Even the most ardant Evolutions have admitted that evolution has no process in place to have the Dna codified and given with new instructions in order to have species change!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Evolutionary Creationism
- Thread starter quantumfaith
- Start date
Even the most ardant Evolutions have admitted that evolution has no process in place to have the Dna codified and given with new instructions in order to have species change!
quantumfaith
Active Member
Not sure what you are saying. But only foolish.scientists claim to know all and have ALL the answers.
quantumfaith
Active Member
My only suggestion. OR is for you to do some more reading. There is a rather large set of belivera who do just that. Much like the gentlemen in the OP. VERY respected Christian scolars lend thier voicea to the discus sion.
. W L Crain N T Wright. Tim Keller. John Walton C S Lewis are just a few that come to mind.
[snipped - no need to be rude. Just ask liberals to leave.] take your liberal posts off this board.
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
I will not leave. It infuriates you doesn't it when someone doesn't line up with your theology or thinking on things such as origins.
Mr. Moderator why don't you speak to me in PM rather than a snarky reply in another message.
i also would like Quantum to provide us with observable and testable evidence of macro evolution... observations of micro evolution is not proof for evolution...neither is the fossil record...or homologous structures.
Please provide me with just one.
Please provide me with just one.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Provide me with observable, testable evidence of what you believe. Google is a wonderful tool. Here are some suggested search query's
1. Evidences of evolutionary biology
2. Differing lines of evidence supporting evolution
A good site to start with is: (You can find many others)
Biologos.org
Last edited by a moderator:
Questions for the scientific minds of men:
1) If the earth (and our solar system) formed from a presolar nebula which contained ejecta from at least one prior supernova, how do we know our dates do not reflect the age of nebula debris formations?
2) If all the species evolved from other species, from what did the first species evolve?
3) Could the Bible, Job 38, be right and we do not know how God created everything?
1) If the earth (and our solar system) formed from a presolar nebula which contained ejecta from at least one prior supernova, how do we know our dates do not reflect the age of nebula debris formations?
2) If all the species evolved from other species, from what did the first species evolve?
3) Could the Bible, Job 38, be right and we do not know how God created everything?
You are the one making a claim that cannot be supported from scripture, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
I googled differing lines of evidence supporting evolution:
these are the 5 evidences that I got:
1. Fossil Record.
2. Comparative Anatomy
3.Biogeography
4. Comparative Embryology
5. Comparative Molecular Biology
Funny... none of these are testable... nor do any of them provide proof of macro evolution..
1. The "fossil record" a.is dated with circular reasoning.(date the layer according to the index fossil, and then date fossils according to the layer it is found in b.The layers were set up based on the assumption that evolution was true. c. all of the layers of the fossil record are not all found in the right order, ANYWHERE on earth for observation... there are however places where they are found with layers missing, out of order. etc.
2. people who are good designers often use similar designs in their products, for example, apple. Each of their products are similar because of the designer. Comparative Anatomy shows a common designer not a common ancestor.
3.http://creation.com/biogeography
4. Refer back to number 2. as well as this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WY--ePckVo
5. again refer to number 2.
Quantum this is not evidence. this is evolutionary presupposition being forced onto scientific observation.
Bottom line!!!!
I (we) believe as I do simply because it is so stated in His word!! Not because of ANY physical evidence.
The difference is that I (we) state up-front that it is because of FAITH (in His word) that I believe as I do; evolutionists (of any ilk) refuse to admit that they are also basing their beliefs on FAITH, but in this instance it is in science - not His word.
IOW, same physical evidence, different interpretations; neither of which is scientifically provable!
It wouldn't matter. There is the clamouring for maco evidence, evidence is pointed to, nope that's not evidence. Round and round it goes.
It's clear from the comments that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. Even a misunderstanding of the scientific method. Ignorance makes it tough to have a discussion.
It's clear from the comments that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. Even a misunderstanding of the scientific method. Ignorance makes it tough to have a discussion.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Good article but I do not share his sentiment or conclusions.
Thank you for posting this.
You're welcome. I JUST saw it on Challies.com and knew it would be applicable to this thread.
quantumfaith
Active Member
I understand. Thank you for being polite about disagreeing.
I also read the World article referenced. My father in law shares that magazine with me.
I highly doubt there is a misunderstanding of evolution here.
Basically the idea is that through genetic mutations, working along with natural selection, and accumulation of traits over time, species can develop from a common ancestor.
The idea is that DNA mutates and that these mutations create new traits, then natural selection preserves and passes on the traits most fitted for survival, and then over time this equates to new species.
a long process like this is not observable directly, and cannot ever be proved, it is simply accepted by faith, you're placing your faith in the faith that other scientists have in evolution basically, at best evolution is a theory, but it is highly dishonest for it be presented as if it's some scientific fact.
It's really annoying when evolutionists accuse creationists of being ignorant of how evolution works, the problem is not that we don't understand, but that we do understand.
There are scientific problems with evolution.
Darwin said something along the lines of "if any biological structure or function can be shown that numerous,successive,slight, modifications could not account for, then my theory would utterly break down"
The bacterial flagellum is an example that fits this, the flagellum is basically a efficient motor, it has a. tons of parts that serve no independent function. and b. parts that must all be present at the same time to function. numerous,successive, slight modifications (random mutations accumulated over time) cannot account for all these different parts, each individual part serves no purpose on it's own, therefore there is no reason for any of these parts to evolve on their own. which is ridiculous. and the other problem is all that all of these parts (which by the way are extremely complex in and of themselves, simply do a study on how proteins are synthesized) must evolve at the same time, or else the flagellum does not function. it's like the equivalent of have a pile of metal in a scrapyard being blown around in the wind and all of the pieces coming together over millions of years to form an airplane.
This is called the "Irreducible Complexity" argument.
There is also an argument called the design inference, but this being a baptist website I don't think it necessary.
Actually, besides this post, and maybe one or two others, this has been a good discussion.
As I was looking at the horses' heavy winter coats and the squirrel's big full tail and fluffy fur, I was wondering just how man "evolved" to not need natural clothing and instead ended up having to clothe himself in other creature's coats or other clothing. How is this an improvement? I'd say it's actually a detriment and would have caused man to die off in the colder climates rather than thrive.