- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
God holds the patents on a lot of designs. Very intelligent engineers are copying a lot of those designs. If intelligence is required simply to copy nature, wouldn't intelligence be required to create it in the first place?
Then again, males have belly buttons. So, that's one for evolution. (just kidding.)
On the other hand, you have different fingers.
It seems when discussing the theory of evolution with people, they get stuck in the ape transitions and the drawings they've been show by “scientists.” Proof enough.
It's better and easier to cut through all that, and go to the beginning. Everything they've ever known had a beginning. The Bible says the universe had a beginning. Science finally caught up in the last century and realized that the universe had a beginning. The question science doesn't care to consider is: why? why is there anything when there could be nothing? There used to be nothing. And then, suddenly, for some reason, or for no reason, as some would argue, the universe came into being. Everything from nothing. Seems a magic trick. It seems too that for every effect, there is a cause. It's one of the laws of thermodynamics. What or who caused the universe to come to be? Science tells us that there should be a cause. But there was nothing there to cause it. Quite troubling. Quite.david.
There are too many reasons to list, of why evolution is just a false hope for those who wish to eliminate God from existence.
I agree Iceis,
Apart from my faith in the scriptural account my main objections to the theory of evolution comes from two points.
1) Evolution does not answer origins it only prolongs the question. This doesn't nullify the theory but it certainly makes it less useful.
2) Darwin himself said that if 'missing links' aren't found his theory will collapse. If evolution were true then there would be missing links. The problem is not just that we can't find missing links but that there should be MORE missing links than standard fossils. The theory demands millions and millions of missing links. Yet, we find only standard fossils. If evolution were true we should expect to find almost nothing but missing links and only rarely find what we consider to be 'standard', but this simply is not the case.
By virture of my personal relationship with God, I know the bible to be his Word, and the bible states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. And then, it goes on to tell us that God created all of the host of the heaven and the earth including mankind. That is proof enough for me. God said it that settles it.
Besides, scientists cannot originate life. Only God can do that.
Quote (david @ Sep. 14 2006,11:06) God holds the patents on a lot of designs. Very intelligent engineers are copying a lot of those designs. If intelligence is required simply to copy nature, wouldn't intelligence be required to create it in the first place?
Sure thing, David.For something (the universe and all that is in it) that just happened accidentally without rhyme or reason, it seems the best minds are devoted to doing all they can to understand it. The funny thing is as you say, that they themselves should then go on to try and design those same seemingly undesigned designs for the betterment of mankind! Go figure.
I do not believe in the theory of evolution or that god used evolution to create the universe. As a Jehovah's Witness I believe in the creation account of Genesis. But I also believe that this can agree with science. We have many publications on this subject. Science and religion begin to contradict when people see creation as having taken place in seven literal 24 hour days. The word that is used in the genesis account does not neccessarily mean a literal day but could refer to an extended period of time. This can be shown later in genesis when all seven of the days of creation are referred to as a day. So the days of creation could be long periods of times. There is more scriptural evidence of this but I am at work right now and do not have the exact scriptures in front of me. If you want the exact verses that I am referring to I can get them at a later time. The theory of evolution is just that a theory and many scientists struggle with the lack of evidence and missing peices. Many agree that their is much evidence of intelligent design but as scientists they refuse to look at the fact that there is a creator. Scientists have tried for many years to prove evolution through experiments and they have failed. I have a publication that discusses evolution or creation and the experiments involved in determining this argument. If anyone is interested in the bible based book let me know and I can get you a copy.
Hi and welcome jmc,
The JW denomination cannot save you.
Have you found safety yet in the Son of God?
We are told to seek FIRST the kingdom of God and everything else will be added to us and it would be sad if your zeal and thirst for knowledge was not associated with God's gift of salvation in the Son.Nick,
I do seek the kingdom first and do believe in salvation through the son of God. It sounds as if you are confused on some of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. We beleive the kingdom of God is the only hope for mankind and we need to put that first and foremost in our lives.Hi jm,
You must be reborn and let the king take up residence within us for him to begin reigning here too.Hitler believed and practiced evolution. He exercised his right to become the dominant human (type) and tried to kill off what he thought were humans closer to monkeys. So to the argument that religion starts all wars, well lets just say that certain philosophies do, when exercised.
As for intelligent design, well it is obvious that intelligence designed and made the universe. Intelligent design without a designer hasn't been observed in any field.
Shall we just believe that cyberspace created itself and web pages were bytes that crawled out of the binary soup of cyberspace. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the result of these bits and bytes being assembled by cyber-selection to the highest degree of complexity and performance as defined and allowed by the cyberspace environment.
Of course those nutters that say Cyberspace was designed and made should be locked up.
Even this post was the result of a self-made AI bot floating through the binary of cyberspace.
On the serious side, scripture says that it is a fool who denies that a creator exists.
t8 wrote:
“Hitler believed and practiced evolution…As for intelligent design, well it is obvious that intelligence designed and made the universe.”
Hitler practiced mass murder, which he justified with his insane prejudices. Would you call what Hitler did “evolution by natural selection”?
It is not obvious to me that “intelligence designed and made the universe”. What is obvious is that humans have an evolutionary advantage in looking for and finding patterns, even when there are no real patterns to be found. The “logic” goes: we design things; we think we know what “designed things” look like; we think the universe looks designed; therefore there is a designer.
In any case wouldn't a designer herself need designing?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 18 2007,21:13) Hitler practiced mass murder, which he justified with his insane prejudices. Would you call what Hitler did “evolution by natural selection”?
Yes.He was exerting his right according to evolution to create a dominant type of man.
The same method that Cromagnon, Neanderthals became extinct, he tried to overtake other human races with the Arian race.
Evolution in it's very core justifies murder. It says that species have the right and do take over ecosystems and annihilate the old and less flexible evolutionary models.
To Hitler, blonde and blue eyes were the most advanced humans. Hitler even had museums where he displayed pictures of Jews next to monkeys to prove that they were closer to monkeys than other humans.
Yes you are right, Hitler was a mass murderer. If he was successful and only blonde people inhabited earth, then say thousands of years later a future human race could say it was evolution plain and true and why not, the same thing was suppose to of happened with other earlier humans.
It doesn't matter that Hitler didn't succeed.
But I don't believe in the lie of evolution anyway. Hitler was a murderer and he was mad and he will be judged by a living and holy God who is the ultimate judge.
You do suggest a good point – a philosophical one – that what humans do can be described as “natural”, as we are all part of the same global ecosystem ultimately. I'm not sure though how Darwin's theory gives anyone the right to murder others. Perhaps you're thinking of Social Darwinism which was a crackpot manifestation of the racism endemic in the 19th century. Evolution by natural selection is not a manifesto. In fact, the theory says that all species/races extant today are collectively the most evolved, being as they are the latest in an unbroken succession of successful reproduction by living things suited to their environments well enough to be able to reproduce.
I think I would argue against considering the Cro-Magnons to be extinct as they were Homo Sapiens, a species very much still around. You are right that our ancient ancestors caused the extinction of Neanderthals, but you can't really call that any kind of intergenerational murderous conspiracy – H. Sapiens was simply better at exploiting the commonly-shared resources at the expense of other hominids (of course we still have more distant cousins around, like Chimpanzees and Orangutans, because in the past we haven't competed directly with them for resources).
I assume you reject the theory of evolution by natural selection for religious reasons. Of course it is your right to believe as you wish for whatever reasons you might have, but I hope you and others contributing to this forum would have the honesty to say that (if) they reject evolution they do so because of an unbending faith in scripture, and DESPITE the huge mass of corroborating scientific evidence.
Stuart
Hi Stu and welcome!
I have a good friend who believes in Evolution and we have some lively conversations.
There is “evidence” in both camps, depending on who's research you *choose* to believe.
I believe it takes just as much faith to believe that we evolved as it takes to believe we are created.I say – pick your camp of choice.
One camp comes with no hope of a future after death (unless you believe we evolve/die/evolve again); whereas the other camp offers a hope of eternal life, and a loving heavenly family.
Quote (Stu @ July 18 2007,22:26) I'm not sure though how Darwin's theory gives anyone the right to murder others.
Evolution doesn't call it murder. It is called survival of the fittest. The end result can be the same in that one sub-species kills another to occupy the same ecosystem that they are competing for. The other culling or extinction happens because of the environment itself, such as the theory that dinosaurs were wiped out because they couldn't adapt to an earth affected by a massive comet collision.Charles Darwin was scared to promote his theory and only did so, when another person was going to beat him to publishing this view point. He actually held onto his theory for almost 10 years (I think) before publishing it. What was he so afraid of? It was possible that he understood the ethical connotations of his theory.
It is said that he repented for what he had done on his death bed. I can't prove it and I don't have time right now to quote that from a source.
Not3in1: Thanks for the welcome. I'm afraid I will have to differ with you on the “whose research” thing. The fact is that so called young-earth creation scientists actually do pretty much no original scientific research but spend their time reinterpreting the work of others. There are three characteristics of this activity that particularly grate on those who hold science in high regard: firstly they interpret evidence by making the most tortuous and nonsensical assumptions (eg: variable radioactive decay rates, variable speed of light, wildly accelerated speed of continental drift, deposition rates many orders of mag. higher than observed today), secondly they pick on a few outlying data points and use them to ridicule the otherwise obvious trendline. Lastly, they ridicule honesty. When a biochemist says she can speculate intelligently but doesn't know for sure exactly how abiogenesis occurred, that is an honest scientific response but your YECer will say that “the evolutionist can't explain it therefore Zeus did it” or some equivalent nonsense. Your tag “An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest.” sums up the YECs more eloquently that I can.
Iam fortunate to have the love of my biological family but you will forgive me, I hope, saying that I relish the thought of a final death with no afterlife, and that the myth of a heavenly after-match function gives me no comfort at all. Still, each to their own myths!
t8 If I understand you right, you are saying that early humans went around bashing Neandethals over the head. This is bound to have happened occasionally but surely Neanderthals were not culled into extinction. I'm not sure if I made my point well enough: Darwin said many racist things, as did nearly all europeans (including Good Christians) of the 19th century. However his theory clearly implies that all living things today are equally “well evolved” and therefore there is no heirarchy on that basis. Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with murder!
You are right, I believe, that Darwin kept his theory to himself for fear of the consequenses and was forced into publication by others who had come up with the same idea, however the deathbed recanting of it is a myth refuted by his daughter who was with him at his death. In any case, even if Darwin recanted every bit of his theory, that would not falsify it.
Hi and welcome Stu,
You have an admirable faith in science, the measuring tool of reality and which is limited by our understanding and our senses to what is measurable.
Do you have any awareness of deeper things or is everything explicable to you in our terms?Thanks for your welcome, Nick.
I prefer the word trust to the word faith. There is plenty of evidence that science works, so there is no need for faith. I have some training in science, but of course I cannot know everything personally that scientists know collectively, so I trust what others say about their own fields of expertise in the knowledge that eventually the process of self-correction by peer review will flush out any charlatans.
It doesn't follow that there could be anything that we would be aware of that could not be measured by our senses or the tools we use to extend them. I'm curious to know what these “deeper things” could be. Can you enlighten me?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
