evolution?

[Trust & Obey]

FogLight,

No, look at a bat. Even better look at Glaucomys, more comonly known as a "flying Squirrel". While these are not reptiles the squirrel is a great example of a creature which might be in the process of evolving into another flying mammal like the bat. Perhaps in a million years Glaucomys might be competing with Bats in the air and no longer really be a "squirrel".

LOL

[Trust & Obey]

is it a sin or hipocritical to believe in evolution???  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no such thing as evolution. The Lord is still creating it all.

Actually, God is done creating. He finished His word after 6 days and rested on the 7th.

We do not see any new creating happening as it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, conservation of matter and energy.

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am sorry my friend but you are wrong. You do not know where you are in the plan of GOD. You are quoting scripture told from God's perspective of timeless.

John 5

17But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."

It is Christ who gives God's Spirit rest in the kingdom.

Hebrews 4 "read the whole chapter"

1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.

9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Zhavonay, maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that God is still creating physical/tangible things. This thread is about such things so I assumed that was your point.

God bless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought you meant that God is still creating physical/tangible things.

That is exactly what I was saying. Every time anything is born, Every time a volcano erupts, Every time a new comet comes by and every time a earthquake restructures the shape of the earth. God is working and has not rested to date.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Zhavonay, the Conservation of Matter and Energy deals at the atomic and molecular levels. The examples you put forth are merely transfers of matter and energy into different forms. The only thing that is "new" in those examples would be the spirit in the newborn child, and that is not a physical thing.

When a volcano erupts the molten lava doesn't "come out of nowhere." It has been in the earth before the eruption. An earthquake may change the landscape, but it doesn't "create" anything new. Not any more than a sledge hammer to an automobile creates anything new, anyways.

[Trust & Obey]

If you are trying to discredit or disprove scientific theory with the bible then stop using scientific theory to make your case, it makes you look like a huge hypocrit.

Fog, the Bible is scientifcally accurate.

That post wasn't directed at anything other than confirming the law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

The Bible confirms that scientific law, it does not discredit it. Read the thread before isolating a post for rebuttal.

I'm sorry perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. What I'm saying is that relying on scientific theory to prove your point where convenient and denying scientific theory when it doesn't is wrong. The process to make the theory of the first law of Thermal Dynamics was derived and reviewed in the same process as the theory of evolution as well as other scientific theories that conflict with the bible.

Beyond that, the bible is certainly not a scientific text and does contain scientific errors. If by coincidence something was written 2000 years ago that agrees with something we know to be correct that doesn't make the bible scientificaly accurate in all areas or on all subjects. The bible says that God made the universe in 6 days from day 1 to day 2 to day 3 in all the way up to day 6 in the correct order. Does this make the bible accurate in all areas of mathematics? Of course not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fog, thanks for correcting my understanding of your post.

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics is observable today. We know today that everything is virtually made of the same things... atoms... albeit in different arrangements. Do you know of anything that we can make "disappear?" And, obviousy I am not referring to the visual aspect of things.

Next, do we see anything new being created/formed? If so, what is it? Can we identify anything that is coming out of nothing? I don't think so.

Therefore, the 1st law is observable, is it not?

Evolution is not observable, and that is the problem. If it was observable there would be no argument.

I hold the Bible to be truth above all else. That is obviously a subjective statement. I've had a living encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ and in that I trust. The Bible affirms the Conservation of Matter and Energy, and said law is observable today. No problem.

The Bible denies evolutionary theory, and evolution is not observable. What reason do I have to believe in it? Evolution is batting a big fat 0.

Do you believe that a dog can produce a non-dog? And, I'll even give you a million years for it to happen.

[Trust & Obey]

No, look at a bat. Even better look at Glaucomys, more comonly known as a "flying Squirrel". While these are not reptiles the squirrel is a great example of a creature which might be in the process of evolving into another flying mammal like the bat. Perhaps in a million years Glaucomys might be competing with Bats in the air and no longer really be a "squirrel".

LOL

[Trust & Obey]

Scientific Atheist,

No, but this isn't how evolution happens. Speciation something that occurs over many generations, and is only really important retrospectively. Elephant A will only give birth to a slightly different elephant B, which will in turn give birth to a slightly different elephant C. Elephant Z though, they could be significantly different from elephant A, and elephant ZZZZZ may be so different from elephant A that it's no longer really an elephant as we'd think of it today - it has evolved into a different species, it can no longer breed with elephant A's generation.

But were does one find the transitional forms in the fossil record connecting elephant A with elephant ZZZZZ? Is it really there or is it just misguided theory based on evolutionist prejudice?

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology

[Artemus Prime]

Is anyone familiar with Dr. Michael Behe or is book Darwin's Black Box? Amazing, amazing work. He has brought forth the idea of Irreducable Complexity, which in a nutshell says that everything that's contained within a given system MUST be there for the system to work. In other words, this is a big challenge to Darwinian evolutionary theory, since irreducable complexity does not require gradualism. I just wanted to "throw this out there" and get some feedback, see what you all think. Blessings!

Artemus

[fenwar]

The word "science" means knowledge. It is that which we know. If you call evolution science, then why are you using the terms "may have" and "may still?"

Science is about taking what we observe and investigating it, to describe it and explain it.

The fact that every living thing has DNA inside it is a huge clue. Geological evidence about the age of the earth and the age of fossils are others. Evolution is observable today in that (for example) some viruses have developed resistance to certain antibiotics, or insects have developed resistance to pesticides.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I'm just saying that what you call "impossible" is not necessarily impossible.

Actually, it is quite physical and biolgical. If you examine the geneologies in Genesis you'll find that Adam lived to be approx 900 yrs old. Then, each successive generation lived a less lengthy life.

Ah I see. Again, the question of whether these sections can be read as literal historical data would be where we differ. (Although in any case the reduction seems to happen quite swiftly, as a direct result of what God says in Gen 6.3, and stops once Abraham is born - it is not some kind of gradual biological decay.)

So, I'm saying evolution does not happen according to the Bible. You are saying it does. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you to prove the Bible wrong. Pretty straight-forward, no?

You haven't proved that the Bible says evolution does not happen. For example, I'm not convinced that Genesis 1-2 should be read as a literal account of the earth's creation. And as I've said previously I don't think the writer's use of the phrase "after their own kind" rules out speciation.

Again, what evidence do you have that a dog has ever produced a non-dog? What about an elephant producing a non-elephant?

This is a straw man - it is not what evolution says happened. It says one dog produced a taller dog, and a smaller dog. And these two dogs ate and hunted differently, and eventually their offspring formed two populations that were so different that they just weren't the same animal any more. If you trace their ancestry they're both "dogs". But the taller dogs are non-smaller dogs.

Like the pace that the Sun is consuming itself? Or, how about the Lunar Drift issue? Let's take those ones back a few billions of years. The sun would be so hot that the earth would not be... and the moon would have hatched out of the center of the earth like an egg.

Arguments like this rely on the assumption that the rates have always been constant. (To use an example you referred to earlier - if life expectancy decreased at the rate described in Genesis 11, the human race would have died out long before Moses was born!)

Is anyone familiar with Dr. Michael Behe or is book Darwin's Black Box? Amazing, amazing work. He has brought forth the idea of Irreducable Complexity, which in a nutshell says that everything that's contained within a given system MUST be there for the system to work. In other words, this is a big challenge to Darwinian evolutionary theory, since irreducable complexity does not require gradualism. I just wanted to "throw this out there" and get some feedback, see what you all think. Blessings!

Hello there Artemus,

I've had a look at that book. The trouble is that there are systems that appear "irreducably complex", yet explanations can and will be found for how they evolved. The classic example is the eye, which is a fantastically complex organ - and yet there are now numerous examples of how it could have evolved from a single, light-sensitive cell.

Talk.Origins has collection of articles in response to Behe's suggestions.

[Gerioke]

Humans are unique

Everything else is a kettle of fish, or swamp muck, depending on how you see things

[Bread_of_Life]

What do you say professor - does scientific research indicate that a woman existed whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people? Does this in anyway contradict the biblical concept that Eve was the mother of all living?

Well, no, but mitochrondrial eve would not be the biblical eve in any case.

I would suggest you re-think your 150,000 to 200,000 year theory. Research has found that mtDNA experiences a faster mutation rate than the original 1987 Berkeley study assumed. Using this much faster mutation rate,

[Trust & Obey]

fenwar, I could continue to refute your points, point-by-point, but don't feel that it is profitable. Every time I bring up legitimate problems to evolutionary theory you respond with "what could have happened," or "what might have happened" or "how do we know that the rate has always been the same... etc." Your science is a bunch of "what if" and "how do we know."

Sorry, bud. Your's is the science of Assumptions. You argue against lunar drift by saying "how do we know that the rate has been the same." Is that really a "scientific argument?"

I could say the same thing about carbon dating. Come on. Or, I could bring up the fact that they have dated RECENTLY DECEASED animals as being hundreds and thousands of years old. It is ridiculous.

So, to all of you "hope so, might have, could have scientists..." When you can show me ANY EVIDENCE of a dog producing a non-dog then we'll talk. Until then, I hold that evolution is a religion requiring tons more faith than Christianity.

Show me the evidence of one kind transitioning into another kind. Any evidence. Going once.... twice.... Can I get a witness?

There is nothing observable about biological macro-evolution, hence there is nothing scientific about it at all. It is speculation and inference at best.