- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by Stu.
- AuthorPosts
- March 1, 2004 at 12:41 pm#4286ProclaimerParticipant
I challenge anyone who believes in Evolution to provide some proof that it is true/fact and I challenge all those who do not believe it to provide some proof that it is wrong.
March 1, 2004 at 1:53 pm#4285ringo111ParticipantPlease refraze the question too.
“Do you believe the theory of Evolution to be true?”
Because I believe the theory because it is only a theory- and is not proven, how can you disprove something wrong that sets itself such a long “millions of years” cycle, or so they claim. Plenty of extinct creatures, but they ignore them. Things Die out- They dont change into something else.
I believe the theory is not True – because look at life- The inventer of the theory said That if we do not find millions of examples then the theory is false.
Also because the bible says GoD created the world in seven days. If this were not so , Then we would have been told. It would have said- God created the world in 10,000,000 years. But it does not- If your a christian. Believe the bible – LoL I remember seeing Benny Hinn- on his show- someone said to him- “Some Christians believe Evolution, But that GoD uses evolution” And Benny said, “What is evolution??” LOL's God works his healing power because the Man is faithfull- and he doesnt know what evolution is- LOLz!! But anyway-
Then once evolution was explained to him, Benny was so puzzled “If you believe this(evolution), how can you be saved??” “You either believe GoD's Word or you dont!”So there ya go ^_^
Well, I think Benny's reaction was cute, But a bit over the top. If you believe in evolution- and call yourself a christian. I dont think Its that big an issue- seen as there are more important things, such as giving to tha poor, being merciful, and so on. But non the less , If you want the truth Its right in frount of you.
March 1, 2004 at 8:56 pm#4287ProclaimerParticipantFair enough.
I changed it.March 2, 2004 at 4:57 am#4288ringo111ParticipantCool man, ^_^ many more respects for you. ^_^
Allthough leaving it as what you had previously would technically be ok. I believe wording tha question like this makes it more clear.
March 10, 2004 at 8:30 pm#4289Surgeon83ParticipantFirst of all there are many aspects of Darwin's theory that are obviously true; the first being the evolution of populations due to natural selection. The key to this mechanism of evolution is simple; Let's say there are 2 groups of ants, a red and black colony. Let's also say that there is an anteater which can notice red ants more so than the black ones. Over time the relative proportion or ratio of red to black ants will be quite small. This isn't profound, it's obvious. The problem occurrs when we start speaking of the evolution of individual species. This hasn't ever been recorded, anywhere. Remember, the mechanism by which evolution supposedly opporates is natural selection. However, this only acts in the here-and-now. In other words, a species cannot decide to evolve certain traits because it has a hinch that an ice age is approaching, this never happens, so the evolution of species is restricted to the present state.
Furthermore, we must also remember that members of different species cannot interbreed. In order for one species to change into another there must be a genetic mutation occuring somewhere in the DNA of the individual. Mutations occurr approx. 1/10,000 births; those aren't very good odds first of all. Secondly the mutation must occurr at a gene-expressing section of DNA. Remember, eukaryotic DNA, or animal DNA to be general, is mostly none-expressing. This means that most of the nucleotide base sequences don't code for any protein at all. So now what we have is a mutation which is a rare event occuring along a specific gene-expressing section of DNA (out of billions of DNA bases) and not only causing a genetic mutation that will cause the species to express different proteins (e.g.feathers on reptiles), but this mutation must be beneficial which further decreases the odds of this occurring. In my college bio textbooks there are horrible explanations for the evolution of species. One of which includes the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. It says that certain dinosaurs wanted to catch prey better, so they evolved feathers to increase surface area and started hopping around. Hop-hop-hop and eventually they're tweeting around in cages.lol. Essentially the theory of evolution is flawed. It is flawed in terms of statistics, molecular genetics, and biochemistry the likes of which would call for several volumes of pages like this one. Darwin at heart was a humanist although he put on the religious facade in order to be recieved by the community. He was also a staunch communist. I don't doubt that mutations could give rise to a new species, but we must remember, the unlikely mutation described above has to be done in the exact same manner at the exact same time in the same species of the opposite sex so that this “new” species can reproduce and propagate. So If you think that the mutation of such a manner is hard to believe, imagine having to do it twice in such a time period that reproduction is possible. Then we must consider this happening, not as a rare event, but a continuous process throughout all of the animal world; quite laughable if you ask me.March 10, 2004 at 11:10 pm#4290ProclaimerParticipantA good post Surgeon83,
Evolution is certainly an interesting theory, but it does encompass other ideas that are certainly true. E.g Adaptation of species where certain traits that are allowed in the gene pool become apparant when environmental conditions change to favour that trait in sexual reproduction and/or survival. I think that those people who do not believe the theory of Evolution would certainly accept adaptation within species and I am not sure whether such a concept is restricted to the theory of Evolution. As far as I know, scientists who believe in creation also accept adaptation.
One of the main precepts of Evolution is the idea that simple things become more complex given time, yet there are also laws such as we see in thermodynamics which say the opposite, that complex things break down into simple things given time. E.g an apple left to itself will eventually break down into it's basic elements to be recycled back into the environment.
Of course we believe that simple things do become more complex because we believe in a creator who can do such things, but if DNA code in a monkey is similar to a human, it only proves that the creator reuses his code, not that we came from monkeys. We see the same thing when we look at cars for example. If we look at a 1988 Honda Civic compared with a 1998 Honda Civic, we can see that there are ideas and features that are common. But both were created.
Another difficulty for the theory of Evolution is in describing how Evolution or nothing constructed what we see in the micro world of Quantum. In this level of creation, we see positive and negative protons that pair up and act in exact opposite manner to it's partner. E.g. a positive proton and it's negative partner will interact as if they were communicating with each other and will continue to do so, even if both protons are seperated by thousands of kilometers. If one needs the other and vice versa, then how does the simple become ordered in such a way, without a designer.
If we look at cyberspace or the virtual world we can see at it's quantum level, a world of binary 0s & 1s which are similar in concept to Quantum's positive and negative protons. Now if an artificial intelligence (AI) were created to exist within the virtual world, it could also come to the conclusion that there was no creator given that it cannot see the creator and his world, unless that creator put on a virtual visor or a virtual suit and immersed himself into his created world in order to reveal himself to his creation. Yet if this AI were wise he would only need to analyse the code to see that it is logically constructed and hence this would be ample evidence that an intelligence of some sort wrote this code. Same for us. We can see all the code at atomic and DNA level and we can observe the patterns in the micro and macro world and understand the laws that govern the universe, so it should be obvious that we have a creator that created/programmed this cosmos that we exist within.
As it is written:
Hebrews 3:4
For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.Psalm 53:1
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.April 29, 2004 at 3:00 am#4291AnonymousGuestI would like to add that every genetic mutation results in a loss of information. Surgeon83 is mistaken when he comments “mutations could give rise to a new species”. Genetic mutations have never resulted and will never result in a new species.
April 30, 2004 at 7:07 pm#4292saucyParticipantThe reason why I don't believe in evolution is simple. It takes common sense to look at the truth. Where did everything come from? Scientists say the first creature was bacteria. How did that bacteria come to be? Life cannot start itself. You can go back even further and the big bang theory. It doesn't make sense either. Where did all the matter come from that suddenly exploded. Everything needs to be created before coming into existance. Now, the big question isn't where we came from, but where did God come from??
May 1, 2004 at 4:07 am#4293Surgeon83ParticipantI do realize that There hasn't been any observation (to my knowledge) that has found a mutation to prompt the arrival of a new species. The mutation explanation was the one given to me by my biology professors who,by the way, find it quite difficult to explain the details as to how this has seemed to occur quite frequently in the cambrian period ,but has inevitably died out. I do find it interesting to go from a biochem and cell bio lecture and then meet some of these same professors who say this has all happened due to a chance combination of chemicals. As to saucy's comments I do think (as do most people I assume) that God is the final layer of existence beyond both our own universe and heaven itself.
I think of God as being the final layer to all of the universes and realms beyond our own. It is interesting to note that although much has been made about the birth of string theory and branes of neighboring universes colliding to initiate a “big bang” in our own, scientists (atheistic of course) keep attempting to dig deeper into our history only to find themselves at a loss for words as to how or why it all came about. It has become our own tower of babel if you will. Inevitably, most scientists searching the cosmos for our purpose must come to grips with an ever facing, simple answer to all their journeys, God.
God always was and will forever be the alpha and omega to all our questions of origin. Jesus neatly summed up all our questions with two words.June 28, 2004 at 3:24 am#4294IceisParticipantI alway say if evolution existed then wheres the half monkeys/half humans. ALso the whole fact that humans and animals cant breed. Theres no compatible Dna or something like that so we cant give birth to anything except humans. Wouldent we be able to if we did in fact come from other animals?
As to where did God come from. My youth leader put it this way. Humans are a fly compared to God….not even. We are just stupid and cant comprehend things like eterity and perfect happyness. We have never experienced it. God has and forever will be exsistant. We just simply cant comprehend that.
August 23, 2004 at 7:01 pm#4295itsmeParticipantQuote As to where did God come from. My youth leader put it this way. Humans are a fly compared to God….not even. We are just stupid and cant comprehend things like eterity and perfect happyness. We have never experienced it. God has and forever will be exsistant. We just simply cant comprehend that. Thats very interesting and so very true.
Another thing is like this…
a drawing on a simple sheet of paper is 2D right, lets say they are real. The drawing is lets say, you. You can't look up or down or whatever the deffinition of 2D is, but you don't have all the abilities of a 3Dimmentional person. You can't exactly see the 3D person. Now, we are 3D. If there are other dimmentions, lets say God is in one, then, we don't have all the abilities, not even close to it, that another dimmention person has.We can't see radio waves either…so how do we know they go past you, but you believe they do right.
I don't believe the theory of evolution is true at all. A theory is different than a fact. Evolution itself is change over a period of time, thats also different than the THEORY of evolution…
August 25, 2004 at 8:30 am#4296Is 1:18ParticipantQuote (itsme @ Aug. 23 2004,14:01) I don't believe the theory of evolution is true at all. A theory is different than a fact. Evolution itself is change over a period of time, thats also different than the THEORY of evolution… Hi itsme,
I agree it is just a theory, and one that is relatively easily refuted. Here are some arguments that I find compelling – collectively, they have convinced me that Darwinian evolution (the general theory of evolution) is completely fallacious:1. Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
If the living things we see around us today had really evolved from primordial single-celled organisms – there would be many intermediate or transitional forms (i.e those with halfway structures). However, there is not one specimen which someone could make a water tight argument for. A few highly-debatable fossils have been held up but their validity has been subsequently demolished by the majority of the palentological intelligensia (e.g archaeopteryx).2. The absurdity of transitional forms.
It is a widely held evolutionary belief that birds evolved from land animals. Although many pondered how feathers could have developed (they are lightweight, strong aerodynamically-shaped with an intricate structure of barbs and hooks – a near perfect adaption for flight) given that the macro-evolution is essentially directionless and random (what would be the mechanism for the change?). Even if it could have happaned the transitional form would be this creature with partially-developed feathers on its limbs. This would have inhibited its competitiveness (it would be less fit to survive) – being not developed enough to allow flight (or insulation) but developed enough to reduce mobility. This halfway organism, totally vulnerable to any predator, would be selected AGAINST, quickly becoming extinct. You could make the same case for any of the transition phases btwn main forms.3. DNA is too complex to have evolved.
DNA is the most compact and efficient information storage and retrieval system known to mankind. There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Britannica (30 volumes) three or four times over. Further, the amount of DNA that you could on a pinhead is equivalent in information content to a pile of books that when stacked would reach 300 times the distance the earth is from the moon. Yet it has specified complexity – that is the specific way it is ordered produces a meaningful instruction. This cannot evolve from nothing – not in any concievable timeframe.4. Cosmology
How did the universe come about?
creationist's answer: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1)
Evolutionist's answer (at present): In the beginning there was nothing…….then it exploded.
The anthropic principle is also good evidence for a God-created earth. It states that everything is in perfect balance. The size of the earth is just big enough to support an atmosphere. The distance from the sun is just right to support life (1% closer or further away and we would be incinerated or snap frozen). It all points to design.5. Mutations dont add information.
Mutations are essential to explain the addition of information needed to facilitate a change of one organism to another. However, mutations can only eliminate information and cannot produce new features. Ditto for natural selection – it can account for the modification of existing structures (e.g. Darwins finchs and their diverse beak morphologies) but not the development of new ones.The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Ps 19:1
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes,
His eternal power and devine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse. Rom 1:20God Bless
August 25, 2004 at 4:15 pm#4297itsmeParticipantso true…
If evolution is true, then all of us are accidents, and therefore have no purpose in existence or accountability to a Higher Being. No one would have free choice to decide between good and evil, because there would be no good or evil. You are just a product of millions of accidents, your environment, and your genes. Death is final, and there is no eternal spirit in man.
If creation is true, and the God of the Bible did design the world, then as Creator, He is also Owner. If He is the Owner, He has the right to set the rules. He is the ultimate authority for all mankind…each of us will answer to Him. You do have free choice, because God made you with the ability to either accept or reject His plan. Good and evil exist based upon whether or not we follow God's instructions. If creation is true, then there is a spiritual world and an afterlifeAugust 25, 2004 at 4:17 pm#4298itsmeParticipantoh…i also got this off of a site i think its: http://www.ldolphin.org/
but its real interesting.
They tell us that 3,000,000 species of plants and animals developed from one primordial germ, in 60,000,000 years. How many new species should have arisen in the last 6,000 years? Now 20 doublings of the first species of animals would make 1,048,576 species, since 2 raised to the 20th power becomes 1,048,576. Again we will favor the evolutionists by omitting from the calculation all species of animals in excess of 1,048,576. Therefore, on an average, each of the 20 doublings would take 1/20 of 60,000,000 years, or 3,000,000 years; and, therefore, 1/2 of the entire 1,048,576 species, or 524,288 species, must have originated within the last 3,000,000 years. Can that be the case? Certainly not.
March 15, 2005 at 10:20 pm#5696CubesParticipantIn our day to day lives, I can't think of anything that is done without design: eg. cooking a meal, the cars we drive, a garment, etc. Thus when I consider the universe and all that is in it, I find it hard to believe that there is no designer.
The scientific study of nature reveals design and purpose, as well as beauty. I am yet to appreciate the beauty and function of a car that has been totalled in an accident (chaos is more the obvious), whereas, a new vehicle in a showroom lends itself to beauty, order and function.
This applies to our own design/body as well as to a bacteria cell or leaf, or a drop of water or a flake of snow…
Great is the LORD and greatly to be praised.
March 19, 2005 at 10:55 am#5744ProclaimerParticipantVery true Cubes,
A good post. Brief, to the point and true.
April 26, 2005 at 10:34 pm#6698NickHassanParticipantHi ,
I agree. I look at a seed and see a tree. Amazing.April 26, 2005 at 11:57 pm#6709ProclaimerParticipantGod is awesome.
He created a universe and we live on a planet that revolves around a star of which there are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. On top of that the Hubble Telescope has revealed 100s of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars. Now scientists are discovering other planets that revolve around other stars.
If our solar system is average having 9 or so planets, then 9 x 100 billion x 100 billion planets? That is probably a conservative estimate I am sure. That doesn't even include the moons. Some moons around Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus are earth sized and spectacular.
Then when we look at a small object like a leaf under a microscope, we see another universe of protons, electrons etc. His creation is truly vast and beyond our comprehension.
Nevertheless God is bigger and better than that which he has made. He is forever to be praised. What a priviledge that we should be called sons of the living God.
How can we not thank him for giving us life and then inviting us to live with him forever.
It goes beyond words.
April 29, 2005 at 2:29 am#6776AnonymousGuestQuote (Iceis @ June 28 2004,04:24) My youth leader put it this way. Humans are a fly compared to God….not even. We are just stupid and cant comprehend things like eterity and perfect happyness. We have never experienced it. God has and forever will be exsistant. We just simply cant comprehend that.
Your youth leader has been brainwashed and is attempting to do it to you as well. “We just simply can't comprehend that”. This is what you are being taught? Why not just stop questioning all theory and occurences.June 4, 2005 at 4:22 am#7082NickHassanParticipantQuote (Guest @ April 29 2005,03:29) Quote (Iceis @ June 28 2004,04:24) My youth leader put it this way. Humans are a fly compared to God….not even. We are just stupid and cant comprehend things like eterity and perfect happyness. We have never experienced it. God has and forever will be exsistant. We just simply cant comprehend that.
Your youth leader has been brainwashed and is attempting to do it to you as well. “We just simply can't comprehend that”. This is what you are being taught? Why not just stop questioning all theory and occurences.
Welcome john,
What do you mean? Do you think we should not think? Should we just keep our heads down and eat the grass like sheep or cows in the paddock?
In some ways you are right. If we had faith we would be like them living our lives and serving God in all our work, without a care in the world, completely trusting our God to provide for us.
God has given us the extraordinary beauty and harmony of the universe down to the tiny ants working together for the good of their community. He expects us to consider these things and find in them His influence and reality and to worship him.
Instead those who discover some aspect of His mighty works attribute it all to some strange intelligent amorphous influence they call nature, and think they are clever for finding some small part of it's beauty. - AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.