The Human Body Could not have Evolved

[alphaparticle]

ted, then I would just repeat what I already said.

 

"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."

 

Do you have a specific question about my position as outlined above?

[OakWood]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I understand that, but it's still just assumptions. Having a common ancestor in no way excludes the existence of a creator - in fact it could equally (if not more so) favour the existence of a creator.

As for asking apes to becoming more human-like - well, you'll find that is exactly what evolutionists have suggested, that's why they have proposed the fallacy of a missing link. Proposing a missing link would be pointless if they weren't suggesting that some apes eventually turned into humans through various stages of (presumably) extinct species.

It's all just hypothesis, nothing more. There is no proof, no way of establishing the premise, no real way of measuring it and no real way of applying it. It's just a suggestion, nothing more, nothing less. Is it possible? Who knows? Is it likely? No, it's exceedingly unlikely.

Anything that is exceedingly unlikely and cannot be verified or quantified is no more a useful theory than suggesting the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. The only reason that evolution gets so much 'airtime' and publicity is because it offers the non-believer a way out. But because it is statistically unlikely, and I mean implausibly and irrationally unlikely, it is treated as being the truth by some people.

To say that humans came about through evolution is like saying - "it's actually possible for me to win the jackpot on a lottery ticket, therefore I'm going to buy a ticket, pack my job in,vow never to work again and then just sit back and wait for my winning numbers to come up." Only a fool would think like that. There is far more proof for the existence of Jesus Christ and far more proof of his death and resurrection. To believe in evolution is just wishful thinking by those who don't want there to be a God.

[Guest shiloh357]

The Bible clearly teaches against any common ancestor for all life.   The Bible teaches that man was created from the dust of the earth and it teaches that man is a special creation made separate from the rest of the created order.   There are no mystical hidden meanings in the creation account.  God took dirt and he made man. Man did not evolve from a common ancestor with the apes.  

[Enoch2021]

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.

 

 

 

======================================================================================

 

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.

 

 

 

Are Peppered Moths an example of evolution?

 

 

I accept that evolution is true insofar as there is a common ancestor for life on earth.

 

 

Besides "accepting" it, can you provide Scientific Evidence for it....?

 

regards

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I understand that, but it's still just assumptions. Having a common ancestor in no way excludes the existence of a creator - in fact it could equally (if not more so) favour the existence of a creator.

As for asking apes to becoming more human-like - well, you'll find that is exactly what evolutionists have suggested, that's why they have proposed the fallacy of a missing link. Proposing a missing link would be pointless if they weren't suggesting that some apes eventually turned into humans through various stages of (presumably) extinct species.

It's all just hypothesis, nothing more. There is no proof, no way of establishing the premise, no real way of measuring it and no real way of applying it. It's just a suggestion, nothing more, nothing less. Is it possible? Who knows? Is it likely? No, it's exceedingly unlikely.

Anything that is exceedingly unlikely and cannot be verified or quantified is no more a useful theory than suggesting the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. The only reason that evolution gets so much 'airtime' and publicity is because it offers the non-believer a way out. But because it is statistically unlikely, and I mean implausibly and irrationally unlikely, it is treated as being the truth by some people.

To say that humans came about through evolution is like saying - "it's actually possible for me to win the jackpot on a lottery ticket, therefore I'm going to buy a ticket, pack my job in,vow never to work again and then just sit back and wait for my winning numbers to come up." Only a fool would think like that. There is far more proof for the existence of Jesus Christ and far more proof of his death and resurrection. To believe in evolution is just wishful thinking by those who don't want there to be a God.

 

Evolution does make some predictions and have some explanatory power in specific ways. I think that tends to get lost in the rhetoric back and forth also. Biologists consider it a fundamental framework to their field, so this isn't just about some obnoxious atheist/anti-theist types going around yelling at Christians making it a big deal.

 

That being said, I believe God is Creator and also believe in common ancestry, those things don't have to be opposed at the start.

[alphaparticle]

The Bible clearly teaches against any common ancestor for all life.   The Bible teaches that man was created from the dust of the earth and it teaches that man is a special creation made separate from the rest of the created order.   There are no mystical hidden meanings in the creation account.  God took dirt and he made man. Man did not evolve from a common ancestor with the apes.  

You may be right about the Genesis account but my reading of it so far doesn't allow for the assumption that the default position should be there was a 6 days of 24 hrs of creation a handful of thousands of years ago.  Given that, the physical evidence informs my view quite a bit.

[alphaparticle]

 

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.

 

 

 

======================================================================================

 

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.

 

 

 

Are Peppered Moths an example of evolution?

 

 

I accept that evolution is true insofar as there is a common ancestor for life on earth.

 

 

Besides "accepting" it, can you provide Scientific Evidence for it....?

 

regards

 

Yeah, I am taking the lazy route.

 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

 

That one isn't exactly technical, but contains some interesting examples.

[Guest shiloh357]

But how do you address the common ancestry issue in relation to humanity since it can't be reconciled with your view?  Is this one of those places where the Bible is expendable?

[Enoch2021]

Yeah, I am taking the lazy route.

 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

 

That one isn't exactly technical, but contains some interesting examples.

 

 

 

=============================================================================================================

 

 

You forgot this question: "Are Peppered Moths an example of evolution?"

 

 

Yeah, I am taking the lazy route.

 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

That one isn't exactly technical, but contains some interesting examples.

 

 

Examples of what?  Similarity = Common Ancestry?

 

If the ancestry is not assumed from similarities, then there is no correlation between similarities and ancestry; ergo, to make the argument you need to make that "assumption".

 

All you have is a TEXTBOOK.....Affirming The Consequent (Formal Fallacy)--- http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/affirming-the-consequent/

 

If P then Q.

Q.

Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q. 

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)

2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)

3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

 

Or

 

If Common Ancestry is True we will Observe Similarities.

We Observe Similarities.

Therefore, Common Ancestry is True.

 

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;

2) I feel very full;

3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

 

Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?  I can with equal Scientific Vigor say....Common Designer!

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

 

The Bible clearly teaches against any common ancestor for all life.   The Bible teaches that man was created from the dust of the earth and it teaches that man is a special creation made separate from the rest of the created order.   There are no mystical hidden meanings in the creation account.  God took dirt and he made man. Man did not evolve from a common ancestor with the apes.  

You may be right about the Genesis account but my reading of it so far doesn't allow for the assumption that the default position should be there was a 6 days of 24 hrs of creation a handful of thousands of years ago.  Given that, the physical evidence informs my view quite a bit.

 

In Genesis, on the third day; God makes vegetation. He makes 'fruit bearing plants', specifically. On the fourth day he makes the stars (and the sun). Also, the moon (on the fourth day).

A, true, Biblical account requires the belief that there were plants before a source of photosynthesis. Not just some single celled 'plankton type' organisms; but, fruit bearing vegetation. Before the sun! Even if you believe that it's a matter of perspective (that being as someone looking up from the Earth with a thick cloud overhead, unable to physically view the sun, moon and stars as if the Earth were under the same influence of something like a "nuclear winter") you still 'shouldn't' have fruit bearing plants. Especially, not "in the beginning" before plants ever had a chance to take root with the benefit of photosynthesis and then "adapt" to the absence of it.

Science (I should say "popular scientific theory") is irreconciliable to Biblical account. We can pick one or the other. Christ, for example: absolutely irreconcilable to science. He's the cornerstone of all Christian faith.

Some things are observable, some aren't. Creation is absolutely unobservable. It's open to speculation, only.

I have faith in the Bible, therefore I have faith in its Word. All of it. This is in absence to observation, I admit.

Genesis doesn't 'have' to be a sequence of 24 hour days, no. It is a sequence of events that could have happened over 6 seconds. The point is that it's a sequence. Although, when you consider the "fourth day" there is a (strong) precident for 24 hour periods. It doesn't mean that it happened over millions, or billions of years, though. Either way, Biblical account and popular scientific account of Creation (much less many other things) is completely irreconcilable.

I think I'm "preaching to the choir", but I just had to throw that in.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Rodion_Raskolnikov_