1]

Fun for later.

[Jim from C-Town]

The THEORY of evolution does not preclude the fact of God. They are not mutually exclusive ideas.

The problem is that we have no way to understand the concept of eternity.

[ex-snook]

Life is a subset of creation.

How did the universe evolve?

[deweyfrank]

for later

[Berlin_Freeper]

http://www.pray-as-you-go.org/mp3/PAYG_131018.mp3

[freedumb2003]

False dichotomy.

[DManA]

Lets play the God V Evolution game.

Watch the video and score yourself:

10 points for every stray man
15 points for every false premise
5 points for any logic fallacy (specify)

[freedumb2003]

>>Life is a subset of creation.<<

Everything is a subset of creation.

>>How did the universe evolve?<<

If physics, geology, chemistry and astronomy are not compelled to answer the question of abiogenesis as a prerequisite, neither is TToE.

[attiladhun2]

Evolution is simply not possible. Natural selection cannot make new species. Mutations are nearly always destructive, or, at best, do not add anything significant to a species. Lamarckianism has been shown to be false. What were once viewed as vestigial organs and structures, i.e. holdovers from an evolutionary past, are now shown to have a function. “Junk DNA,” containing the failed evolutionary experiments of a species is not present. The history of paleontology is rife with fakes, frauds, and fudged date. Furthermore, the DNA molecule is information, and information always has an intelligent source. Indeed, it takes a very blind leap of faith to hold to Darwinism.

[freedumb2003]

>>Evolution is simply not possible. Natural selection cannot make new species. Mutations are nearly always destructive, or, at best, do not add anything significant to a species. Lamarckianism has been shown to be false. What were once viewed as vestigial organs and structures, i.e. holdovers from an evolutionary past, are now shown to have a function. “Junk DNA,” containing the failed evolutionary experiments of a species is not present. The history of paleontology is rife with fakes, frauds, and fudged date. Furthermore, the DNA molecule is information, and information always has an intelligent source. Indeed, it takes a very blind leap of faith to hold to Darwinism.<<

Every single statement is scientifically incorrect (except maybe the one about fakes, which science itself discovered — religion has no such ability to police itself).

And there is no such thing as “Darwanism.”

[Catmom]

Religious people who disrespect science are every bit as annoying as scientific people who disrespect faith.

[Wanderer99]

Evolution is the only explanation for the existence of leftist vermin. If God specially created them then he is not good.

[svcw]

To the headline: who’s faith, not mine

[Viennacon]

I would agree that the most common error in the dialog between science and theology is on the misunderstanding of evolution, its evidence and its shortcomings.
Those on the religious side discount all of evolution’s points based on an interpretation of Genesis which is uncompromisingly literal when a compelling argument can be made that much of it is beautifully poetic and symbolic.
Those on the science side exploit the layman’s knowledge of most people to try and extrapolate from evidence conclusions that simply don’t follow. Lawrence Krauss does this continually with physics. It’s ridiculous to pretend evolution is some airtight theory that disputes God. It has many deep problems, and things it can’t explain, like the puzzling Cambrian explosion.

You also have that origin of life question. Over time, mathematicians have found that the spontaneous creation of life on earth is so improbable, you’d be surprised how many scientists genuinely believe life on earth was seeded by aliens.

[MrB]

“seeded by aliens” just pushes the problem to another planet.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"There is no such thing as 'Darwanism'"

This gentleman disagrees...

[ex-snook]

"If physics, geology, chemistry and astronomy are not compelled to answer the question of abiogenesis as a prerequisite, neither is TToE."

Nope no escape. If they make the 'no creator theory' that evolution does they have to answer for the existence of matter as well as life.

[ifinnegan]

So you are claiming Lamarckianism is true?

[freedumb2003]

>>Nope no escape. If they make the ‘no creator theory’ that evolution does they have to answer for the existence of matter as well as life.<<

Since TToE makes no such representation, it is on par with its fellow branches of science.