The Human Body Could not have Evolved

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

 

I am saying that God is the explanation.  He is the reason the world remains in a general state of order and uniformity.   God is the best explanation for why animals have the ability to adapt to different climates and conditions.   It is evidence of His design.

 

I don't know if you realize this but most species have died out on this planet if you look at the historical (fossil) record.   That doesn't bode well for your argument.   

 

Yes, Bonky. I agree (with the mass extinction of most species).

I come from a Biblical interpretation. In that...of course most species were exterminated. It's knida' hard for most of them to sustain life functions while their lungs are filled with water. Fish exempted (obviously) And, they can't tread water for 40 days much less the months it would take for the Flood waters to recede.

So, yes. It makes perfect sense (from a Biblical perspective) that many "species" became extinct. Not every "kind".

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

 

 

The God of the Bible is an infinitely better explanation for the origin and development of life than Evolution.  It just makes more sense.

In all fairness. The Bible really doesn't explain the develop of life, it only states the development of life. You can't use the Bible to predict anything regarding biological life.

Why would the Bible "predict" anything about biological life, when its primary goal is to focus on spiritual life and eternal life?  The only "explanation" we needed is that God created all things and that every species is unique unto itself.  Furthermore that mankind was created in the image and likeness of God.  That's all anyone really needs to know about origins.

 

Bible isn't a scientific text book in the sense that you can use it for predictive uses in sciences, but it is a historical account of history.

When you come right down to it, the sciences are a gift from God to mankind.  They exist because of immutable natural laws embedded in the universe.  At the same time, the Bible is never inaccurate about any natural phenomena.

 

I am not saying the Bible isn't scientific in that it can't be verified, but isn't well suited to be used as a scientific text book.

You will not find any creationist disagreeing with you in this regard.  Theology is theology and biology is biology.

 

If you don't agree, I would like to know what exactly did Bible 'explained' regarding life and how that could be use for 'prediction'.

The Bible tells us that death (and eternal death) would result from disobedience.  But it also tells us that the gift of God is eternal life to all those who believe the Gospel.  Those are indeed "predictive" regarding life, death, and eternal life.

 

Erm... please read what I wrote in context of the conversation. I am talking about life as it pertains to biological life here, this is what the OP topic is about. This isn't life as it pertains to theology. Why do people like to take my posts out of context, and then throw in their two cents on the matter?

 

UDX. I get where you're coming from. However...this IS a theological site. There is no separation of belief. This is as it should be.

I believe in the God. I believe that He's the God of the Bible. That's why I'm here. So many others, as well.

You can come to the issue with the preconceived notion that the Bible is true, or that evolution is true. They're irreconciliable. So, we have pick one. This is how it should be. The point is that no matter how we approach the issue we approach it with preconceived notions, either way. Our arguments (and beliefs) will, then, be based upon what we already 'decided' before coming to this thread.

To ask people to absent their beliefs (on this site) is completely unreasonable. It's a more unreasonable request when you consider the fact that, no matter what we profess, all our ideas are based upon beliefs (of some kind).

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

 

The God of the Bible is an infinitely better explanation for the origin and development of life than Evolution.  It just makes more sense.

In all fairness. The Bible really doesn't explain the develop of life, it only states the development of life. You can't use the Bible to predict anything regarding biological life. Bible isn't a scientific text book in the sense that you can use it for predictive uses in sciences, but it is a historical account of history. I am not saying the Bible isn't scientific in that it can't be verified, but isn't well suited to be used as a scientific text book.

 

If you don't agree, I would like to know what exactly did Bible 'explained' regarding life and how that could be use for 'prediction'.

 

The Bible is true. 'Just sayin' that up front.

Ok. The Bible is taken on faith. It doesn't require any tests. Science can never claim the same thing. Science DOES require testing, on any level. We can believe in the Bible, without scientific tests, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's taken on faith.

The Bible was never meant to be used as a biological "textbook". Never. It was always meant as a standard of living and a record of history and as an example of God's Word in action, and revelation. To 'disclaim' the Bible on the grounds of the fact that it doesn't, literally, map genetic and molecular structures is a "straw man"; worse than that, it supposes that if the Bible doesn't (literally) define genetic and molecular maps then it MUST be false. Wrong. Illogical. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Or, to prop up evolution because the Bible doesn't have a genetic map is just as ridiculous.

Evolution has no predictable tests. Given. As an answer to that, you're saying "Well, the Bible doesn't either...".So what!? Evolution, as a science REQUIRES predictable testing, the Bible doesn't. The fact that the Bible doesn't map the genes of individuals is no argument against the fact that evolution has no predictable testing...whatsoever.

The two are not equatable. They're completely separate issues.

It doesn't matter how we look at it. Never. The fact remains. Evolution, as a science, requires predictable testing. Just like any other science. The Bible has NOTHING to do with this fact. And, fact it is. It's a non issue. If you propose a scientific principle you must prove that principle based upon testing of said principle, not upon the discrediting of any faith.

Just reiterating -

"Or, to prop up evolution because the Bible doesn't have a genetic map is just as ridiculous."

 

Edited March 26, 2015 by Rodion_Raskolnikov_

[OakWood]

 

It doesn't alter what I said one bit. There is little proof for evolution, whatever name you give it.

 

As for the common designer argument - well, it doesn't fail.... I'm afraid. All living things consist of cells. There are similarities in all life forms.

Many machines consists of nuts and bolts, but cars are similar to each other and planes are very different to cars. You're really using the same argument to try and destroy an argument but it doesn't work.

Evolutionists use similarities between animals to defend evolution and when I use the same argument to defend a creator, you bring in the cases where there are no similarities - which using your own logic could also be used to argue against evolution as well.

Evolution doesn't even hint that animals should, across the board, be identical. There are very specific genetic sequences that ONLY show up within the primate community. This fits the evolution [common descent] model wonderfully. Creationists often retort with "That just shows a common designer". What that argument does however is call into question "Well what about the animals that aren't like humans at all? Did they have a different designer?"

Otherwise the creationist is left to say "Well yeah the common designer created those creatures too." At that point the argument sinks into total worthlessness. There's no prediciton made, it's just sloppy rhetoric in an attempt to support a story.

 

 

It's not sloppy rhetoric on our behalf, only sloppy rhetoric on the behalf of those who champion the theory of Evolution.

We've NEVER used evolution to support our belief in a creator. Evolution has only ever been used to deny the existence of God. It's sloppy rhetoric to use evolution to try and refute faith.

My argument is that Evolution illustrates nothing. It doesn't support God, nor does it deny him. The arguments work both ways. Evolution fails on both accounts,bujt you fail to see that. Whenever you use Evolution to deny God, I simply explain how it could also support God, but then you turn it around to suggest that I am using Evolution as a tool to support my faith when in reality, I'm just playing you at your own game. It's the Atheists who champion Evolution, not the creationists. It's up to the Atheists to support their claims, not us.

Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God, nor does it support the existence of God.

Evolution is not even sloppy rhetoric - it is actually empty rhetoric!

[Bonky]

It's not sloppy rhetoric on our behalf, only sloppy rhetoric on the behalf of those who champion the theory of Evolution.

We've NEVER used evolution to support our belief in a creator. Evolution has only ever been used to deny the existence of God. It's sloppy rhetoric to use evolution to try and refute faith.

My argument is that Evolution illustrates nothing. It doesn't support God, nor does it deny him. The arguments work both ways. Evolution fails on both accounts,bujt you fail to see that. Whenever you use Evolution to deny God, I simply explain how it could also support God, but then you turn it around to suggest that I am using Evolution as a tool to support my faith when in reality, I'm just playing you at your own game. It's the Atheists who champion Evolution, not the creationists. It's up to the Atheists to support their claims, not us.

Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God, nor does it support the existence of God.

Evolution is not even sloppy rhetoric - it is actually empty rhetoric!

Just to be clear, I don't use evolution to deny God. I do doubt the Genesis narative as a historical account, I don't think creatures were created seperate from each other with no common ancestry. I don't deny that an intelligence could have chosen to start life on Earth and perhaps elsewhere in our Universe.

[Guest shiloh357]

An intelligent being with the level of intelligence and power enough to create life would not have needed, or even used Evolution.

[udx]

 

It doesn't matter how we look at it. Never. The fact remains. Evolution, as a science, requires predictable testing. Just like any other science. The Bible has NOTHING to do with this fact. And, fact it is. It's a non issue. If you propose a scientific principle you must prove that principle based upon testing of said principle, not upon the discrediting of any faith.

Just reiterating -

"Or, to prop up evolution because the Bible doesn't have a genetic map is just as ridiculous."

 

 

Are you talking about Darwinian evolution only or micro-evolution as well?

One should be specific and precise in what one talk about.

[JustinM]

Sometimes I believe the only reason atheists support the theory of evolution is to make fun of those that don't believe in it.  There's no other reason for it.  Like many have stated, it is impossible for life to evolve the way it has on its own.

 

The atheists can laugh it up all they want, but they have no basis in the scientific method to prove or disprove evolution, or our faith.  Evolution really is a juvenile theory to support, they might as well be supporting reincarnation.

 

People have a better chance of being reborn with the same genetic material they had in a previous life, than having been evolved from nothing to who they are over the course of billions of years.

 

Maybe atheists should pick up Hinduism.  It definitely is a very humanist religion and they won't even have to answer to a god.  All of this is a desperate attempt to deny death, because just vanishing from existence is too frightening for atheists to contemplate who are mostly motivated by their egos.

[Guest shiloh357]

I think it is amusing when atheists use micro-evolution to make the case for Darwinian Evolution.

[OakWood]

 

 

 

 It doesn't alter what I said one bit. There is little proof for evolution, whatever name you give it.

 

Just correcting misunderstanding of scientific terms, that make people who try to argue over the validity of scientific theory look silly when they do not understand what these terms mean in the first place.

 

Talking about the validity of evolution is another matter...but one should use the correct definition of field specific terms when talking in any field.

 

 

Yes, you're right. It's a bit embarrassing for me actually, because my background is scientific and my university subject was chemistry (with radio isotopes and nuclear chemistry) so I should know what I'm talking about but it's been that long.... I forget what half these terms mean now. I am slowly beginning to forget the difference between theories, laws, hypotheses and so on...

but anyway, my point is that 'evolution' never really got much beyond the 'Darwin's opinion' stage, at least not that much considering it must be about 150 years since he first proposed it.

It seems to be more speculation than science and in my opinion (even in my days as a non-believer) I always thought little of it anyway, it was always a bit of a 'mickey mouse' theory or a 'jumping to conclusions' theory- but then again when it comes to the sciences, biology was never my strong point....... so what would I know?