The Human Body Could not have Evolved

[Hall7]

Animals never become materialistic nor do they desire materialism such as clothes or any man made products except for food. If there was any kind of evolution going on we'd probably see monkeys reading the newspaper with glasses on or dogs riding a bicycle etc lol know what I mean... Animals will always be animals and human beings will always be human beings. Yes we are evolving as far as technology goes, we are becoming smarter but the only thing we Christian human beings will evolve into is our new glorified bodies once we are with God. Imagine what we'll be able to do then...

[udx]

Yes we are evolving as far as technology goes, we are becoming smarter 

I doubt that humans are getting smarter. We may have more knowledge, but it doesn't really mean we are becoming smarter in terms of higher intelligence. There are evidence that show we are becoming more stupid. Around 2,000~5,000 genes control intelligence, at rate of accumulating mutations it would only mean humans get more stupid overtime.

This make sense as we seen ingenious inventions in history done with much less, some we can't even replicate now even with the best modern tools.

 

Also, intelligence and mating are negatively correlated. People who have higher intelligence in general, produce less children compare to people with lower intelligence.

In fact there is a comedy movie that is based on this premise.

[Alex Summers]

Yes we are evolving as far as technology goes, we are becoming smarter

I doubt that humans are getting smarter. We may have more knowledge, but it doesn't really mean we are becoming smarter. There are evidence that show we are becoming more stupid. Around 2,000~5,000 genes control intelligence, at rate of accumulating mutations it would only mean humans get more stupid overtime.

This make sense as we seen ingenious inventions in history done with much less that we can't even replicate now even with the best modern tools.

Also, intelligence and mating are negatively correlated. People who have higher intelligence in general, produce less children compare to people with lower intelligence.

In fact there is a comedy movie that is based on this premise.

I agree that man is not getting smarter. We have accumulated massive amounts of knowledge that we don't even know what to do with. I am expanding my career into the realm of knowledge management and it is a wide open field because people do not know how to best make use of the knowelwgde we have.

I also think reliance on technology has made us less smart. We no longer need to "know things" as we can just look them up in a blink of an eye. I am terrible at spelling and I don't really care as everything I use comes with spell check built in.

[Guest]

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

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'.

 

 

Two Paths

 

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

 

And A Prediction

 

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

 

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

 

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

 

Beloved None Of Which Is Foreseeable

Using Any Of Man's So Called Knowledge (Science)

 

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

 

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

 

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 1 John 2:15-17

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

 

 

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.

 

It is true, in our present day, that "...On the Origin of Species" (which I have a copy of in my library and have probably read more of than any 'evolutionist' you're likely to meet on the street, much less in a college atmosphere) is different from microbiology. That being said, the principles of "the origin of species" remains the same.

To suppose (to make the "leap") that micro evolution leads to the genetic "reprogramming" of macro organisms...is just that, a leap. There remains no conclusive testing to this hypothesis, but not through lack of effort. We have tried a million different times, a million different ways (from fruit flies to fish) to test this. Every time with no conclusive results.

In the end we resulted to (pre conceived) computer programs in a, half hearted, attempt to uphold a belief we already held. Right. We're going to program a pre-set table of data and "let it go" as an example of how nature behaves "on its own"...Again, riiight. Disgusting, in my opinion (as an example of what true science is supposed to be).

No. There has been no conclusive testing for true macro evolution. If there had been Dawkins would be in the news for months! On the front page! With irrefutable tests. He hasn't been. Go figure? There are no (irrefutable, and conclusive) tests, that is. Only more of the same speculation.

UDX...nice call out. Not a lot of people would be knowledgeable enough to recognize the difference. I knew I liked you for a reason.

 

Edited March 29, 2015 by Rodion_Raskolnikov_

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

 

Yes we are evolving as far as technology goes, we are becoming smarter 

I doubt that humans are getting smarter. We may have more knowledge, but it doesn't really mean we are becoming smarter in terms of higher intelligence. There are evidence that show we are becoming more stupid. Around 2,000~5,000 genes control intelligence, at rate of accumulating mutations it would only mean humans get more stupid overtime.

This make sense as we seen ingenious inventions in history done with much less, some we can't even replicate now even with the best modern tools.

 

Also, intelligence and mating are negatively correlated. People who have higher intelligence in general, produce less children compare to people with lower intelligence.

In fact there is a comedy movie that is based on this premise.

 

"Idiocracy"...that's the movie. I don't agree with the premise of the film but it was funny, when I watched it.

Yes, according to purely evolutionist principles we are getting "weaker". This doesn't (obviously) mean that we can't do as many chin ups, or run the mile in the same mean speed. This means that we're allowing ourselves to become more reliant upon medicine, more interbreeding. Interbreeding is anything but morally wrong. Anything but! From a purely evolutionist perspective, however...we're allowing more and more genetic defects to infiltrate each individual "race". Genetic defects that would previously have been sequestered to only one "race" are becoming more prevalent among others. Also, we're allowing those people with said defects to live long enough and breed with other "races". This is accomplished through modern medical advance; to live long enough to breed in their genetic "weaknesses".

In effect...We are enabling ourselves to support a species that will, eventually, incorporate all the genetic disabilities of any (and all) cultures. I'm not an evolutionist, so I'm not opposed to this on principle. If I were an evolutionist, however, I could support no other (honest) solution than eugenics. Eugenics...yuck. 'Back to the days of Hitler.

 

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

 

 

Yes we are evolving as far as technology goes, we are becoming smarter

I doubt that humans are getting smarter. We may have more knowledge, but it doesn't really mean we are becoming smarter. There are evidence that show we are becoming more stupid. Around 2,000~5,000 genes control intelligence, at rate of accumulating mutations it would only mean humans get more stupid overtime.

This make sense as we seen ingenious inventions in history done with much less that we can't even replicate now even with the best modern tools.

Also, intelligence and mating are negatively correlated. People who have higher intelligence in general, produce less children compare to people with lower intelligence.

In fact there is a comedy movie that is based on this premise.

I agree that man is not getting smarter. We have accumulated massive amounts of knowledge that we don't even know what to do with. I am expanding my career into the realm of knowledge management and it is a wide open field because people do not know how to best make use of the knowelwgde we have.

I also think reliance on technology has made us less smart. We no longer need to "know things" as we can just look them up in a blink of an eye. I am terrible at spelling and I don't really care as everything I use comes with spell check built in.

 

Thank you, Alex. I knew I liked you for a reason. You're honest.

Yes, we're enabling (for ourselves in) an environment where people no longer have to "think". Try "Animal Farm, "1984", or "A Brave New World". All great books.

Even if you're an evolutionist you still have to admit (based solely upon the evidence) that the point of all our evolution is to enable the "stronger of us" to empower themselves over the "weaker of us". It's just that we've made an environment that tends to naturally breed 'weaker' people; so they can be easier enslaved. Natural result of evolution. It took us a few thousand years to get here, but we're now on the cusp of it, globally.

I'm not an evolutionist, so I will never accept this slavery. I will always be opposed to slavery on a universal moral principle. If I were an evolutionist, however...I might be content to serve "my betters".

[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.

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'.

 

 

Two Paths

 

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

 

And A Prediction

 

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

 

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

 

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

 

Beloved None Of Which Is Foreseeable

Using Any Of Man's So Called Knowledge (Science)

 

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

 

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

 

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 1 John 2:15-17

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

 

FresnoJoe...I gotta' thank you. 'Congratulate you. You always quote the Word. Thank you. We need more of that.

We all have our reasons...but, the Word...The Word is the thing. Always.

Thanks for reminding us where we come from (or, need to come from) .

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

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.

Nice post Justin. I'll tell you that as a former atheist.

I tried humanism. I tried Buddhism. Hindu was never an option. I even considered becoming a Monk. Seriously. I was an inch away from becoming a Monk. I couldn't reconcile myself with Catholicism, however.

I'll tell you, as well, thank you for including the Word. I've said it many times (yet I still seem to be in remiss in doing so) that quoting the Word is best.

I'll also tell you, I love Samuel Clemens . "Never put off to tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow".

[Guest shiloh357]

I think it is important to note that Evolution was first theorized at a time when a single cell was nothing to us but a gelatinous blob.   Not only that, but the notion that the earth is older than what the Bible seems to indicate, did not originate with modern science.   It  originated some 200 years before modern scientific processes like carbon dating or radiometric dating even existed.   The old earth idea more or less originated with philosophy during the Age of Enlightenment back in the 1700s.  

 

The old earth idea was first promoted by philosophers and modern scientists operate from the assumption that its true and have been trying to prop up that claim ever since.  Science has to push the earth's age back further and further the more we learn about the complexity of a single cell in order to give time for evolution to happen.   The age of the earth has less to do with real science and more to do with trying to accommodate an atheistic worldview.

 

In fact, given what we know about the complexity of biological life and indeed the entire biosphere, if Evolution had been first proposed today, it would be laughed into the ground.