"Evolution is a chance process"

[Elisha]

Knowing the nature of humans, even if we had all of the answers, we'd argue about the answers, themselves.

[jmwhalen]

S Atheist writes:

"A Christian is someone who believes that man was created by God in his image, that he fell into sin through disobedience of God, that God made a series of covenants with the Israelites (through leaders and prophets such as Moses) who agreed carried his word and obey his commandments.

They believe that the final covenant is fulfilled in Jesus, the son of God, a perfect, sinless sacrifice atoning for mankind's wrongdoing through his voluntary crucifixion and suffering at Calvary on the cross. They believe that Jesus was resurrected, and ascended to heavan to be at the right hand of his father, but that he will return to judge us for our sins in the last days.

This, I think, is what a Christian is. Agreed, or am I wrong?"

______________________________

Just 1 comment:

The Christian believes that 1 Cor. 15:1-4=the gospel of Christ. You left out the "heart" of Christianity:

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ DIED FOR OUR SINS(emphasis mine) according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures..." 1 Cor. 15:1-4:

You say "that he fell into sin through disobedience of God". Man's problem is much more serious than this. The result of this "disobedience, this "rebellion", this desire for "indepence" from God-Man has a problem-"The wages of sin is death". Man was created perfect, but died spiritually in the garden-what man lost was the Spirit of God- he died. And death is not "normal"-man was not created to die-man needs LIFE.

Without the literal creation account, there is no foundation for the "good news". In Romans we read that 'sin entered the world through one man, and through sin - death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race, and the entire creation(Romans 8:22), because everyone has sinned in and we are all declared "guilty" by God, we are all "dead in trespasses and sins"-Romans 5:12, Eph. 2:1.

The purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection is predicated on the literal existence of Adam, as the Lord Jesus Christ testified to, and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the "sin issue", who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's "fall", and subsequent death,, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.

Evolution means a development from one form to the next to meet the ever-changing challenges from an ever-changing nature. There is no fall from a previous state of sublime perfection.

Without Adam, without the sin, the Lord Jesus Christ is reduced to a man with a mission to "save"(to rescue, deliver from a danger)from what? Nothing. To die "for"(Substitutionary atonement) what? Nothing.

No, Christ was not merely a man with a mission to "be an example". Man needs a Saviour, and the Lord Jesus Christ is the Saviour.

Man therefore needs a Savior and the first promise and prophecy of that was Genesis, "The Seed Plot" of the Holy Bible. Gen3:15-:"her seed".

But here we have the 'seed of the woman' (offspring of the woman); a child would be born, a virgin-born Son of God, 'seed of the Woman', to be our Savior. So man was created, has fallen, and needs a Savior.

Now, when man fell, it wasn't just a moral fall (it was that), it wasn't just a spiritual fall (it was that), it wasn't just an emotional fall (it was that), but it was also an intellectual fall.

The total man fell. Instead of being spiritually in tune with our Creator, man is now spiritually dead, uninterested in spiritual things. Instead of being excited, and at peace with God, man is emotionally estranged from God, afraid of God, and angry at Him. Instead of normally wanting to do what is right, man now tends is to do what is wrong; Man fell morally-he must "work at being good". Children do not have to be trained to be bad-they do that quite well "naturally".

Man also fell intellectually. Instead of using the Creator's Word as our test of truth, our natural tendency now is to use our own opinions, the opinions of rebellious, fallen man-"...every man did that which was right in his own eyes"(Judges 21:25)-the total man fell.

In Christ,

John Whalen

[artsylady]

QUOTE 

Did the fish know about the food on the land? If yes, how, if they couldn't see it?

QUOTE 

Again, how did they know about the food if they didn't see it. If they didn't 'will' it to happen, it just happened accidentally?

I've answered both of these questions before. I said:

"But the fish didn't see the food, and think "well now I have to grow legs". Rather, the fish simply hunted for food, and some of those fish, the ones with legs or protolegs, had a larger and more fruitful potential hunting area than the others"

What process makes the fish grow legs at all. It's not seeing the food. What is it?

QUOTE 

What's the evidence that fish grew legs though. Sure, there were fish with legs. Might even be around today.

Well, that fish with legs in the fossil record shares both amphibian and fishlike characteristics, making it an early intermediate.

Again, what evidence is there that it is an intermediate, and not just a fish with legs?

As for these fish still being around today, I would require evidence of this. Of course, it isn't impossible, but it would be unlikely that such fish would be of the exact same form, after millions of years of evolution.

Did you watch that video news clip?

QUOTE 

What about the fish with legs caught by that 8 year old girl? Did you see that footage? Did you compare it to the Spotted Ratfish? It's NOT a spotted ratfish. You haven't offered an opinion on this. Do you have one?

I you would link me into a paper on this discovery I would be happy to come back with comments.

I don't think there IS a paper on it. Would you like to comment on the video footage?

QUOTE 

So you don't believe either story. Are you trying to confuse us all into believing in evolution?

No, in fact, I made my views quite clear in my last post, and by cutting and pasting only part of my views and commenting on them you are being very disingenuous.

I have made it clear that what we are certain of is that evolution did happen, but that we are less certain of exactly how it happened, or exactly why things evolved. We know of course that natural selection was involved in population dynamics and such like, and so was mutation. But exactly what mutations, and selected under exactly what selection pressures, we may never know.

So will you admit that there are more unknowns than knowns?

How do you know God didn't just use the same designs in creating different species? There's no way you can prove this wrong. I'm sure you realize this.

The Platypus is a mammal, of the very small order Monotremata, which was seperated from other mammals early in their evolution when Australasia broke away from the asian subcontinent. It has evolved to suit a marine environment in Australia. It has evolved several functionally related features to help solve the unique problems of living in water, such as webbed feet and a duck-like bill.

So a mammal can develope bird-like or reptile-like functions, yet not have a common ancestor with a bird or reptile.

QUOTE 

Sigh. But there is no evidence for it. You already said there are no fish with stumps. 

Fish with stumps would be evidence of one particular theory of how life got onto land - what I claimed as a fact is that life did evolve onto land, not exactly how this happened.

Well, we should be making up stories that fish developed stumps with no proof.

QUOTE 

It's not hard to fathom because scientists are not given a CHOICE to believe in the creation theory. They aren't allowed to even discuss it in an educational setting. Do you think that's fair? 

Erm, I was saying that many evolutionary scientists DID believe in creation. How then, have they been brainwashed?

Well, they've still been brainwashed in an educational setting to believe that evolution occurred, although there is not much evidence to say this. My original question. Do you think it's fair that the creation theory or the YEC theory is not allowed to be discussed?

Also, please make a distinction between "creation" and "creationism". Creation is the idea that we are created by a deity or powerful entity. Creationism is the belief in the literal interpretation of the Genesis scriptures. Many scientists believe in Creation, and many scientists believe in Christ. No scientist believes in creationism.

What? No scientists beleive in creationism? Are you actually saying that you are not aware that there are scientists who are YECs?

QUOTE 

They look around and clearly see evidence of design and a designer but have no choice but to believe in evolution because they are taught no other alternatives and aren't even allowed to think about the creation theory at university level. 

There are two reasons why creationism is not taught at university (or in schools). Firstly, it's been proven wrong many times.

No it hasn't. That's like saying that evolution has been proven wrong. Creationists use the same evidence but come up with theories that are much different. That's all. But it's the same EVIDENCE. The same PROOF that you guys use.

QUOTE 

Don't you see this? There's a balance here. Creatures are designed to live harmoniously. It should be very obvious. The creatures that have more babies live shorter periods. The creatures that have fewer babies live longer. 

THis wouldn't prevent a population explosion. In fact, it would make it even worse - creatures that live a short period having many offspring would create a very very quick population explosion.

Have you seen a population explosion of mice? Or rabbits? When these creatures are left on their own, there is harmony. What are you talking about?

So, in answer to my question, what happens to all these excess young? If populations are stable, yet creatures are having thousands of children, what happens to the vast majority of these thousands of offspring? Given that you do not believe in natural selection, this should be a difficult question to answer.

The offspring have more offspring and then they die. What's your point?

QUOTE 

The fossil record is full of anomalies. You really should check them out. I mentioned an entire book dedicated to living fossils. Do you want to learn more about them, or have you already made up your mind? I asked you before if you wanted to learn more about them and you didn't answer. 

I'm happy to be linked into any peer reviewed literature you have on the fossil record.

Well, if the guy who wrote it is a scientist, then he's scientist! And he has plenty of PEERS who agree with him! lol! You just want to hear from PEERS who disagree with him, right? You just will not allow yourself to read such a book would you. Just can't open up your mind enough to judge for yourself, huh? You need to first rad the opinion of evolutionists, eh?

QUOTE 

And you haven't proven me wrong anyway. Surely there are stats out there - the ones we need but I can't find them. Can you? If so, prove me wrong. Be my guest. Why do you keep bringing this up? You haven't proven me wrong. 

It's not up to me to find them artsylady, but rather it is up to you. You made the claim about human and ape milk, so you can provide the evidence to back up your claim, otherwise I simply won't believe it.

Fine, don't believe it. Why do you keep bringing it up. I can't prove it, you can't prove it wrong, so that's why I dropped it. Why do you keep bringing it up? I don't understand. It's like the only thing you think I've said that is wrong, yet you haven't proven me wrong.

So, since you brought it up, did you find out how they date sand yet? Or are you going to drop that old anthropological find?

QUOTE 

Are you avoiding my question by asking a bunch more? Are these questions intimidation tactics? Sure sounds like it. So...... your answer is? I guess the question again. You asked for examples of predators that stick out like a sore thumb. I said snakes brightly colored - how 'bout red and black or yellow and black. So, why did they evolve to be so easily seen? I know it's a tough question, but you could at least try.

I'm not attempting to intimidate you, I am attempting to learn more about the species in question so that I can answer your queries.

Now, which species is it that you are talking about? Where do they live? What do they eat? How do they hunt? Where do they sit in the food chain? What sort of environment do they live in? What is their hunting strategy?

Fine. I'll find one for you and then you can answer. I figured you'd be well aware of them, but since you're not, I'll find one for ya, okay?

QUOTE 

The food chain - another perfect example. All creatures designed to live together. 

And eat each other. I thought there was no death before the fall?

Are we living before the fall?

QUOTE 

If survival of the fittest was true, any species could thrive and takeover if they could both have lots of babies that lived a long long time. 

This is a simple misunderstanding of game theory.

Firstly, not all creatures that live for a short time have few children, and vice versa. For example, Fish can live for 5 or 6 years (which is, in the animal kingdom, a medium life expectancy) but they are some of the most fecund animals on earth. You will have to show evidence of a positive correlation between lifespan and fecundity for me to believe this assertion.

In any case, they keep living in harmony. As you know, most extinctions are due to man's intervention. Most over population of a species is due to man's 'intelligent' intervention. Nature sure seems to have perfect design, doesn't it?

Secondly, it's not quite as simple for a species to "take over" as you'd think. For example, you say that it would be simple to take over if a species had a lot of babies.

No, I didn't say that. I said it would be simple for a species to take over if it lived LONG AND had a lot of offspring. And I mean a predatory animal - top of the food chain.

QUOTE 

Not true. In humans, unlucky mutations include dwarfism and downsyndrome. Through thousands of generations, these mutations have NOT disappeared.

Not so, they disappear almost every generation, downsyndrome children have very very little chance of reproducing. However, they also reappear. Mutations happen all the time, so the same unlucky mutation can happen again, and they do.

That's not true about down syndrome families, nor is it true of families where dwarfism is present. The chances of the baby inheriting these genes is very good, not small.

QUOTE 

I think I got it. Because we find old dead sea life and because we are now here, that means that we evolved from this old sea life. 

No, and again, you are being deliberately disengenous. We have other evidence that all animals are related, that we evolved from a common ancestor. Given that fact, and the fact that sea life comes first in the fossil record, we can conclude that life did indeed evolve onto land.

All we know from the fossil record is that certain animals DIED at a certain time. We don't know what animals are still out there living because we just don't know. there are just so many assumptions with evolution it's ridiculous.

QUOTE 

But you have me, the intelligent person, interfering with the process. I thought it all happened without intelligence or intervention. 

Firstly, not all evolutionists believe this - many believe in divine interference as well as natural selection.

Well do you believe that it happened with divine intervention or just all on it's own? If you believe it happened all on it's own, then your experiment of me taking the fish out of the water is silly. So if happened naturally, the real experiment would be to put a guppy in a tank with a shark to see if the guppy tries to get out and take breaths. What do YOU think would happen?

I can tell you haven't been praying SA. If you were, by now you'd be seeing how illogical this whole evolution argument really is. I sense that you really do WANT to believe in it. This is true, isn't it?

However, secondly, I have explained about fishes and hunting areas before, now several times.

And it still doesn't make sense. If the fishes developed lungs and legs way back when, why can't they do it today?????? If the scenarios you present, (lack of food or getting away from predators) happened back then, why can't we recreate them today to make them happen.

QUOTE

So, you think the guppy would jump up and hold it's breath in a tank with a shark all on its own?

No, but I do think it would head for shallower water all on it's own. In fact, if you had a population of guppies in a tank with a shark, and a shoreline, the guppies would head to shallower and shallower waters, depending on the size and range of the shark.

Okay. So they're NOT jumping out of the water anymore? Why don't the guppies just live in shallow waters?

I know this is tiresome for you but really, I want to get down to the nitty gritty here. I've heard nothing yet that has convinced me or even intrigued me. How do you do it? How do you maintain the kind of faith you have?

Also, if you put too little food in the tank to eat, but more and more food closer in land, the guppies that could get further onto the shore without being beached would tend to survive better, because they would have access to a larger hunting ground, and therefore more food.

Well of course, but this offers nothing to the process of developing lungs or legs.

QUOTE 

So the sickle-cell mutation is obviously not necessarily advantageous.

There is no such thing as a "necessarily advantegous" mutation.

What do you mean? Wouldn't the mutations that take a fin to a leg be very advantageous to fish that were starving while there is food on land?

[artsylady]

So, what's your answer? How often do bad mutations happen as opposed to 'good' ones? I'll give you multiple choice... a) often b) not very often c) seldom d) we don't know

[Kay]

I believe in the BIG BANG :x:

GOD SAID LET THERE BE LIGHT

AND BANG THERE WAS LIGHT

HE SAID LET THERE BE THE HEAVENS AND EARTH

AND BANG

:t:

just a lighter note on the subject

Love

K

[artsylady]

By the way, I did add some salt water to my fresh water fish tank.

:x:

I'll add a bit more in a few days and keep you posted.

[ajesuschrist_mathetes]

I recommend two specific books for those looking into the Creationism versus Evolution debate:

1. "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller [1999].

2. "Darwin's God" by Cornelius Hunter2001].

The first is by who i understand to be an highly esteemed evolutionist. He [as i recall] believes he has defeated Scientific Creationism. He says he is a Roman Catholic and believes in God and ties quantum mechanics into free-will and Bible prophecy.

My looking into this whole issue has pretty much focused on theodicy being behind Charles Darwin's work. That the amount of evil in the world just COULDN'T be due to an all-powerful all-loving Creator. My understanding of the thrust of Darwin's work was that he was a deist but pretty much thought that all was created by God but then He withdrew [so to speak] and let His laws play out. Therefore absolving Him of the horrible evil in "survival of the fittest".

2. above: it shows me that Evolution has fallen into an epistemological trap. In other words, since by the 150 or so years of evolution science God has been defined out of Creation and all that is REALLY left is "big-bang" kind of thinking with quantum fluctuations out of "nothing". In other words, whatever data Science uncovers/measures it by definition fits into Evolution since there is no God/Creator and therefore no other possibility.

"Scientific American's" "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" a few years back proved to me that Evolution has now become antiScience and proof by intimidation/derision/assertion.

[refugepsa91]

:hug: :il: thanks a bunch for the info on the books...I'm gonna check them out...next time I get to the book store...I will see if they can order them if they don't have them

Love and Blessings,

Angel

[ajesuschrist_mathetes]

:hug:  :il:  thanks a bunch for the info on the books...I'm gonna check them out...next time I get to the book store...I will see if they can order them if they don't have them 

Love and Blessings,

Angel

Dear Angel:

The computer i use pretty much daily is a free one available here at the downtown Schenectady NY library. One hour per day limit unless no one else waiting.

Re those 2 books:"Darwin's God" and "Finding Darwin's God". They are both here waiting to be borrowed. :hug:

Ron

[refugepsa91]

:il: thanks alot Ron...I would love to borrow those books from you...but I'm in Michigan...and whew the drive would wear me out :oww:

Love and Blessings,

Angel