Evolutionary Creationism

[just-want-peace]

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.

Careful, you're talking about something that doesn't FIT the theor -- er -- uh the evolution facts! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[just-want-peace]

You know, if I was told that some superior being (?) used the evolution method by trial & error to accomplish "creation", I could accept that far, FAR quicker than as taught today.
But for some reason (?) I really can't fathom the Creator I know using a trial & error method to get the results He wants. :thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

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.

What does the fact that this is a Baptist site have to with discusing any model except for perhaps naturalistic models?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

What does the fact that this is a Baptist site have to with discusing any model except for perhaps naturalistic models?

the design inference argues the existence of a designer based on high improbability and complexity, and the existence of information.

 

[quantumfaith]

the design inference argues the existence of a designer based on high improbability and complexity, and the existence of information.

I see many respected theologians and christian thinkers who make that precise point.....the anthropic principle. I think it is a VERY convincing argument based on reason.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I see many respected theologians and christian thinkers who make that precise point.....the anthropic principle. I think it is a VERY convincing argument based on reason.

I am still waiting for you to respond to Irreducible Complexity.

 

[quantumfaith]

I am still waiting for you to respond to Irreducible Complexity.

I "personally" think IR is a great concept and have great respect for it.....and have said so before. For "me" it is one observation which I believe argues convincingly against naturalistic ( neo-darwininan) evolution.

I like Behe and his ideas.

I will also state that there are also some strong arguments explaining such in purely biological processes.

You should understand.....I am NOT naturalist in my thinking.

 

[Van]

Unless those advocating Evolutionary Creationism are able to answer these questions, the whole idea lacks credibility.

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?​

 

[go2church]

Something to read from, it doesn't have to be a faith or science decision, you can have both

http://buff.ly/1xw2BFk