Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

I am not questioning whether or not God created it, but I believe in evolution. The question is 'was everything (including humanity) created by the Almighty in seven days, or did the species Homo sapiens sapiens evolve from slight mutations?'

---

I have said all along that God created everthing, but evolution shaped it into what it is today. Now tell me, B-Mental, kind sir, why that makes me wrong? I do not understand nor see the significance of such charts as posted by Loki, to me that takes a great deal of acceptence on faith alone. I can go get fresh fossil seacreatures from a mountain side not too far from here, where the AT crosses. I've found some very neat ones. But I cannot accept everything evolving from one cell or whatever. Each evolved from the creature God made into the creature they are now. That is how I believe evolution. Was I a rabid, dyed in the wool creationist, I couldn't even accept that. But I can think. We are not all one race, we have evolved and changed, so it stands to reason the animals and plant life have done the same. And I believe the process still continues... How about that? It goes on unstopable every day, changing just a bit. Thank you for your time. God bless.

If Darwinian evolution is true, then God has nothing to do with the origin of life. Some Christian say that God could have used evolution to bring about life. This is called theistic evolution.
Theistic evolutionists believe that God "created the first spark of life then directed his creation through the vehicle of gradual evolution". How can that coincide with Christian beliefs (God is love,...) if evolutionists refer to the process of evolution as cruel and wasteful (elimination of weakest species,...)?

The roots of modern science are grounded in a Christian view of the world. This is not surprising, since science is based on the assuption that the universe is orderly and lawful; which would seem to be the effect of an intelligent Cause.
One cannot say that the biblical worldview of early modern scientists doesn't apply anymore, and that now "science" has demonstrated that life could evolve on its own. There is evidence of design, and hence a designer. Science today cannot prove the opposite.

And who says that evolution is objectively scientifically proven?
Evolution has 2 main ideas :
1. Spontaneous generation. "Life started in awarm pond"
Researchers have attempted to prove that life could have simply happened. Origin-of-life experiments (the "re-enactments" of how life came to be) have 11 major problems, one of them alone would stop the progress from non-living molecules to living cells.
Evolution says : life comes from non-life
Science says : life comes from life
Professor Dean Kenyon, a biochemist and former chemical evolutionist, now writes, "When all relevant lines are taken into account, and all the problems squarely faced, I think we must conclude that life owes its inception to a source outside nature."
2. Natural selection. Darwin made a trip to the Galapagos Islands and dicovered birds whose beak sizes we a little different. He thought he had sicovered evolution in action. Evolution assumes that all of the diversity of life came from simpler, less complex forms of life. For this to work though, new complex structures must emerge. For evolution to occur, you have to "add new stuff". What Darwin called "natural selection" was actually "adaptation".
So what you could call "microevolution" is true and proven: species can change slightly to adapt to their invoronments (it's true with humans too, compare the body of an eskimo to that of an african bushman). But these small adaptive changes have never been observed to lead to whole new structures (=Darwinian evolution).
Edward Deevey Jr. wrote "Some remarkable things have been done by crossbreeding and selectiong inside the speecies, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such a the wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit; and we can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can mke cylindical eggs."

Wow.... I didn't mean for this to be so long.... just wanted to open some eyes to the lacking scientific data on evolution.
I think the reason evolution has lasted so long is that no one has found a better argument against what the Bible says to be true; and milions of people have whole careers based on the "facts of evolution".
Check out this article analysing a documentary on evolution for more indept stuff.

For those of you who have stuck with me this long, thank you... don't know if I would have!

Good day.

"Every advance in fundamental physics seems to uncover yet another facet of order" (so says non-christian physicist Paul Davies). But stirct evolution demands chance rather than a Law-Maker as the guiding force........ hmmmm.

The two theories are not completely exclusive. Beleif in evolution or the Big Bang should not necessarily mean that there is no higher power.
Belief in God, likewise, should not rule out scientific discoveries and theories.
It bugs me that rational people can't see that. It's not an either/or proposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by querida

The roots of modern science are grounded in a Christian view of the world. This is not surprising, since science is based on the assuption that the universe is orderly and lawful; which would seem to be the effect of an intelligent Cause.
One cannot say that the biblical worldview of early modern scientists doesn't apply anymore, and that now "science" has demonstrated that life could evolve on its own. There is evidence of design, and hence a designer. Science today cannot prove the opposite.

And who says that evolution is objectively scientifically proven?
Evolution has 2 main ideas :
1. Spontaneous generation. "Life started in awarm pond"
Researchers have attempted to prove that life could have simply happened. Origin-of-life experiments (the "re-enactments" of how life came to be) have 11 major problems, one of them alone would stop the progress from non-living molecules to living cells.
Evolution says : life comes from non-life
Science says : life comes from life
Professor Dean Kenyon, a biochemist and former chemical evolutionist, now writes, "When all relevant lines are taken into account, and all the problems squarely faced, I think we must conclude that life owes its inception to a source outside nature."
2. Natural selection. Darwin made a trip to the Galapagos Islands and dicovered birds whose beak sizes we a little different. He thought he had sicovered evolution in action. Evolution assumes that all of the diversity of life came from simpler, less complex forms of life. For this to work though, new complex structures must emerge. For evolution to occur, you have to "add new stuff". What Darwin called "natural selection" was actually "adaptation".
So what you could call "microevolution" is true and proven: species can change slightly to adapt to their invoronments (it's true with humans too, compare the body of an eskimo to that of an african bushman). But these small adaptive changes have never been observed to lead to whole new structures (=Darwinian evolution).
Edward Deevey Jr. wrote "Some remarkable things have been done by crossbreeding and selectiong inside the speecies, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such a the wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit; and we can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can mke cylindical eggs."

---

My thanks for stating scientifically what I in my fumbling way, (if you look back over my posts, you'll see it!) have been trying to say. No species change, change within the species in order to adapt to the changing world around us. God bless.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

Phylogeny & Ontogeny?

---

Would you care you elaborate, B-Mental?

I'll try... xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

I'll try... during the course of embryo development, the embryo shows similarities to other species we "possibly" evolved from. This is most notably witnessed in the development of the nervous system. Perhaps I'll be able to find some demonstrations on the internet. In a nutshell, we share embryonic stages with other species, which evolutionists use to suggest our evolutionary ancestry.

---

I too have noted some strange similarities with other species.One head,two eyes,two ears,and one nose!...Hmm.,possibly we evolved from them!?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigDaddy_GFS

The two theories are not completely exclusive. Beleif in evolution or the Big Bang should not necessarily mean that there is no higher power.
Belief in God, likewise, should not rule out scientific discoveries and theories.
It bugs me that rational people can't see that. It's not an either/or proposition.

---

When has a religious fanatic been rationally able to understand that??

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

Bilateral symmetry, wow you're very observant, your wit is actually the truth. I'm talking about a presence of a notochord in embryos. Prior to lung development embryos show a proto-gill, I'll find some more examples.

In general, the embryos do not display certain attributes of lets say starfish, so we can rule out starfish as your predecessor if that makes you feel better. Did you notice a head, reffered to as encephalization. Animals that don't have heads are generally believed to have ancestors that evolved prior to cephalization. Keep up the good work okmit, you might stumble across something else.

---

Thank you,I do believe I just may have stumbled across another observation at that!In every attempt to explain how the cake in the oven came out a pie the proof offered always consists of the hard facts of ,generaly BELIEVED,similarities suggest,it appears possible,etc.But the missing link is still missing!Unless one believes the link is an omnipotant creator.In which case one needn't consider how a komodo dragon may have evolved from a crockodile,or a human from a star fish,or ape.

as per PMxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

I've ruled out starfish for you, but feel free to keep looking. I'm going to stay off of this thread, I've decided I've been convinced and am now a die-hard cretonationist. I can now go about my life with my head held high. Thank you all for your comments.

---

Hmm...Creationist vs Idiots?A challenge to the mentally deficient?

I thank you for ruling out star fish for my benifit but it really isn't my quest to establish a missing link.But I would caution any geologist to go through life with their head held high...Hmm.

B-Mental,till our paths cross again,B-Cool

well, you can't go callign evolutionists (???) idiots. It's bad arguing...called poisoning yonder well.