• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] The Evolution Of Evolution.

John

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
6,134
Reaction score
1
Has evolution been evolving? Modern science says "YES!" Since the birth of evolution theory in the 1800s, evolutionists have been struggling to find a mechanism that can actually cause evolution. Where has this journey taken them? Take a look for yourself and you will see that from the beginning, evolution has been evolving, and it has still not improved. This episode of "Creation in Common Sense" Link ---> http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=creation+in+common+sense&v=22 will look at five major theories that have been popularized under the label of "evolution" but which simply can't stand the scrutiny of common sense.

Five major theories have been proposed as the mechanism for evolution; however, they do not stand up to the scrutiny of common sense! Take a minute to examine these for yourself.

Lamarckism - Lamarckism is the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or "soft inheritance"). It is named for the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories. Lamarckism proposed that the effect of individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms was the main mechanism driving species to adaptation. As a species would acquire adaptive changes, they would pass them on to offspring causing evolution. Today's understanding of science has left Lamarckism without a leg to stand on.

Classical Darwinism (Natural Selection) - The term Darwinism (in the classical sense) refers to the concept that natural selection is the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism. This theory was popularized by the publication of The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin in the mid-nineteenth century. Darwin had proposed that species evolved by merely being the fittest-and thus his "survival of the fittest" axiom. Those species most fit for their environment would survive longer and pass along their genes through reproduction. However, in the mid-twentieth century, scientists realized that natural selection alone could not cause evolution. More radical changes needed to be made, and on a much faster timescale.

Neo-Darwinism (Natural Selection + Mutations) - In modern times, the term neo-Darwinism refers to the addition of mutation to the theory of classical Darwinism (natural selection). Following the development in the 1940s of the modern evolutionary synthesis, the term neo-Darwinian has been used by some to refer to the modern evolutionary theory that mutations are the driving force of evolution. This idea comes to a halt when science demonstrates that mutations are not frequent or beneficial. That is to say when mutations do happen, they do not produce something new-they just scramble existing information.

Hopeful Monster - This term is used in evolutionary biology to describe evolution as taking place in a single bound. It says that maybe one day a reptile laid an egg, and a bird hatched out. The problem now is: who would the new bird mate with? This kind of event would surely be rare, and the chances of that happening twice, at the same time, in the same place, with animals that are the same species, that are of the opposite sex, that are able to reproduce, are .... Well, let's just say, "It ain't happening!" The phrase was coined by the German-born geneticist, Richard Goldschmidt, who believed that small gradual changes could not bridge the gap between microevolution and macroevolution, and that rapid evolution events were necessary to explain the lack of transitional fossils. This argument is an attempt to explain away the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Punctuated Equilibrium - In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould developed this idea in a paper that built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation. Eldredge and Gould noticed that evidence of slow gradual changes by means of natural selection championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that, rather than gradual evolution through minor changes, punctuated equilibrium better explained the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium stated that major changes did take place, but over relatively short periods of geologic time (10 to 20 thousand years as opposed to millions). This theory is just as ridiculous as the others, as it attempts to argue from the lack of evidence. "Since we don't have the evidence in the fossil record, this proves evolution happened quickly."

Scientific evidence has far surpassed the theories of those who believe evolution has taken place and has instead reinforced what the Bible tells us in Genesis 1:25: the animals bring forth after their kind!

No, "macro" evolution is not happening, but the religious theory of evolution continues to evolve! What will they come up with next?

Source: http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=133
 
We ARE evolving, and apparently we're not done yet. :)
 
No..we will be as Gods ;)

Remember those words in Genesis :eyebrow
 
John said:
....Scientific evidence has far surpassed the theories of those who believe evolution has taken place and has instead reinforced what the Bible tells us in Genesis 1:25: the animals bring forth after their kind!
I am most interested in the evidence you would put forward to support this claim.
No, "macro" evolution is not happening....
Likewise. Do you have any opinions on 'micro' evolution?
....but the religious theory of evolution continues to evolve! What will they come up with next?
Mostly the modern evolutionary synthesis, which you have not mentioned at all and which, unlike the religions that you claim the theory of evolution to be akin to, has multiple lines of evidence to support it from independent fields of study.
 
lordkalvan said:
John wrote:
....Scientific evidence has far surpassed the theories of those who believe evolution has taken place and has instead reinforced what the Bible tells us in Genesis 1:25: the animals bring forth after their kind!

I am most interested in the evidence you would put forward to support this claim.

I will like to put forth some evidence that may or may not be of interest to you.
1. DNA. Darwin didn't know about it. Neither did many of his counterparts. It is information. Information comes from a designer or creator. No form of information has ever come from nothing naturally.

2. The cell. Darwin couldn't see it like we can now and didn't understand the complexity of it like we do now. The processes that go on inside the cell would knock Darwin off his feet. It would haunt him more than the eye did. Processes that take place inside the cell involve information to be processed. Information is a created entity. (see number 1 above)

3. The human eye. Even in his day Darwin was haunted by the human eye. Today we understand the complexity of the human eye far deeper than either he or other scientists of his day. The eye, in combination with the brain transforms light information into electrical information that the brain can understand.

4. The lack of real and genuine translational fossil forms.

5. And lately, a lack of specific answers by evolutionists as to the detailed processes and of todays accepted evolutionary mechanisms. (see below)

No, "macro" evolution is not happening....

Likewise. Do you have any opinions on 'micro' evolution?

Micro evolution is not evolution in the sense that we were once taught evolution to be. It is, simply, adaptation within species. It is well known. It is quit common. But, it is not evolution by definition. It never has, nor does it, nor will it ever give rise to new species.

Mostly the modern evolutionary synthesis, which you have not mentioned at all and which, unlike the religions that you claim the theory of evolution to be akin to, has multiple lines of evidence to support it from independent fields of study.

Man's attempt to explain the detailed processes of modern evolutionary synthesis are no different than his attempts to explain any other detailed processes of evolutionary mechanics. There are three important literary "tools" that are used in these explanations. They are as follows:

Assumptive Language: Using assumptions or making assumptions in attempt to "sell" the reader the underlying truth claim.
Rhetoric: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
ignorant reasoning: A term I invented to describe the reasoning process by which an individual will reason through an answer ignoring the inevitably numerous questions that arise. The typical layperson doesn't question the individual on the basis that the individual may have some sort of esteemed qualifications that tend to intimidate the layperson. (more on this some other time)

The attempt to explain modern evolutionary synthesis makes several assumptions. First, it assumes that genetic drift, genetic flow, speciation and natural selection are all legitimate and uncontested scientific processes and/or that the reader/student understands what these processes are and how they work. It also assumes that the reader/student accepts them as truth when, in fact, the reader may or may not. Additionally, the explanations contain rhetorical statements such as "alteration of the frequency of alleles", or "evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift". This, in turn, leads to more assumptions and what I call "ignorant reasoning" where the explainer ignores the fact that the reader/student doesn't understand the base concepts and ideas before they become fully immersed into an all out baptism of scientific rhetoric and additional assumptive language. This is all in an attempt to sell the product. It is an endless cycle sometimes that leaves one with no answers and a genuine lack of energy to boot. The big question is, who is trying to sell you the product? Why are you believing it?

Sorry I jumped in here. I just had a few thoughts that came to mind.
 
Darwin didn't know about it. Neither did many of his counterparts. It is information. Information comes from a designer or creator. No form of information has ever come from nothing naturally.

1.One has to be careful we mixing information theory with genetics, as loosely defined terms can cause great confusion.
2.This does not argue against evolution, as evolution does not rule for or against a creator. Unless you are stating “new informationâ€Â, which we could argue in circles with each other because of semantics (see #1).

The cell. Darwin couldn't see it like we can now and didn't understand the complexity of it like we do now. The processes that go on inside the cell would knock Darwin off his feet. It would haunt him more than the eye did. Processes that take place inside the cell involve information to be processed. Information is a created entity. (see number 1 above)

Modern scientists have access to view cells in great detail, yet are not caused to rule out evolution.

Again, evolution does not rule out a creator.

The lack of real and genuine translational fossil forms.

There are numerous fossils in support of evolution. We could go over some if you want to start a new thread.

And lately, a lack of specific answers by evolutionists as to the detailed processes and of todays accepted evolutionary mechanisms. (see below)

The eye evolution was used by Behe (I believe) as an argument against evolution, much to his embarrassment. There are a few threads on this board discussing this if you use your search button, or start a new one if you want to go over it again.

Micro evolution is not evolution in the sense that we were once taught evolution to be. It is, simply, adaptation within species. It is well known. It is quit common. But, it is not evolution by definition. It never has, nor does it, nor will it ever give rise to new species.

There is no difference between micro and macro, other than time scales.

For macro not to happen, there has to be a barrier to prevent genetic large genetic changes, or there hasn't been enough time.

No barrier is known to exist, and the evidence for an old earth and universe quite overwhelming.
 
There are numerous fossils in support of evolution. We could go over some if you want to start a new thread.

No fossil counts as evidence for evolution.


The eye evolution was used by Behe (I believe) as an argument against evolution, much to his embarrassment. There are a few threads on this board discussing this if you use your search button, or start a new one if you want to go over it again.

All that was proposed against Behe was a mere hypothesis, the way the hypothesis presents the eye as evolution cannot be found in the fossil record to my knowledge but even if it was it would still not count as evolution as you have no way of showing that it does.

Darwins tree of life is not represented at ALL in the fossil record instead of a tree we see steams with small pedals branching off.
 
No fossil counts as evidence for evolution.

Why not?

All that was proposed against Behe was a mere hypothesis, the way the hypothesis presents the eye as evolution cannot be found in the fossil record to my knowledge but even if it was it would still not count as evolution as you have no way of showing that it does.

Behe said it was impossible, and it was shown how he was ignorant of all of the current theories of the evolution of the eye. Ignorance he consistently displayed.

Yes, most of this is hypothesis. Much study and research is still needed on many areas of evolution, but the claim was that it was impossible. These hypotheses show that statement to be false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

What do you mean by the statement, "it would still not count as evolution as you have no way of showing that it does."
 
1.One has to be careful we mixing information theory with genetics, as loosely defined terms can cause great confusion.

Your use of the word "theory" is misleading and assumptive. Is it not a fact that DNA contains information? Is it not a fact that information is created? Is it not a fact that information cannot come into being by natural means? What part of this is "theory"? I never said it was a theory? What do you mean by theory? Which terms are "loosely defined" here?

Look, I am not hear to try and deceive anyone through the use of rhetorical languages myself. Please take what I say at face value. Read it literally and plainly and assume that it means what it says. If it means something different then I will be sure to make clarifying statements. However, don't turn something that I said into something that I didn't say.

2.This does not argue against evolution, as evolution does not rule for or against a creator. Unless you are stating “new informationâ€Â, which we could argue in circles with each other because of semantics (see #1).

Evolution, by its very nature rules out a Creator. I stand firm on that. Evolution is a product of mans walk down the Romans 1 road. True science today reveals the Creator and evolutionists can not argue against it anymore. Not even Dawkins. And so now we are seeing the statements that claim "evolution doesn't rule out a creator". As if to say, it never did. In the 70's it did. Carl Sagan said, "The Cosmos is all there is, all there ever was and all there ever will be." His use of "assumptive language" sold millions on the underlying idea that there is not now nor was there ever a creator. Did he ever say that evolution doesn't rule out a creator? Not to my knowledge.


Modern scientists have access to view cells in great detail, yet are not caused to rule out evolution. Again, evolution does not rule out a creator.

I'm a modern scientists. I have cause to rule out evolution. And I know many other modern scientists who also feel the same way. Based on the complexity of organelles and processes that take place inside the cell I have concluded that none of it could have ever arrived at this complexity through any or the above mentioned mechanics of evolution. Again, evolution by it's very nature rules out the Creator (see above).

There are numerous fossils in support of evolution. We could go over some if you want to start a new thread.

I used the terms "real" and "genuine". I also used the word "translational" which I did not mean to say. Rather, I meant to say "transitional".
So, if you have some "real" and "genuine" transitional fossils locked away somewhere please let's discuss each of them. Since you made the claim, you start the thread.


You SAID: The eye evolution was used by Behe (I believe) as an argument against evolution, much to his embarrassment. There are a few threads on this board discussing this if you use your search button, or start a new one if you want to go over it again.

I fail to see how this has much to do with the claim I made of which you are using this statement to deny. What I said goes as follows:
"5. And lately, a lack of specific answers by evolutionists as to the detailed processes of todays accepted evolutionary mechanisms. (see below)"
Now, did you see the last part of that statement where it says "see below". Please do not take my statements out of context. There are too many people who already do that with the Bible and I cannot stand it.

There is no difference between micro and macro, other than time scales.
For macro not to happen, there has to be a barrier to prevent genetic large genetic changes, or there hasn't been enough time.
No barrier is known to exist, and the evidence for an old earth and universe quite overwhelming.
[/quote]

Micro, by definition, means minor changes that take place within species as a result of environmental changes. Otherwise known as "adaptation". (Darwin's finches)
Macro, by definition, the process by which more complex kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier and simpler forms during the history of the earth over long periods of time.
As you can see, by definition there is a big difference.

A "large genetic change" from simpler to more complex requires the infusion or addition of information. Simple mutations in the DNA molecule doesn't add information, it only scrambles the information that is already there.

As for time, I believe the evidence for a young earth (between 6,000 and 10,000 years old) is overwhelming.
 
Evolution, by its very nature rules out a Creator. I stand firm on that. Evolution is a product of mans walk down the Romans 1 road. True science today reveals the Creator and evolutionists can not argue against it anymore. Not even Dawkins. And so now we are seeing the statements that claim "evolution doesn't rule out a creator". As if to say, it never did. In the 70's it did. Carl Sagan said, "The Cosmos is all there is, all there ever was and all there ever will be." His use of "assumptive language" sold millions on the underlying idea that there is not now nor was there ever a creator. Did he ever say that evolution doesn't rule out a creator? Not to my knowledge.

Again, evolution doesn’t rule out a creator, no matter what one or more persons say.

Evolution does not deal with theology. Science does not deal with theology.

I'm a modern scientists. I have cause to rule out evolution. And I know many other modern scientists who also feel the same way. Based on the complexity of organelles and processes that take place inside the cell I have concluded that none of it could have ever arrived at this complexity through any or the above mentioned mechanics of evolution. Again, evolution by it's very nature rules out the Creator (see above).

What do you have your degree in? What is your field of study?

Just saying you concluded that cells could not have been the result of evolution, is mere assertion I am sure you are aware.

I used the terms "real" and "genuine". I also used the word "translational" which I did not mean to say. Rather, I meant to say "transitional".
So, if you have some "real" and "genuine" transitional fossils locked away somewhere please let's discuss each of them. Since you made the claim, you start the thread.

I knew what you meant.

I will start a thread on the fossil evidence later on today, but in the mean time, there are quite a few already on here.

A "large genetic change" from simpler to more complex requires the infusion or addition of information. Simple mutations in the DNA molecule doesn't add information, it only scrambles the information that is already there.

Again, this mixing of information theory and evolution discussion can go around in circles, and can be entirely misleading.

Mutations are adding something to DNA that is not already there.
 
VaultZero4Me said:
No fossil counts as evidence for evolution.

Why not?

Perhaps best answered in the pending fossil thread. :shrug


Behe said it was impossible, and it was shown how he was ignorant of all of the current theories of the evolution of the eye. Ignorance he consistently displayed.

Throwing hypotheses at the problem does not make it go away, we need something more concrete .So in light of the current evidence its impossible. :twocents

Yes, most of this is hypothesis. Much study and research is still needed on many areas of evolution, but the claim was that it was impossible. These hypotheses show that statement to be false.

a hypotheses, especially one unsupported by the evidence does not discredit Behe, the argument is still valid until evidence surfaces.


What do you mean by the statement, "it would still not count as evolution as you have no way of showing that it does."

I mean that even if you found fossils they would not count because for one you have no way of proving that they evolved from one another for all you know they were completely different animals with no link.
 
Again, evolution doesn’t rule out a creator, no matter what one or more persons say.
Evolution does not deal with theology. Science does not deal with theology.

Evolution is a disgrace to real science because of how it deals with theology. It conveniently removes God the Creator out of the picture and replaces Him with man's own wisdom. Evolution is a theology of itself.

Science says the diversity of life on earth is a result of evolution.
The Bible says the diversity of life on earth is a result of the Creator.
I submit to you:

Genesis 1:11 - Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, {and} fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:12 - The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21 - God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24 - Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:25 - God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

The Bible doesn't teach us that God created a bacteria and then let life evolve from there on it's own. No sir. The Bible teaches us that God created every living thing just as it is and every living thing brings forth after its own kind. Not after some "new" kind. True science agrees with the Bible. Evolution rules out the Creator.

What do you have your degree in? What is your field of study?

My degree is BA in Broad-field Science Extended Major with Secondary Education. My fields of study have been Biology, Zoology, Botany, Forestry, Fisheries and some Wildlife Biology.

Just saying you concluded that cells could not have been the result of evolution, is mere assertion I am sure you are aware.
That's not what I said. Here is what I said. "Based on the complexity of organelles and processes that take place inside the cell I have concluded that none of it could have ever arrived at this complexity through any of the above mentioned mechanics of evolution." An assertion? Absolutely sir. It is a confident and forceful statement of fact and belief. I have no doubt.

Again, this mixing of information theory and evolution discussion can go around in circles, and can be entirely misleading.

Well, it's not going to go anywhere unless you have something to say about it. Besides, once again your use of the word "theory" is misleading and assumptive. Is it not a fact that DNA contains information? Is it not a fact that information is created? Is it not a fact that information cannot come into being by natural means? What part of this is "theory"? I never said it was a theory? What do you mean by theory? Which terms are "loosely defined" here?

I have made every attempt to address all of your claims and you cannot even answer one of my questions? I asked seven questions in the above passage and you didn't even attempt to answer one of them. Please make some sort of effort here.

Mutations are adding something to DNA that is not already there.

Sir, that is not correct. Mutation is the changing of the structure of a gene caused by the alteration of single base units in the DNA molecule, or by the deletion, insertion or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes. And the insertion part of that statement does not refer to the insertion of genetic material from outside of the cell but refers to genetic material that is already located inside the cell. Additionally, mutations are seldom beneficial and often times deadly.
 
Just to add to the above. Evolution and Christianity DO NOT mix.

Francis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgment of God, the present could not be adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry.

Today's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that "truth" exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God's intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility.

Truth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man's interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation.

The reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way:

1. The bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum.
2. The God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27)
3. Would this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us ?
4. Belief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealings with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.

There is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement.

Thanks Bruce :thumb
 
Francis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ.

Neither can many evolutionary scientists. Darwin, for example, did not propose a theory for the evolution of life. He merely stated that God did it.

Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer.

Creator. People used to regard God as being omnipotent. Some of us still do. For us, He's the Creator, not some imperfect "designer."

Today's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary).

Dictionaries are treacherous things when it comes to technical words. Science still is regarded as a process of induction, based on evidence.

The reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system.

You need to develop that assertion a bit. Evidence would be good.

Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way:

1. The bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind.

Hmm... Could you cite a few verses for us?

2. The God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27)

Altruism can indeed be an evolutionary advantage, but I think you're here assuming that which is natural is good. Natural man is not good. We have a lot of evil in each of us.

3. Would this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us ?

Evidence shows He did. Our bodies, that is. Our souls are given directly by Him.

4. Belief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews,

The most ruthless industrialists, like Rockerfeller and Carnagie, did not accept evolution. Ninety percent of the Nazi final solution can be found in Martin Luther's The Jews and Their Lies. And the Nazis freely admitted it. It is in evidence at the Nurnberg trials, and was widely published by the Nazis.

and the rise of Marxism and Communism.

Darwinism was outlawed in Stalin's Soviet Union.

If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealings with other humans?

This goes back to the idea that what is natural is right. Scientists often remind people that this is not necessarily true.

Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.

There is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals;

That's a testable idea. Name two major groups said to be evolutionarily related, and I'll see if I can find a transitional for you.

the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process;

Show us the evidence for that. We have directly observed the evolution of new information in DNA.

and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution.

What do you think the best evidence is?
 
Hey John.

I agree completely. They have to keep revising and altering the theory. Not for the Science involved in most cases, but as a direct attack against our Creator.

The latest trend is to come up with completely opposing theories that contradict each other, so they can cover ALL the ground on what may have happened according to science.

A good example of this is Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Phyletic Gradualism. Both Theories state completely opposite views. This way they can provide an "answer" for anything that may come up in the debate, picking and choosing from their own opposing theories. Shameful tactics.

God Bless.

B.A.C.
 
A good example of this is Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Phyletic Gradualism. Both Theories state completely opposite views.

No, in fact, Stephen Gould, the most prominent advocate of Punctuated Equilibrium, has cited several cases of demonstrated phyletic gradualism.

This way they can provide an "answer" for anything that may come up in the debate, picking and choosing from their own opposing theories. Shameful tactics.

Someone's misled you about that. Would you like to learn why both mechanisms can work?
 
I wanted to bring to the table that evolution and adaptation should not be mistaken for each other; two different things and some people use adaptation to explain evolution.
 
I wanted to bring to the table that evolution and adaptation should not be mistaken for each other; two different things and some people use adaptation to explain evolution.

Technically, adaptation is just one form of evolution. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population. Adaptation is one thing that can happen when allele frequencies change. There can be non-adaptive evolution in various ways, also.
 
Back
Top