Questions for Evolutionists

[Observer of dreams]

lepaca I thought of something for you to ponder, even if just for a moment.

If we use the assumption that something had to have created the universe. I then make an assumption that God created the universe. Ok now if God is perfect and he created the universe than the universe must be perfect. If the universe is perfect than God would not be necissary for the functioning of the universe. If he was needed it would mean that either the universe was incomplete or that God is imperfect.

[Observer of dreams]

From what I have seen with evolution/adaptation is that when a species evolves the old species dies off (EG fish that can live on land evolve into reptiles) since the evolved species is superior. So if that statment is correct than there should be no apes left, they would cease to exsist when apes evolved into man. I have seen evidence of this occuring on a human to human level (EG neanderthal to cro-magnon.) However I can't come to this same conclusion with ape to human as apes still exsist.

Edited July 5, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[Jorge S]

Look, there are 2 different creation accounts in Genesis and no evidence for either of them... and we know the Flood never happened, ...

There aren't two accounts of Creation in Genesis. Chapter 1 gives the general framework; chapter 2 gives additional details on the events of days 3 and 6.

There are accounts of a global Flood in mythologic records of different ancient cultures. They represent distorted elaborations of the historic event narrated in Genesis. The biblical account tells us that the highest elevations --Mt Ararat (5 165m high at present) is specifically mentionned-- were covered several cubits up.

Modern Science denies the event absolutely or accept it as a local rather than global event on the grounds of lack of geologic evidence. The earth surface has proven to be dynamic and has not stayed the same since the Flood. The more we'll learn about it the more we'll be in a position to understand the evidence.

...all of your posts are just an exercise in circular logic: creation happened because the Bible says so and the Bible is true because it is God's word.

That's not circular at all. Circular, in your sense, would be 'Creation happened because the Bible tells me so and The Bible tells me so because Creation happened.' What I'm doing, as posted in your statement, is referring to the source of the information, a God Who cannot lie and hasn't been proven wrong by the evidence of His Creation.

That's pretty much what you do with Science: you have learnt from somebody's testimony in a particular field and refer to his/her authority as the basis for your claims.

We have evidence for evolution, though... Regardless of the state of current tech, the best we can do is to put our money on what the evidence supports. Moreover since some evidence is actually against the Bible, e.g. we know the world to be way older than 8000 years or whatever the creationist count is ...

You might be surprised to know that nothing in the Evolutionary model has been proven. It is time you also know that the universe is not longer the predictable closed system once thought to be. Most of the appealing cohesive naturalistic theories from the XVII to XIX centuries have been brought to critical questionning, not because of religious fanaticism but due to further scientific progress. Evolution, in its widest sense (Big Bang> Abiogenesis> Natural Selection>Man), is part of them.

There is absolutely no proof validating the feasibility of the model. It is all a matter of ... would... might... in theory ... chances are... seems logical to assume... could be... appears reasonable... etc.

Why, then, holding on to it? Simple; because the alternative is Creation ... and ... not ... just... any, ... but ... Biblical Creation!

Have a nice day.

[Observer of dreams]

I do not need to know about evolution to tell you what will happen with this debate. You will shutdown any argument against your own veiws. Even if you don't disprove the arguments, even if the argument is 100% sound you will still not agree with, or accept it. This topic will end without any knew ground being broken on evolution. Everyone will hold onto there original veiws.

Apes still exsist so please correct the error made by countless school teachers that say apes evolved into man before correcting my argument against your mistake. Lastly Please use respect, you are not better or worse than anyone here. I know you haven't said your better but your acting like it whether intentionally or not. this is an example of your attitude

Sorry I thought it was obvious from the fact that creation implies the existence of God and God implies creation, but since you want to play it this way, here, I'll state it more clearly: your claim is that God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible is true because God wrote it. Better? Do you see the circle now? It's shaped like this: O

Normally the statment in bold might seem like an apology. You higher than thou attitude comes into play when you assume everyone is out to get you with statments like these

but since you want to play it this way

The bible is Gods words. It is his writing. This goes back to my post "to the stoney hearted" you will never know any different than you do now, and I pity you for it. this is my last post on this topic and I'm sure it will be met with your usual attitude and brick wall logic. Your words don't offend me, they only open my eyes even further to the truth of what the bible says about you and everyone like you.

Edited July 6, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[redeemed098]

Dear Tim,

It would seem that you failed to answer any of the points I posted about your previous post. Rather, you decided to attack me personally, asking why I am still on these boards. This seems strange, I would have thought you'd have welcomed criticism of your first post, and answered my questions. Just in case you missed it all, here it is again:

They'll believe some supposed fossils that are supposedly some 4.6 billion years old -

Actually, they won't. The oldest fossils ever found are 3.7 billion years old. The author here is mixing up the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. This is quite typical of creationists.

They'll believe a text book -

They'll believe a "scientist" who says something is xxx years old -

These are called "Strawmen" arguments - they portray an imaginary atheist's position such that it is easy to argue against. Of course, I have never met an atheist or non-atheist scientist who believes in an old earth because someone told them, or because they read it in a textbook. I've never met an atheist or non-atheist scientist who would argue this way. But never mind, it's easier to knock the argument from authority than it is to knock my *real* arguments for an old earth, isn't it?

Also note that I have never seen the author (or anyone else here) actually engage me in a proper argument on radiometric dating. I wonder therefore where the author gets the impression that I would use arguments from authority, rather than arguments from evidence?

Now, as for your most recent "addition" to the boards:

There is only one flaw with what you said to me- you assume that I want to engage in debate with you. Problem is, I do not

I'm not at all surprised - if I were to post up such flimsy arguments, I wouldn't want to defend them either - especially against someone who knows what they're talking about. This tactic is called "hit and run" on boards like this.

So- to me, the questions to be asking you isn't " how old is the Earth " but rather " why do you still continue to hang around a Christian message board ? " and " why don't you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord ? "

That wasn't the question that you addressed in your last post. Has the question changed for you since you last posted?

What is it that you seek here ? You've spent considerable amounts of time talking science ( and God bless you sir, if that is your thing )...but- why here at a Christian message board and for a better part of a year and a half ?

I am on a crusade - to rid the world of scientific illiteracy and ignorance, one person at a time. The best and only place to start for that is an American Christian bulletin board, where scientific illiteracy, in my experience, is highest.

Again, I have no desire to talk science with you or anyone here.

[redeemed098]

"If you were blind you would not be guilty of sin. As you claim that you can see...Your sin remains. Unless a man repents he shall perish."

Might be time to stop focusing on where you came from and start focusing on where you are going. After all, you don't have the power to alter the past..

Regards,

Ben.

[Jorge S]

Hey Sherlock tell me where all the water necessary to cover the world has gone then, because there certainly isn't enough right now. Also please explain how all those animals could fit in a boat. Explain how vegetation and fishes could survive such a thing. Quantify how much the Earth must have changed since the Flood and how long ago the Flood happened. Also please explain how the future could change what we already know about the geologic column.

First of all, my name is Jorge, not Sherlock.

Second, it wasn't a boat but a 3-storey rectangular chest referred to as an Ark, designed not for sailing but to stay afloat. It had 300 cubits length, 50 cubits breadth and 30 cubits height. That gives a surface of around 12 square kilometers to host Noah's family, the animals and provisions. Marine animals did not enter the ark for the obvious reason that they could survive in their element.

I don't know how much the Earth changed because I don't know how it was before. Extrapolating from the evidence of local floods occurring here and there in modern times one has to assume that the changes were significant. God not only brought rain upon the surface, He also brought floodwaters from beneath the surface and it all lasted forty days with their nights (Gen 7: 11-12.)

Noah still stayed in the Ark for another 335 days; that's what it took for the waters to evaporate. God aided the process by making 'a wind to pass over the earth' (Gen 8:1)

I cannot predict what else will be discovered in future about the geologic column. What I know is that Science is always discovering something and increasing our understanding of Nature. What makes you think that we possess absolute knowledge about everything right now, thus ruling out any further progress?

Sorry I thought it was obvious from the fact that creation implies the existence of God and God implies creation, but since you want to play it this way, here, I'll state it more clearly: your claim is that God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible is true because God wrote it. Better? Do you see the circle now? It's shaped like this: O

Your exasperation makes me smile and doesn't add an ounce of truth to your claim. Your failure to know God doesn't rule out His Existence. Atheists hold dear the misconception that Christian faith is not objective because it is confined to 'a religious book' without external evidence to support it. To that I answer that our faith is historic, based on facts and centered in a God who created and rules a finite universe being uncreated and eternal Himself. You concentrate in the immediate causality of phenomena. We know and believe in the Ultimate Cause that God is.

Sorry it was too dense an argument for you.

Wait, wait. This is a new one. You mean evolution actually covers everything from the Big Bang to to natural selection? Can you please point out where exactly something like that is written and/or who actually said such a thing? Evolution is a scientific theory that like any other theory has a scope. You don't use the Big Bang to explain how the universe came into existence, you don't use evolution to explain how like came from non-life. You don't use gravity to explain magnetism. "Broadest sense"? What you do is, you strech it out of shape and then point and say: "see? see? it doesn't work!!!" The only thing I'm surprised of is that someone can actually write this kind of things on a forum without his fingers seizing up.

Actually, you should be surprised at your own lack of information. Evolution is more than a naturalistic theory. It is a worldview on its own. Since its inception in the second half of the XIX century Evolution has permeated all areas of the intellectual output of man (Natural Sciences, History, Philosophy, Sociology, even Bible interpretation!)

Its appeal is understandable. It is certainly more digestible to understand phenomena as spontaneous, self-fuelled, gradual changes from simplicity to complexity. Much tougher for the atheistic mind is to accept that the complexity and diversity of the world were created all at once and out of nothing by an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal God.

Have a nice day.

[Jorge S]

Hi, Lepaca. Here we go again.

Since most of your reply is an exquisitely gross [and expected] exercise of intellectual bias, I will address just a couple of things:

You still don't understand. Since the evidence right now goes against a global flood, you can't say the flood happened in the hope that in an imaginary future someone will find imaginary evidence supporting it. You know perfeclty well that that's not how reason works. A shattered glass will remain hattered no matter how long you wait.

Mind your own understanding. Have you ever really studied a scientific subject? Don't you know that Science is essentially accumulated knowledge over time? You start with a problem, study the evidence, formulate working hypotheses and test how they fit the evidence. New findings increase your chances of establishing a truer explanation for the particular problem and better technology improves your ability to characterize the evidence. A shattered glass will remain shattered but you'll fairly know how it was before and what broke it, with obvious practical implications. That is what Science is all about. Emotional misinterpretation of the evidence to fit a philosophical standpoint does not qualify as Science.

While evolution has certainly had an influence on many things, the actual theory only deals with how lifeforms change (badly worded but you know what I mean). Your attempt to stretch it out of shape is laughable.

The Theory of Evolution is one example of the ups and downs of our scientific wandering. It started off very cohesive and seemed to explain everything. That is why it became a mindset: if it worked for the origin of the species it could work well for everything else. New discoveries, however, have failed to validate it even in its own field.

The latest trend is to concentrate only within the biological aspects of the changes without accounting for how exactly those lifeforms came to be. Which is pitifully tangential because the mechanisms that originated them are also implicated in sustaining them.

The really laughable thing is to witness the shrinking and eventual collapse of what certain minds proposed as God's substitute.

Have a great day.

[Arialia]

Oh, and here's the cool thing about science: No one assumes anyone is always right. You take what works and throw away what doesn't. Charles Darwin didn't make up evolution; his accomplishment was natural selection. What Darwin thinks about anything else is of little importance. What he contributed most to evolution is natural selection. No scientists claim that Darwin is a God who is always right.

[Fiosh]

I'm glad that I am not physically perfect. If I were, I would be so full of myself as to be totally unbearable.

God knows precisely the degree of imperfection I need to be able to enjoy an abundant life, yet keep me humble.

My purpose is to love and serve Him as best as I can, not to be perfect in man's eyes.

Physical perfection is irrelevant.

Peace,

Fiosh