[_ Old Earth _] Death and old age

[Barbarian]

A statistician decided to crunch the actual numbers to support the random nature of the theory of evolution.

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. Natural selection is the antithesis of random.

He wasn't quite able to do it.

Bad assumption, failed conclusion.

The numbers seemed to indicate that within the scope and timeframe of life as it developed on earth, the results cannot be explained with evolution as a purely random process.

It's not.

Something was guiding the course of evolution, a hidden hand if you will, "forcing" the results.

It's called "natural selection." And we can observe it working. Would you like to learn about it?

 

[brujaq]

I don't see how He couldn't. He made it, after all.



The Bible doesn't say so.

Ha, let me cornbread this down for you, did Jesus know and could trace his genealogy back to King David then on back to Adam and Eve both through his Mother and his legal but not biological father Joseph ?

 

[Barbarian]

Didn't papa Darwin himself say ''simple single cell''

Yep. Darwin didn't have a theory about the origin of life. He just supposed that God had created the first living things.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Evolution provides the only excuse for the godless

See above. You've been misled.

And the more is discovered the farther out in left field and unbelievable evolution becomes

It's directly observed to happen. Can't get more certain than that. If you love God, you know that He is Truth. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth. Open your heart to Him and let Him decide how creation should be.

 

[Barbarian]

Ha, let me cornbread this down for you, did Jesus know and could trace his genealogy back to King David then on back to Adam and Eve both through his Mother and his legal but not biological father Joseph ?

You've been misled about that. The two different genealogies in the Bible both claim to be through Joseph.

 

[brujaq]

When Joseph married Mary he became her parents son by law according to Jewish custom and known as such .. Jesus was not only the Son of God but his genealogy included both the Kingly line and Priestly line through his legal but not biological father then also flesh son of David through his mother Mary ..

 

[brujaq]

Yep. Darwin didn't have a theory about the origin of life. He just supposed that God had created the first living things.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species



See above. You've been misled.



It's directly observed to happen. Can't get more certain than that. If you love God, you know that He is Truth. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth. Open your heart to Him and let Him decide how creation should be.

Darwin is your hero not mine ..

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin is just a great scientist, not a hero. But I do agree with him that God created life. Don't you?

 

[Barbarian]

When Joseph married Mary he became her parents son by law according to Jewish custom and known as such .. Jesus was not only the Son of God but his genealogy included both the Kingly line and Priestly line through his legal but not biological father then also flesh son of David through his mother Mary ..

That's not what it says. I'll go with the Bible as it is, not how someone thinks it should have been.

 

[brujaq]

That's not what it says. I'll go with the Bible as it is, not how someone thinks it should have been.

Does a man and his wife become one flesh ?

Darwin is just a great scientist, not a hero. But I do agree with him that God created life. Don't you?

I know God created everything the way he said he did , what I don't believe is that the Galapagos tortoise evolved from finches or vice versa

 

[Runner]

Remove my brain ? Most of us ? Did Jesus believe in Evolution, I believe he created on the fly .. I'll stick in his company .. God bless you ..

You made the point that I was going to: I don't believe "most of us" is true of the entire Christian community. According to a Pew chart in Wikipedia, evolution is accepted by 58% of Catholics, 54% of Orthodox, 51% of Mainline Protestant, 24% of Evangelical Protestants, 22% of Mormons, and only 8% of Jehovah's Witnesses. (Go, JW!) Given the level of indoctrination by the educational system over the past 50 years, these figures strike me as fairly surprising.

Long before I had dived into the work of Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, et al. - indeed, even before I became a Christian at age 20 - I had a deep, abiding sense that something was radically, fundamentally wrong with the Darwinian explanation. Now, having dived deeply into the work of Behe, Meyer, et al., it is clear to me that something is radically, fundamentally wrong with the Darwinian explanation. This has not caused me to leap immediately into the camp of the Young Earth Creationists, but it has certainly reinforced my belief that the confident pronouncements of evolutionists must be taken with a very large grain of salt because the evolutionary paradigm is every bit as much a "religion" with its own "fundamentalist true believers" as Young Earth Creationism.

At some point, theological views do have to accommodate the best scientific evidence. The position that the earth is not flat is not mandated by the Bible (neither is Young Earth Creationism), is contrary to every last bit of scientific evidence, and can be demonstrated as false by the simplest of observations. It's a purely theological position. The evidence for Darwinian evolution is not even close to this level of certainty - and indeed, scientists are increasingly having to revise the paradigm or even admit that something is radically, fundamentally wrong with it. It has, for example, been fairly convincingly argued that the 4+ billion years over which evolution has supposedly worked its random magic are not even close to sufficient time for what supposedly occurred to have actually occurred.

As leading Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has pointed out, the notion that evolution must be an unguided, purely materialistic process is not properly part of evolutionary theory. It is a "metaphysical add-on" for the sole purpose of bringing evolutionary theory under the umbrella of the materialistic, atheistic paradigm. God-initiated and God-guided evolution is equally consistent with evolutionary theory, albeit inconsistent with the special creation of humans the Bible describes. If forced by scientific reality to accept God-initiated and God-guided evolution, I guess I would do so - but I am a long way from that point and continue to have a near-conviction that something is and will eventually be proven to be radically, fundamentally wrong with the evolutionary paradigm.

 

[brujaq]

Hi runner , very intelligent post . When I became born again I believed Jesus even though I didn't know much about him but I dove in with my whole heart, all of him . Before, I was certain and sure of evolution . I have been horrible as a Christian at times, still am at times but I've sought my salvation with fear and trembling . I've had a burden for lost souls and am basically unchurched . I have received dreams, visions, gifts of the Spirit, healings, many miracles and about everything else through fasting , prayer, seeking and doing. Half my Christian life I've been opposed telling me what to think about God or that God doesn't do this or he did it this way . Don't get me wrong, I love church and consider it all but there is only one gospel. My stance on Jesus and creation is rock solid and not based on what others see. The Word of God is the greatest and most dependable thing I've ever come across and I've found that if I conform myself I am never dissatisfied . I believe first then wait on my answers, by now I already know it's true all of it but had faith from day one. I enjoy the sparring and have regard for every soul here , if I ever come across as offensive it is never my intent . A man threatened to shoot me with a shotgun once for witnessing Jesus, he didn't scare me but I was hurt that he was so hurt by the Gospel . I also tend to take a non personal approach so that some one will not feel obligated to agree with me against their inner thoughts . It's OK to let me have it if you wish, I'm not into being a control freak . Jesus is Lord over all and compromise is out of the question

 

[KevinK]

Would you like to learn about it?

I already have a degree in it.

 

[KevinK]

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. Natural selection is the antithesis of random.



Bad assumption, failed conclusion.



It's not.



It's called "natural selection." And we can observe it working. Would you like to learn about it?

I think the purpose of the study was to confirm/deny randomness after taking into account the process of natural selection. Of course they would have used n.s. as the baseline for the study. There is still plenty of variability after that. Sorry if my original post didn't explain the details of the research more.

 

[Barbarian]

I think the purpose of the study was to confirm/deny randomness after taking into account the process of natural selection. Of course they would have used n.s. as the baseline for the study. There is still plenty of variability after that. Sorry if my original post didn't explain the details of the research more.

"Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all."

But that's where the smart money is.

 

[Barbarian]

I already have a degree in it.

You have a degree in natural selection? It appeared that you didn't know that natural selection was the "hidden hand."

The term is usually, "invisible hand." The Darwinian paradigm was influenced by the writings of Adam Smith, the apostle of free-market economics, and by Malthus' observation that population tends to outrun resources. Smith argued that the nature of economics decreed that market forces and self-interest were more efficient in allocating goods and services than any planner could be.

Likewise, Darwin argued that natural selection by the survival of the fit, was more efficient at producing successful organisms than any conscious effort to do so.

 

[Barbarian]

I think the purpose of the study was to confirm/deny randomness after taking into account the process of natural selection. Of course they would have used n.s. as the baseline for the study. There is still plenty of variability after that. Sorry if my original post didn't explain the details of the research more.

Yeah, I didn't get that. The observation is that the fit tend to survive, but surely they don't always. And natural selection can drive a population into an evolutionary dead end that leads to extinction. In fact, that seems to be the ultimate fate of almost all populations, in much the same way as only a very few people who lived a thousand years ago, account for the vast majority of people living today; most humans don't have a line of descendants that long.

And the finding of Kimura show that neutral mutations have a significant effect in evolution, and may later give rise to genes that are not neutral.

 

[reba]

KevinK

 

[reba]

 

[KevinK]

Wow, you made me a cake and everything. How does it taste?

 

[reba]

great