Improper Use Of Evolution

[clagnol 0]

Creation-Science

 

Science has no agendum, except Truth. If Science ever advances any other agendum, it is Bad Science. When Science finds mistakes within itself, it makes changes.

 

Creation-science is not really Science. It seeks evidence to support its pre-concieved notions of genesis. Creation-scientists look for evidence that a global flood occurred and that humans walked with dinosaurs because such evidence supports their religious agenda. Creation-science exists to validate Christianity. This is why you should trust nothing from a creation-scientist.

 

You may argue that modern Science contains biases that make it flawed, but I would retort that the fault, if any exists, lies on individual scientists, while creation-science is fundamentally flawed.

 

Faith

 

Acts 17:11 New International Version

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Here, the Bereans are using the Bible to judge the truth in Paul's words. I would assume they were looking for internal consistency. This is not about questioning one's beliefs, this is about fitting one dogma in with another.

 

If you are able to evaluate, without prejudice, criticisms of your own religion, I am happy for you. However, I sincerely doubt that you have this rare ability. No offense, but you exude hard-line Fundamentalism from your web-presence, and I have yet to meet a cosmopolitan fundie.

 

This Zecharias seems like a bright fellow, but I disagree wholeheartedly with his claim that the Bible encourages scientific scrutiny. In the Old Testament, anybody who questioned God was subject to smiting at His discretion. In the New Testament, God suddenly becomes a loving and forgiving God, so questioning Him begins not to result in instant death. But it is certainly never encouraged. Perhaps if Zecharias had evidence of this claim, he'd be quoting the Bible, and not a spiteful atheist.

 

As for your last quote about faith, I find it difficult to place a great deal in trust in a being wholly imagined. We can only agree to disagree on this point.

 

World-Views

 

Look at it this way: I am a sinner (by Mosaic AND New Testament's standards) and I don't plan on begging your savior for redemption. By Fundamentalist standards, you have every reason to think I am going to Hell. Can you ever judge a Hell-bound reprobate as your equal? Perhaps you think you can, with the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality, but I posit that you cannot. To you, I will always be someone that needs saving, someone who has done wrong, and someone who is too ignorant or naive to realize that your way is the best way. You may be able to respect my world-view or regard it "without anger or offense", but you will never view it as the equal of your own. To do so would be to betray your divine truth.

 

Me

 

I'm not an atheist, and I lack the scientific wherewithal to put myself behind "the Big Bang", so I'm not going to respond on those subjects. But I'm not ceding them to you, either.

 

The Book

Overall, I give Jesus Among Other Gods a D minus. The author relies too much on anecdotes in which the rhetorical enemy admits defeat, and not enough on actual evidence.

[kasm 0]

    Evolution and the big bang could very easily be proven wrong (assuming they are wrong) by simply making an observation in which they, or more likely something that was assumed in earlier tests, proves wrong.  For example if a goat in the Kansas gave birth to a human, evolution would clearly be wrong.  If the Catholic Church built a telescope and it observed that the universe was, in fact, not expanding but osculating to the tune of Amazing Grace then the big bang would clearly be flawed. 

150102[/snapback]

It is myth that the Evolution Theory has proof.

 

I am Scientist from 41 years and know what the definition for science.

 

I have study,reserch or dealt with the nuclear theory, Relativity theory, Electromagnetic theory, Quantum Theory, Thermodynamic Theory, Hydrodynamic Theory, Space etc...

 

Also as a researcher knows all methods of proof:

 

Experimental (as speed, weight,mass,elasticity, voltage,resistance,......)

 

Statistical (Kai-test, normal test, t test,....

 

Logical Reasoning and Mathematical Methods: Proof by Inference, Proof by Induction, Proof by contradiction,..)

 

I didn't find any scientific proof for the Evolution Theory or to this suggestion that something is call big bang. was happened.

 

It is fiction matter.

 

Could anyone tell me what the proof that big bang has happened.

 

Could anyone tell me How the evolution theory can be proved. I didn't find in Darwin's book or paper any scientific proof.

 

But with contradiction, If that happened, why the primitive spices still till now and not evolved as the other?

.. For example if a goat in the Kansas gave birth to a human, evolution would clearly be wrong.

150102[/snapback]

It is not necessary to take failed example as prove the theory by contradiction. But I ask a question,

If the Catholic Church built a telescope and it observed that the universe was, in fact, not expanding but osculating to the tune of Amazing Grace then the big bang would clearly be flawed. 

150102[/snapback]

No body deny that the universe is moving, expanding and may collisions are happening.

But this is different to say that explosion who destruct can create living thing.

None of these observations have been made, instead people argue that because the bible accounts. 

150102[/snapback]

As you see I don't mentioned any thing from the Bible. Because that is faith or belief and not science either. But faith and belief for purpose.

Forces may kill some members of a species, and because of genetic variations, leave other members of that species to breed and pass their genes on. These observations could just as easily have dominated events millions of years ago as they could have been set up by an all powerful being some 3000 years ago.

150102[/snapback]

I agree that some spices can be disappeared. But no evidence that new spices will appear from other. We know we can in laboratories perform genetic engineering but it is by us and not by themselves.

My point is that scientific observation suggests we evolved from apes and were created during the big bang. Don?t debate a scientist about theory unless you have scientific observation with which to make your debate.

150102[/snapback]

You also has no observation especially you claim that happened thousands of million before.

 

Destruction by what called Big Bang can not build our body systems or any primitive living system. How the destruction can create, the blood system, cardinal system, harmonic system, neural system,...etc . For ax ample a tiny glad controls many things : your body, your mussels, your hair, your sex activity, your urine , your thirst or dehydrate, etc,

Science is a valid system. It saves lives.

150102[/snapback]

I agree with that. Science study what is going on to make prevention for danger or disease.No doubt of that.

There are bigger problems in the world than where we all came from!.

150102[/snapback]

I agree with that too. Let the past to the past. In study science Put aside the creation or Evolution . All what study in science to find the laws and the characteristic's of phenomena or event or thing. Our Solar System, our moon, electricity, magnetism, our body, anatomy , physiology, the animals, bird, fish around us. etc... The sped law, the float law, the nuclear system, the genetic theory, disease, medicine,...etc

[Joshua 0]

Creation-Science

 

Science has no agendum, except Truth. If Science ever advances any other agendum, it is Bad Science. When Science finds mistakes within itself, it makes changes.

 

Creation-science is not really Science. It seeks evidence to support its pre-concieved notions of genesis. Creation-scientists look for evidence that a global flood occurred and that humans walked with dinosaurs because such evidence supports their religious agenda. Creation-science exists to validate Christianity. This is why you should trust nothing from a creation-scientist.

 

You may argue that modern Science contains biases that make it flawed, but I would retort that the fault, if any exists, lies on individual scientists, while creation-science is fundamentally flawed.

 

Whether science has an agenda or not, people do, scientists do. So many people accept as science those things merely supported by a popular theorist, regardless of the logic behind it. It's like with art, there've been artists who'd put a toilet bowl on a pedestal and call it art, then get away with it because they've found acclaim already. Does that really make it art just because they're considered a good artist? The artist who did that btw was doing it for challenging the system and to point out that flaw, and knowing this, the exhibit is still a widely acclaimed work of art

 

I would argue evolution does precisely what you claim creation science does in seeking to support its preconceived notions that everything came from nothing. By the same notion, belief in evolution exists to support the belief of evolution. At its most basic, it involves scientists who see the wonderful design of our universe and the designs all around us in nature, while denying that there is a Designer. If you say that simply because a branch of science is dedicated to proving one thing in particular (and most are) then that means you cannot accept much of science.

 

Many creation scientists were once atheists and actually of the evolution crowd, some of their best and brightest, who through searching with logic for truth discovered they were supporting the unsupportable. Ironically it is these which are quickly discredited.

 

Or perhaps you falsely heard that a creation scientist is one who spends all their time looking for ways to prove creation science false. On the contrary, these are real scientists working at their jobs, labs, or universities who hold the STANCE that creation is right, just as one believing in evolution would do. It continually shocks me how easily people can discredit them simply because of what they believe, rather then who they are. You arent judging them on an individual basis either by their credentials or their experience but upon their STANCE. How can you expect proof of something if you refuse to listen to those who support it?

 

Faith

 

Acts 17:11 New International Version

Here, the Bereans are using the Bible to judge the truth in Paul's words. I would assume they were looking for internal consistency. This is not about questioning one's beliefs, this is about fitting one dogma in with another.

 

If you are able to evaluate, without prejudice, criticisms of your own religion, I am happy for you. However, I sincerely doubt that you have this rare ability. No offense, but you exude hard-line Fundamentalism from your web-presence, and I have yet to meet a cosmopolitan fundie.

 

This Zecharias seems like a bright fellow, but I disagree wholeheartedly with his claim that the Bible encourages scientific scrutiny. In the Old Testament, anybody who questioned God was subject to smiting at His discretion. In the New Testament, God suddenly becomes a loving and forgiving God, so questioning Him begins not to result in instant death. But it is certainly never encouraged. Perhaps if Zecharias had evidence of this claim, he'd be quoting the Bible, and not a spiteful atheist.

 

As for your last quote about faith, I find it difficult to place a great deal in trust in a being wholly imagined. We can only agree to disagree on this point.

 

Acts 17:11  These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Bible doesnt say they were trying to fit their own beliefs in, does it? It simply claims they were searching the Scriptures to see if they were true.

 

Actually, it wasn't for questioning but for rebellion and specific abominations that God took vengeance. Abraham's wife went so far as to laugh at something God said and He didn't "smite" her (Genesis 8:12-15)

 

Moses questioned God's power to be able to use him because he was a bad speaker, which is why God had Aaron do the speaking. (Exodus 4:10-15)

 

God's vengeance came upon nations that attacked or persecuted His people Israel, upon Israelites who rebelled against Him with idol worship, or upon whole nations who committed evil abominations like homosexuality and idol worship, especially worship of Baal or Molech. With them idol worship involved child sacrifice, burning the children alive, and was perhaps the quickest way to get God angry with you. God destroyed many, many nations for this sin of child sacrifice and whenever Israel began to practice it they could be certain of a horrified God's abrupt judgements.

 

God always loved, the Old Testament is filled with references of His love for Israel and His forgiving nature is evident in His willingness to forgive those who became Israelites and worshipped Him. The woman in Jericho became an Israelite, and a whole book of the Bible, Ruth, is about a woman who rejected her nation's heritage to serve the One true God of Jacob.

 

If God's forgiveness is more evident in the New Testament it is because God's wrath is shown as poured out on God the Son so that He is free to deal with all mankind who accept that free gift in love without that justice side of it, since Christ paid for all their sins. Rebellion was still punished with physical death in the New Testament (Acts 5:1-10) and that God still judged nations which attacked His chosen people is clear, for when Rome began to persecute Christianity, God brought instant destruction on what may have been the greatest human empire in the history of the world.

 

There is plenty of proof to suggest God's reality, His masterpiece of creation, though polluted by improper human caretaking, should still be enough to persuade us. The perfect preservation of His dealings with humanity for the last thousands of years by a nation He declared His own, as well as the preservation of said nation like no other, should also be compelling evidence. In spite of having more enemies then any other nation in history, Israel not only still exists but still retains its history, customs, and ways. It has been ruled by other nations, taken into captivity, and been subject to some of the worst genocidal attacks in the history of the world, yet still it stands, surrounded by enemies as always.

 

And finally there is the witness of a Messiah prophecied thousands of years in advance, whose exact death was foretold to the day, who worked miracles and gave teachings who even His greatest enemies could not deny. On top of this the following that became Christianity grew up in a nation committed to refusing Him as the Messiah precisely because Israelites could not deny that He had worked miracles among them, because they'd heard His teachings, and because over 500 of them had seen Him resurrected before He ascended into Heaven. All history is dated based upon Him. He is the most influential life lived on this earth, and people still refuse to accept His witness.

 

 

World-Views

 

Look at it this way: I am a sinner (by Mosaic AND New Testament's standards) and I don't plan on begging your savior for redemption. By Fundamentalist standards, you have every reason to think I am going to Hell. Can you ever judge a Hell-bound reprobate as your equal? Perhaps you think you can, with the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality, but I posit that you cannot. To you, I will always be someone that needs saving, someone who has done wrong, and someone who is too ignorant or naive to realize that your way is the best way. You may be able to respect my world-view or regard it "without anger or offense", but you will never view it as the equal of your own. To do so would be to betray your divine truth.

 

Me

 

I'm not an atheist, and I lack the scientific wherewithal to put myself behind "the Big Bang", so I'm not going to respond on those subjects. But I'm not ceding them to you, either.

 

The Book

Overall, I give Jesus Among Other Gods a D minus. The author relies too much on anecdotes in which the rhetorical enemy admits defeat, and not enough on actual evidence.

174636[/snapback]

Well then, since a holy, righteous, and just God cannot logically condone evil and thus there will be a punishment, and since He cannot logically permit sinners (those who rebel against Him) into His presence, then I'd say you have something to worry about.

 

You're right, I don't view your beliefs as equal, just as I'm you don't view mine as equal. To be frank with you, I view us as exactly the same, we're both worthy of death, the only difference is that I've found mercy and you have not. I don't stand in this grace because of any works I've done, but out of the mercy of my Master. It's only natural for me to want all to have the blessings and abundant life that I myself have found, but I recognize that God has given all the freedom to reject Him or refuse Him. The main thing for me is to provide a witness to others that God wants me to that I may not be accountable to my Master for doing otherwise.

 

If you're placing so much hope upon the Big Bang or related beliefs being correct I would suggest you determine so for sure. It would be a shame to stake your eternity merely on the hope that the words of others, whose merit you have not ascertained for yourself, are correct.

 

Concerning the book by Ravi Zecharias, I frankly gave you a lot of answers dealing with mere logic rather then scientific facts, concerning that last quote which dealt with such facts you said you're not versed in such matters anyway. Ravi didn't write with the intention of making a textbook though, he wrote a book on philosophy which appeals to be the basic logic and wisdom which any human being with an open mind should be able to understand.

 

Those anecdotes as you call them are quotes by many of the most influential men of our day, and he used them to show what some of Christianity's greatest opponents use as their arguments, men like David Hume. In a battlefield of the mind, it's necessary to get varying opinions, is it not?

 

I would be interested in seeing some quotes from a book which you give a higher "grade" to...

 

Oh, and here is another quote from the book that deals less with "anecdotes" and more upon scientific facts.

 

                                THE MIND BEHIND THE QUESTIONER

There remains yet one thing that needs to be said about the demand for a sign.  Is that demand not a sign in itself?  After all, the reason a sign is demanded is because we are intelligent beings.  We seek evidence because we think, and thinking cannot but be the result of a mind.  But our minds cannot justify our propensity for reason if there were no ultimate reason and no mind behind the existence of our minds, because the framing of our minds is the result of complex information.  We must marvel not only at what the mind seeks, but at what the mind is.  Lewis Thomas makes this comment in Medusa and the Snail about the information-rich blueprint in the human gene.

 

The mere existence of that cell should be one of the greatest astonishments of the earth.  People ought to be walking around all day, all through their waking hours, calling to each other in endless wonderment, talking of nothing except that cell.... If anyone does succeed in explaining it, within my lifetime I will charter a skywriting airplane, maybe a whole fleet of them, and send them aloft to write on great exclamation point after another, around the whole sky, until all my money runs out.5

 

  Writing about this same human cell, Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied mathematics at the University of Cardiff, Wales, reminded his readers that the statistical probability of forming even a single enzyme the building block of the gene, which is in turn the building block of the cell, is 1 in 10^40,000.  The translation of that figure is that it would require more attempts for the formation of one enzyme then there are atoms in all the stars of all the galaxies in the entire known universe.  Through a Buddhist, Dr. Wickramasinghe concedes this supernatural notion.6

  So "impossible" is this event that Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who helped crack the code of human DNA, said it is "almost a miracle."7

  In short, both David Hume's own test and Bertrand Russell's plea for evidence force one to wonder who has to have more faith.  Is it the Christian who uses his mind to trust in God, or is it the one who, without any attempt to explain how his mind came to be, nevertheless uses that mind to demand a sign and disbelieves in God?  When Russell was asked to explain the existence of the universe, he said, "It's just there."  That is not an explanation.  That is an explaining away.  King David said long ago in his psalms of praise to God, "I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Ps. 139:14).

  Years ago I read an episode of the cartoon strip "Born Loser."  Brutus Thornapple was seen lounging beside a magnificent stretch of beach.  He turned to a stranger next to him and confided, "I was able to afford this trip because of a ten-thousand-dollar insurance claim on a fire in my house."

  The man replied, "I am here because of a twenty-thousand-dollar insurance claim on a flood that destroyed my house."

  Brutus looked utterly defeated and then turned to face the man, whispering, "How does one start a flood?"

  Little fires and little floods are easy to start if you have matches and water.  How does a universe, which itself developed from nothing, impart into every human strand of DNA enough specific information to cover six hundred thousand pages of information from nothing?  Intelligence is intrinsic to our makeup.  Jesus warned against taking what is intrinsic and manipulating it into a scenario that excludes other equally intrinsic facets that drive us to God.

  In summary, therefore, faith in Jesus Christ is a cognitive, passionate, and moral commitment to that which stands up under the scrutiny of the mind, the heart, and the conscience.  It is not an escapist grasp that comes to the rescue when life is out of control.  It is recasting every threat and possibility that life presents into the design of God.

  This is why Jesus challenged the notion that more evidence would have generated more faith.  George Macdonald said years ago that to give truth to him that does not love the truth is to only give more reasons for misinterpretation. 

 

[remalia 0]

We know that the scientific approach in answering the question "How did all these around me (including me) came to be?" hasn't produced any satisfying results (I still don't know why the initial energy egg was there to create the big bang), but at least science is constantly trying to find what created what. They were searching for the reason that planets exist and found the big bang theory. Now they want to find out how the energy egg was created (they're making little progress there), and I' sure that if they ever find that out, they'll start searching for the 'creator' of the energy egg's 'creator', and so on, and so on.On the other hand, religion seems totally uninterested in answering the above fundamental question. It 'knew' thousands of years ago that God created the universe but never even questioned "Who created my God?" (and I say 'Who' and not what, since religion prefers to personalize entities).

Edited October 29, 2007 by remalia (see edit history)

[Joshua 0]

This is why I like the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution". The former refers to the unproveable theory that everything popped into existence from nothing. The latter refers to the observable change we can see in species adapting to their environments. They're two different animals and people often confuse them. One is a theory that relies on a lot of assumptions on how things worked for billions of years. The other is observable in the world around us. One is a religious view dedicated to keeping God out of the equation, because as we all apparently can agree, it is not reconcilable with the Bible. Or at least it is not reconcilable with the God of the Bible, I think we can agree with that. The other is simply an observation about the world around us that is perfectly compatible with the Bible.I see microevolution as indeed perfectly compatible with the Bible. For example, God commanded species and mankind to "bring forth after their own kinds." In the first chapter of Song of Solomon the woman says her skin is black because of the effects of the sun. Obviously humans adapting to their environments in that sense of evolution is completely compatible with the Bible.What's more, if you believe in microevolution, it clears up some other mysteries of the Bible. For example, there would've been less species of dogs, cats, etc. during the flood, so less room in the ark would've been needed. It would also explain why species names were more general in the Old Testament. There would've been less species around then, and those species adapted slightly to become the many different variations we see today.All the confusion comes from whether this evolution, or microevolution, happens rapidly over only thousands of years, or requires billions of years, as evolutionists would have us believe. We know the effects water has with erosion. Macro-evolutionary theory requires the following assumptions about how aging works:-The level of carbon in the atmosphere remained the same despite global catastrophes occurring like floods, ice ages, and meteor showers which caused worldwide dust storms. -Water is not enough to age materials so that the various dating calculations are thrown off, as would happen with a worldwide flood. -Light travels through the universe at the same rate as in our atmosphere for those calculations to work, and not rather with less refraction and a much faster rate as it could according to Rhiemannian physics.There is a reason evolution is still called a theory. It is because macroevolution still has no absolute proof for the universe being as old as it claims, even though its adherents try to pass off as idiotic anyone who disagrees with their pet notions. Micro-evolution is certain because we can observe it. We can not observe macroevolution.Did everything come from original core species which adapted to their environments to create the many different species we see today, which is what I believe the Biblical view is? Or did they all come from nothing? And how do you explain the Big Bang? Some molecules exploded and created everything? But where did the molecules come from? And where did what the molecules come from, come from? How is a materialistic view of everything explainable, since all material things must have a cause? I believe the answer lies not in the material, but the immaterial, and a God who is an eternal Spirit. Did everything come from some fish swimming out in the ocean? And if so, why is such a huge percentage of the transitional forms needed not just for the links between humans and monkeys but between all other species so horribly lacking? And why is it so horribly messy? Evolutionists are having to admit the whole thing is not some majestic chain as they've been presenting it but a bushy tree with dead ends all over the place and no conceivable order, as they are forced to admit some links don't work because they lived at the same time or have other reasons they can't be compatible. Evolution can offer only more questions, with no answers. And it requires just as much, if not more, faith to believe, than that required to believe in an all-powerful, eternal Creator.

Edited October 30, 2007 by Joshua (see edit history)

[mikeyboy63 0]

One common misunderstanding related to evolution is the idea that a certain group of animals will gradually change to adapt to their environment. This isn't an accurate viewpoint, or it is at least misleading.

 

It's more likely that a group of animals, a certain family of monkeys, for example, will grow and grow, occupying a larger and larger area, following their food source, and eventually split up into different, smaller groups. Let's use a group of African monkeys as an example. Eventually, some of the monkeys end up in south africa, some in west africa, some in north africa and some in east africa. There are also some in central africa. These groups of monkeys, which were once the same single group, now lose contact with each other, so they no longer mate or reproduce as one group.

 

Over time, thousands if not millions of years, each group changes ever so gradually. One group in the plains rarely goes into the trees and begins losing their tails. They gradually develop longer legs and learn to walk upright.

Another group doesn't come out of the trees and continues to have longer and longer arms, which are good for swinging around in the trees. Since being large and heavy makes it difficult to get around, these monkeys remain very small.

Another group lives near fresh water lakes and rivers and eats aquatic creatures. It develops large webbed hands and feet for grabbing fish and swimming. The long arms are beneficial, too.

One group remains in the original environment and doesn't change much.

 

Then the rivers dry up due to environmental changes. The food source for the webbed, fish-eating monkeys dries up. This group of monkeys dies out.

Other environmental changes cause the forests to thin out. The monkeys in trees lose their homes in the trees and come down to the ground, but they become the food for predators, so they die out as well.

The group of monkeys that came out of the trees and learned to walk has the best chance of surviving.

 

The point being that the vast majority of species become extinct. Species don't adapt to rapid environmental changes. They gradually geographically split up from one group into many groups, each group changes slowly, then the best species for the environment has the best chance of surviving. Small organisms can change the fastest. Larger creatures take millions of years to change significantly.

 

Another point is that if you skin many creatures and place them side by side on a table, most people couldn't tell what type of creatures they are. The skeletons of a small dog and a tom cat look almost the same. Most people couldn't know the difference. The skeleton of a human child and a chimpanzee look very similar. We all know that the guts, the liver, heart, kidneys, etc. are nearly the same. The point is, most creatures are super similar. One other great fallacy of evolution is that there are so many different types of creatures, when in fact, most creatures are super similar. Most difference between species are truly minor and superficial. By superficial, I mean differences in appearance. Exterior differences.

 

Which animals fit the following description:

 

A head

2 eyes

nostrils

a mouth

teeth

2 ears

a neck

a spine

a rib cage

hips

two upper limbs

two lower limbs

a brain

2 kidneys

a liver

a heart

a tail

 

This describes almost ALL MOBILE CREATURES on land and many at sea!!

 

Evolution isn't difficult to understand. But a God evolving into existence from the abyss is mind boggling!

[mbafactory 0]

Looking at the two terms, consider this:Men evolved from earlier forms of life. Men created the world of today. Evolution is depictory in terms of formation of something from some earlier form, while creation is what is being made by someone. Evolution is a process of self emergence while creation is to bring out new form.