Guest shiloh357 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The dinosaurs were destroyed in a worldwide flood. The asteroid hypothesis is not really a good explanation for their extinction and it is really not much more than an assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Teditis Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Even Charles Darwin admitted that it was ludicrous to apply evolution to the way that the human eye has been formed and operates. Yet he persisted in his foolishness. I asked an evolutionist once if anyone had ever discovered a gorilla who could communicate fluently in English (even on a basic level). That would clearly establish evolution. The question was deftly avoided with some technical mumbo-jumbo. Your question was nonsensical I'm afraid. Why don't I have the ability to fly? Why can't I "see" the body heat of nearby organisms?? You demanding that gorillas should be able to speak english is just irrelevant. It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches. But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'? There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that. Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn. You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all! The reason Ezra's question doesn't work is because it is based on a wildly incorrect view of what evolution is. Whether or not you accept it, a critique doesn't work if it is based on an entirely incorrect picture. According to evolution, all life on earth has a common ancestor. The organisms that are around today are around today because its ancestors were successful at surviving long enough to procreate. That is, slugs, ants, humans etc are all equally 'evolved'. Humans are not higher on some evolutionary scale than birds, ebola, or apes. Evolution as a process doesn't 'aim' at anything, let alone intelligence or the ability to speak. Apes have the characteristics they have because their ancestors happened to survive and procreate. That's it. Asking that an ape become more 'human like' is a very serious misunderstanding of what evolution is. That's incorrect on it's face. Evolution on this planet requires that there was an evolutionary predecessor in place prior to the formation of this planet... that "stuff" was organizing into other "stuff" through random chance for no intelligible reason other than a static design of biochemical cohesiveness. Ergo, single cells formed for the sole reason to develop complex organisms and then into something form functional proactive-ness. (As yet undefined). Life has it's singular purpose to survive and propagate through it's innate "code". (Again, undefined) So, all of life should be seeking it's preeminent status by inference... be it a slug, virus or complex organism. And since life must greet the environment and adjust accordingly, there must be ONE thing that survives and thrives in all environments. We've yet to see anything moving to that goal. So I say "No"... God wanted diversity for His pleasure... not for attaining some state of Perfection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted March 31, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2015 Even Charles Darwin admitted that it was ludicrous to apply evolution to the way that the human eye has been formed and operates. Yet he persisted in his foolishness. I asked an evolutionist once if anyone had ever discovered a gorilla who could communicate fluently in English (even on a basic level). That would clearly establish evolution. The question was deftly avoided with some technical mumbo-jumbo. Your question was nonsensical I'm afraid. Why don't I have the ability to fly? Why can't I "see" the body heat of nearby organisms?? You demanding that gorillas should be able to speak english is just irrelevant. It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches. But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'? There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that. Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn. You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all! The reason Ezra's question doesn't work is because it is based on a wildly incorrect view of what evolution is. Whether or not you accept it, a critique doesn't work if it is based on an entirely incorrect picture. According to evolution, all life on earth has a common ancestor. The organisms that are around today are around today because its ancestors were successful at surviving long enough to procreate. That is, slugs, ants, humans etc are all equally 'evolved'. Humans are not higher on some evolutionary scale than birds, ebola, or apes. Evolution as a process doesn't 'aim' at anything, let alone intelligence or the ability to speak. Apes have the characteristics they have because their ancestors happened to survive and procreate. That's it. Asking that an ape become more 'human like' is a very serious misunderstanding of what evolution is. That's incorrect on it's face. Evolution on this planet requires that there was an evolutionary predecessor in place prior to the formation of this planet... that "stuff" was organizing into other "stuff" through random chance for no intelligible reason other than a static design of biochemical cohesiveness. Ergo, single cells formed for the sole reason to develop complex organisms and then into something form functional proactive-ness. (As yet undefined). Life has it's singular purpose to survive and propagate through it's innate "code". (Again, undefined) So, all of life should be seeking it's preeminent status by inference... be it a slug, virus or complex organism. And since life must greet the environment and adjust accordingly, there must be ONE thing that survives and thrives in all environments. We've yet to see anything moving to that goal. So I say "No"... God wanted diversity for His pleasure... not for attaining some state of Perfection. I don't understand this argument at all. Evolution requires no specific outcome. On evolution the only reason that there are complex organisms, relative to single celled ones, is that through a series of steps the ancestors of the latter were 'successful' in the sense of existing long enough to duplicate/procreate. Evolution as it is formalized assumes the existence of the most primitive ancestor at the start, and leaves the question of its assembly as a separate inquiry, abiogenesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted March 31, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,143 Content Per Day: 4.61 Reputation: 27,834 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2015 Blessings.... This is a very funny statement.... 'If you had looked at Stone Age people in Europe a mere 50,000 years ago, you would assume the trend was for people to get bigger and stronger all the time,' said Prof Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, London. 'Then, quite abruptly, these people were replaced by light, tall, highly intelligent people who arrived from Africa and took over the world. You simply cannot predict evolutionary events like this. Who knows where we are headed? © 2015 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved So,how many years ago did the so called evolutionary process "stop?" Why would it stop?Are we no longer in "survival of the fittest" mode.....Has natural selection reached it's peak ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,seems very funny that in the stone age man was evolving & evolving & evolving through the ages & then this process came to a halt ,a long long time ago,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,not just with humans but wth all other animals,fish ,birds & creeping crawling things,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ugggh As the Dr so eloquently & "simply" put it(in the OP),,,,,,God created us exactly as He designed us to be ,starting with Adam & as we are this day..........Praise & Glory to God God does not change,His Word is never changing,God does not lie,His Word is His Timeless Truth,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but mam,ahh quite another story,men change their minds,theories & their words every decade or so(putting it mildly).........................With love-in Christ,Kwik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted March 31, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2015 Blessings.... This is a very funny statement.... 'If you had looked at Stone Age people in Europe a mere 50,000 years ago, you would assume the trend was for people to get bigger and stronger all the time,' said Prof Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, London. 'Then, quite abruptly, these people were replaced by light, tall, highly intelligent people who arrived from Africa and took over the world. You simply cannot predict evolutionary events like this. Who knows where we are headed? © 2015 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved So,how many years ago did the so called evolutionary process "stop?" Why would it stop?Are we no longer in "survival of the fittest" mode.....Has natural selection reached it's peak ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,seems very funny that in the stone age man was evolving & evolving & evolving through the ages & then this process came to a halt ,a long long time ago,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,not just with humans but wth all other animals,fish ,birds & creeping crawling things,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ugggh As the Dr so eloquently & "simply" put it,,,,,,God created us exactly as He designed us to be ,starting with Adam & as we are this day..........Praise & Glory to God God does not change,His Word is never changing,God does not lie,His Word is His Timeless Truth,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but mam,ahh quite another story,men change their minds,theories & their words every decade or so(putting it mildly).........................With love-in Christ,Kwik I don't think anybody would say the process has stopped insofar as it is merely statistics gene populations. If that is static for some reason, then these sorts of phenotypal differences don't arise either. You could argue a few things about human evolution in particular, one being that the way the process, such as it is, was going was disrupted by the human ability to mold environment. Or, you could argue that it is still going on in ways somewhat novel due to that same thing, and if we could see over 10k years we would see stark changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Teditis Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Even Charles Darwin admitted that it was ludicrous to apply evolution to the way that the human eye has been formed and operates. Yet he persisted in his foolishness. I asked an evolutionist once if anyone had ever discovered a gorilla who could communicate fluently in English (even on a basic level). That would clearly establish evolution. The question was deftly avoided with some technical mumbo-jumbo. Your question was nonsensical I'm afraid. Why don't I have the ability to fly? Why can't I "see" the body heat of nearby organisms?? You demanding that gorillas should be able to speak english is just irrelevant. It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches. But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'? There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that. Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn. You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all! The reason Ezra's question doesn't work is because it is based on a wildly incorrect view of what evolution is. Whether or not you accept it, a critique doesn't work if it is based on an entirely incorrect picture. According to evolution, all life on earth has a common ancestor. The organisms that are around today are around today because its ancestors were successful at surviving long enough to procreate. That is, slugs, ants, humans etc are all equally 'evolved'. Humans are not higher on some evolutionary scale than birds, ebola, or apes. Evolution as a process doesn't 'aim' at anything, let alone intelligence or the ability to speak. Apes have the characteristics they have because their ancestors happened to survive and procreate. That's it. Asking that an ape become more 'human like' is a very serious misunderstanding of what evolution is. That's incorrect on it's face. Evolution on this planet requires that there was an evolutionary predecessor in place prior to the formation of this planet... that "stuff" was organizing into other "stuff" through random chance for no intelligible reason other than a static design of biochemical cohesiveness. Ergo, single cells formed for the sole reason to develop complex organisms and then into something form functional proactive-ness. (As yet undefined). Life has it's singular purpose to survive and propagate through it's innate "code". (Again, undefined) So, all of life should be seeking it's preeminent status by inference... be it a slug, virus or complex organism. And since life must greet the environment and adjust accordingly, there must be ONE thing that survives and thrives in all environments. We've yet to see anything moving to that goal. So I say "No"... God wanted diversity for His pleasure... not for attaining some state of Perfection. I don't understand this argument at all. Evolution requires no specific outcome. On evolution the only reason that there are complex organisms, relative to single celled ones, is that through a series of steps the ancestors of the latter were 'successful' in the sense of existing long enough to duplicate/procreate. Evolution as it is formalized assumes the existence of the most primitive ancestor at the start, and leaves the question of its assembly as a separate inquiry, abiogenesis. So why are they doing that? Why is a valid question, is it not? Why did they evolve from nothing into cells? Why would they become complex organisms? Assembly is not a separate question in light of the Big Bang transforming from one state to a more complex one. Why not stay in it's original form? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted March 31, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2015 Even Charles Darwin admitted that it was ludicrous to apply evolution to the way that the human eye has been formed and operates. Yet he persisted in his foolishness. I asked an evolutionist once if anyone had ever discovered a gorilla who could communicate fluently in English (even on a basic level). That would clearly establish evolution. The question was deftly avoided with some technical mumbo-jumbo. Your question was nonsensical I'm afraid. Why don't I have the ability to fly? Why can't I "see" the body heat of nearby organisms?? You demanding that gorillas should be able to speak english is just irrelevant. It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches. But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'? There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that. Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn. You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all! The reason Ezra's question doesn't work is because it is based on a wildly incorrect view of what evolution is. Whether or not you accept it, a critique doesn't work if it is based on an entirely incorrect picture. According to evolution, all life on earth has a common ancestor. The organisms that are around today are around today because its ancestors were successful at surviving long enough to procreate. That is, slugs, ants, humans etc are all equally 'evolved'. Humans are not higher on some evolutionary scale than birds, ebola, or apes. Evolution as a process doesn't 'aim' at anything, let alone intelligence or the ability to speak. Apes have the characteristics they have because their ancestors happened to survive and procreate. That's it. Asking that an ape become more 'human like' is a very serious misunderstanding of what evolution is. That's incorrect on it's face. Evolution on this planet requires that there was an evolutionary predecessor in place prior to the formation of this planet... that "stuff" was organizing into other "stuff" through random chance for no intelligible reason other than a static design of biochemical cohesiveness. Ergo, single cells formed for the sole reason to develop complex organisms and then into something form functional proactive-ness. (As yet undefined). Life has it's singular purpose to survive and propagate through it's innate "code". (Again, undefined) So, all of life should be seeking it's preeminent status by inference... be it a slug, virus or complex organism. And since life must greet the environment and adjust accordingly, there must be ONE thing that survives and thrives in all environments. We've yet to see anything moving to that goal. So I say "No"... God wanted diversity for His pleasure... not for attaining some state of Perfection. I don't understand this argument at all. Evolution requires no specific outcome. On evolution the only reason that there are complex organisms, relative to single celled ones, is that through a series of steps the ancestors of the latter were 'successful' in the sense of existing long enough to duplicate/procreate. Evolution as it is formalized assumes the existence of the most primitive ancestor at the start, and leaves the question of its assembly as a separate inquiry, abiogenesis. So why are they doing that? Why is a valid question, is it not? Why did they evolve from nothing into cells? Why would they become complex organisms? Assembly is not a separate question in light of the Big Bang transforming from one state to a more complex one. Why not stay in it's original form? Assembly into life? chemical reactions. After all, our physical bodies are a bunch of chemicals interacting. Ultimately why? Physical laws. 'Why' in that ultimate sense is beyond the purview of evolution entirely, but from a purely physical view there is no need to see biological, chemical or physical units as striving toward a goal. Most things are explained merely as physical stuff with physical properties obeying physical laws, and here we see the results of those processes. Let me clarify, I believe God is behind any and all physical processes at all times, whatever they may be. As to why a single celled organism would be the common ancestor to more complex ones in the evolutionary model, it's because random chemical processes caused different types of organisms from previous ones to occur, and the ones that survived long enough to duplicate/procreate continued on for another round. Those that didn't didn't. The life that is around today have ancestors who arose from these processes and stuck around long enough to procreate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Teditis Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Even Charles Darwin admitted that it was ludicrous to apply evolution to the way that the human eye has been formed and operates. Yet he persisted in his foolishness. I asked an evolutionist once if anyone had ever discovered a gorilla who could communicate fluently in English (even on a basic level). That would clearly establish evolution. The question was deftly avoided with some technical mumbo-jumbo. Your question was nonsensical I'm afraid. Why don't I have the ability to fly? Why can't I "see" the body heat of nearby organisms?? You demanding that gorillas should be able to speak english is just irrelevant. It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches. But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'? There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that. Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn. You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all! The reason Ezra's question doesn't work is because it is based on a wildly incorrect view of what evolution is. Whether or not you accept it, a critique doesn't work if it is based on an entirely incorrect picture. According to evolution, all life on earth has a common ancestor. The organisms that are around today are around today because its ancestors were successful at surviving long enough to procreate. That is, slugs, ants, humans etc are all equally 'evolved'. Humans are not higher on some evolutionary scale than birds, ebola, or apes. Evolution as a process doesn't 'aim' at anything, let alone intelligence or the ability to speak. Apes have the characteristics they have because their ancestors happened to survive and procreate. That's it. Asking that an ape become more 'human like' is a very serious misunderstanding of what evolution is. That's incorrect on it's face. Evolution on this planet requires that there was an evolutionary predecessor in place prior to the formation of this planet... that "stuff" was organizing into other "stuff" through random chance for no intelligible reason other than a static design of biochemical cohesiveness. Ergo, single cells formed for the sole reason to develop complex organisms and then into something form functional proactive-ness. (As yet undefined). Life has it's singular purpose to survive and propagate through it's innate "code". (Again, undefined) So, all of life should be seeking it's preeminent status by inference... be it a slug, virus or complex organism. And since life must greet the environment and adjust accordingly, there must be ONE thing that survives and thrives in all environments. We've yet to see anything moving to that goal. So I say "No"... God wanted diversity for His pleasure... not for attaining some state of Perfection. I don't understand this argument at all. Evolution requires no specific outcome. On evolution the only reason that there are complex organisms, relative to single celled ones, is that through a series of steps the ancestors of the latter were 'successful' in the sense of existing long enough to duplicate/procreate. Evolution as it is formalized assumes the existence of the most primitive ancestor at the start, and leaves the question of its assembly as a separate inquiry, abiogenesis. So why are they doing that? Why is a valid question, is it not? Why did they evolve from nothing into cells? Why would they become complex organisms? Assembly is not a separate question in light of the Big Bang transforming from one state to a more complex one. Why not stay in it's original form? Assembly into life? chemical reactions. After all, our physical bodies are a bunch of chemicals interacting. Ultimately why? Physical laws. 'Why' in that ultimate sense is beyond the purview of evolution entirely, but from a purely physical view there is no need to see biological, chemical or physical units as striving toward a goal. Most things are explained merely as physical stuff with physical properties obeying physical laws, and here we see the results of those processes. Let me clarify, I believe God is behind any and all physical processes at all times, whatever they may be. As to why a single celled organism would be the common ancestor to more complex ones in the evolutionary model, it's because random chemical processes caused different types of organisms from previous ones to occur, and the ones that survived long enough to duplicate/procreate continued on for another round. Those that didn't didn't. The life that is around today have ancestors who arose from these processes and stuck around long enough to procreate. You claim that you trust that God is behind the curtains preordaining things but then appeal to random chance. Which is it Alpha... it cannot be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted March 31, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2015 Even Charles Darwin admitted that it was ludicrous to apply evolution to the way that the human eye has been formed and operates. Yet he persisted in his foolishness. I asked an evolutionist once if anyone had ever discovered a gorilla who could communicate fluently in English (even on a basic level). That would clearly establish evolution. The question was deftly avoided with some technical mumbo-jumbo. Your question was nonsensical I'm afraid. Why don't I have the ability to fly? Why can't I "see" the body heat of nearby organisms?? You demanding that gorillas should be able to speak english is just irrelevant. It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches. But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'? There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that. Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn. You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all! The reason Ezra's question doesn't work is because it is based on a wildly incorrect view of what evolution is. Whether or not you accept it, a critique doesn't work if it is based on an entirely incorrect picture. According to evolution, all life on earth has a common ancestor. The organisms that are around today are around today because its ancestors were successful at surviving long enough to procreate. That is, slugs, ants, humans etc are all equally 'evolved'. Humans are not higher on some evolutionary scale than birds, ebola, or apes. Evolution as a process doesn't 'aim' at anything, let alone intelligence or the ability to speak. Apes have the characteristics they have because their ancestors happened to survive and procreate. That's it. Asking that an ape become more 'human like' is a very serious misunderstanding of what evolution is. That's incorrect on it's face. Evolution on this planet requires that there was an evolutionary predecessor in place prior to the formation of this planet... that "stuff" was organizing into other "stuff" through random chance for no intelligible reason other than a static design of biochemical cohesiveness. Ergo, single cells formed for the sole reason to develop complex organisms and then into something form functional proactive-ness. (As yet undefined). Life has it's singular purpose to survive and propagate through it's innate "code". (Again, undefined) So, all of life should be seeking it's preeminent status by inference... be it a slug, virus or complex organism. And since life must greet the environment and adjust accordingly, there must be ONE thing that survives and thrives in all environments. We've yet to see anything moving to that goal. So I say "No"... God wanted diversity for His pleasure... not for attaining some state of Perfection. I don't understand this argument at all. Evolution requires no specific outcome. On evolution the only reason that there are complex organisms, relative to single celled ones, is that through a series of steps the ancestors of the latter were 'successful' in the sense of existing long enough to duplicate/procreate. Evolution as it is formalized assumes the existence of the most primitive ancestor at the start, and leaves the question of its assembly as a separate inquiry, abiogenesis. So why are they doing that? Why is a valid question, is it not? Why did they evolve from nothing into cells? Why would they become complex organisms? Assembly is not a separate question in light of the Big Bang transforming from one state to a more complex one. Why not stay in it's original form? Assembly into life? chemical reactions. After all, our physical bodies are a bunch of chemicals interacting. Ultimately why? Physical laws. 'Why' in that ultimate sense is beyond the purview of evolution entirely, but from a purely physical view there is no need to see biological, chemical or physical units as striving toward a goal. Most things are explained merely as physical stuff with physical properties obeying physical laws, and here we see the results of those processes. Let me clarify, I believe God is behind any and all physical processes at all times, whatever they may be. As to why a single celled organism would be the common ancestor to more complex ones in the evolutionary model, it's because random chemical processes caused different types of organisms from previous ones to occur, and the ones that survived long enough to duplicate/procreate continued on for another round. Those that didn't didn't. The life that is around today have ancestors who arose from these processes and stuck around long enough to procreate. You claim that you trust that God is behind the curtains preordaining things but then appeal to random chance. Which is it Alpha... it cannot be both. My purpose on this thread was to clear up severe confusion about what evolution implies. Criticisms of it are not going to be any good if they are aiming at a completely different target altogether. It is not the case that on 'undirected' evolution we should expect gorillas to talk, for example. That is a serious misunderstanding of what evolution is at the core. My own view is that God has directed the process of creation from the start. I accept that evolution is true insofar as there is a common ancestor for life on earth. I don't believe we all arose out of purely physical and blind processes. I really don't care what label that view has. Many would call me creationist, many would accuse me of being a patsy of atheist evolutionists, can't keep everyone happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Teditis Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Even Charles Darwin admitted that it was ludicrous to apply evolution to the way that the human eye has been formed and operates. Yet he persisted in his foolishness. I asked an evolutionist once if anyone had ever discovered a gorilla who could communicate fluently in English (even on a basic level). That would clearly establish evolution. The question was deftly avoided with some technical mumbo-jumbo. Your question was nonsensical I'm afraid. Why don't I have the ability to fly? Why can't I "see" the body heat of nearby organisms?? You demanding that gorillas should be able to speak english is just irrelevant. It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches. But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'? There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that. Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn. You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all! The reason Ezra's question doesn't work is because it is based on a wildly incorrect view of what evolution is. Whether or not you accept it, a critique doesn't work if it is based on an entirely incorrect picture. According to evolution, all life on earth has a common ancestor. The organisms that are around today are around today because its ancestors were successful at surviving long enough to procreate. That is, slugs, ants, humans etc are all equally 'evolved'. Humans are not higher on some evolutionary scale than birds, ebola, or apes. Evolution as a process doesn't 'aim' at anything, let alone intelligence or the ability to speak. Apes have the characteristics they have because their ancestors happened to survive and procreate. That's it. Asking that an ape become more 'human like' is a very serious misunderstanding of what evolution is. That's incorrect on it's face. Evolution on this planet requires that there was an evolutionary predecessor in place prior to the formation of this planet... that "stuff" was organizing into other "stuff" through random chance for no intelligible reason other than a static design of biochemical cohesiveness. Ergo, single cells formed for the sole reason to develop complex organisms and then into something form functional proactive-ness. (As yet undefined). Life has it's singular purpose to survive and propagate through it's innate "code". (Again, undefined) So, all of life should be seeking it's preeminent status by inference... be it a slug, virus or complex organism. And since life must greet the environment and adjust accordingly, there must be ONE thing that survives and thrives in all environments. We've yet to see anything moving to that goal. So I say "No"... God wanted diversity for His pleasure... not for attaining some state of Perfection. I don't understand this argument at all. Evolution requires no specific outcome. On evolution the only reason that there are complex organisms, relative to single celled ones, is that through a series of steps the ancestors of the latter were 'successful' in the sense of existing long enough to duplicate/procreate. Evolution as it is formalized assumes the existence of the most primitive ancestor at the start, and leaves the question of its assembly as a separate inquiry, abiogenesis. So why are they doing that? Why is a valid question, is it not? Why did they evolve from nothing into cells? Why would they become complex organisms? Assembly is not a separate question in light of the Big Bang transforming from one state to a more complex one. Why not stay in it's original form? Assembly into life? chemical reactions. After all, our physical bodies are a bunch of chemicals interacting. Ultimately why? Physical laws. 'Why' in that ultimate sense is beyond the purview of evolution entirely, but from a purely physical view there is no need to see biological, chemical or physical units as striving toward a goal. Most things are explained merely as physical stuff with physical properties obeying physical laws, and here we see the results of those processes. Let me clarify, I believe God is behind any and all physical processes at all times, whatever they may be. As to why a single celled organism would be the common ancestor to more complex ones in the evolutionary model, it's because random chemical processes caused different types of organisms from previous ones to occur, and the ones that survived long enough to duplicate/procreate continued on for another round. Those that didn't didn't. The life that is around today have ancestors who arose from these processes and stuck around long enough to procreate. You claim that you trust that God is behind the curtains preordaining things but then appeal to random chance. Which is it Alpha... it cannot be both. My purpose on this thread was to clear up severe confusion about what evolution implies. Criticisms of it are not going to be any good if they are aiming at a completely different target altogether. It is not the case that on 'undirected' evolution we should expect gorillas to talk, for example. That is a serious misunderstanding of what evolution is at the core. My own view is that God has directed the process of creation from the start. I accept that evolution is true insofar as there is a common ancestor for life on earth. I don't believe we all arose out of purely physical and blind processes. I really don't care what label that view has. Many would call me creationist, many would accuse me of being a patsy of atheist evolutionists, can't keep everyone happy. I don't want you too keep me happy, I want you to come down to one one simple thing... God did it or chance did it. Monkey's talking is insignificant. Chance has no rational explanation if God exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts