the case against evolution

[Forum Monk]

And you are right that the basis of the evolutionary theory rests on random occurences.

Well, non-evolutionists say random to make a point, evolutionists on the otherhand, loathe the word random. Technically, it is not random chance, rather selective pressure which is the engine of evolution. Abiogenesis, nothwithstanding.

However, I would be interested in your thoughts. Because I worry that we lump too many things under the umbrella of evolution simply because the evolutionists use it. Microevolution (an unfortunate word choice because it does not lead to macroevolution) simply shows that populations can vacillate between forms that have already been established. In my mind God would not have created species without the ability to adjust to minor environmental changes.

It becomes a philosphical as well as scientific debate. Bible believers today are caught in a severe crunch of academic pressure to accept evidence as supporting the orthodox point of view of big bang, old universe, old earth, evolution, etc. In many cases, the evidence seems irrefutible (i.e. how does the YEC explain fossils? - [a rhetorical question - don't answer]) The pressures result in the acknowledgment by some Christians, that perhaps our interpretation of the scriptures need adjusted in order to accomodate some of the evidence from the sciences. And of course there is historical precedence for this. Just go back a half a millenium and look at the earth-centered universe debate.

Having thought deeply about this, I am seeing how some ideas emerging in Christian thought are nothing more than the orthodox science view with God attached in order to make it appear Christian. Of course no chance the church would hijack secular beliefs and turn them into Christian practices, now is there. Christians must be careful not to create philosophical delimmas for themselves in the rush to accept scientific thought. An example of this is thiestic evolution. It is nonsensical at its most extreme interpretation.

btw-microevolution is a bad word choice, I agree. Populations can vascillate and adjust to a point, but not much. Survivability is tough. A species either adapts as best it can to its environment or it manipules its environment to suit itself.

[zoegirl]

And you are right that the basis of the evolutionary theory rests on random occurences.

Well, non-evolutionists say random to make a point, evolutionists on the otherhand, loathe the word random. Technically, it is not random chance, rather selective pressure which is the engine of evolution. Abiogenesis, nothwithstanding.

YOu you are absolutely right, I should have been more specific. I meant that the mutations are random. Thanks for correcting

However, I would be interested in your thoughts. Because I worry that we lump too many things under the umbrella of evolution simply because the evolutionists use it. Microevolution (an unfortunate word choice because it does not lead to macroevolution) simply shows that populations can vacillate between forms that have already been established. In my mind God would not have created species without the ability to adjust to minor environmental changes.

It becomes a philosphical as well as scientific debate. Bible believers today are caught in a severe crunch of academic pressure to accept evidence as supporting the orthodox point of view of big bang, old universe, old earth, evolution, etc. In many cases, the evidence seems irrefutible (i.e. how does the YEC explain fossils? - [a rhetorical question - don't answer]) The pressures result in the acknowledgment by some Christians, that perhaps our interpretation of the scriptures need adjusted in order to accomodate some of the evidence from the sciences. And of course there is historical precedence for this. Just go back a half a millenium and look at the earth-centered universe debate.

Having thought deeply about this, I am seeing how some ideas emerging in Christian thought are nothing more than the orthodox science view with God attached in order to make it appear Christian. Of course no chance the church would hijack secular beliefs and turn them into Christian practices, now is there. Christians must be careful not to create philosophical delimmas for themselves in the rush to accept scientific thought. An example of this is thiestic evolution. It is nonsensical at its most extreme interpretation.

btw-microevolution is a bad word choice, I agree. Populations can vascillate and adjust to a point, but not much. Survivability is tough. A species either adapts as best it can to its environment or it manipules its environment to suit itself.

Nice points. Although I worry that many Christians are so driven to deny evolution that to even think of agreeing on anything the evolutionists say means that they are capitualating. I think this is where we as believers need to to confident in our God and in our observing His creation. WE should decide for ourselves and recapture truth instead of feeling like we can only decide our beliefs based on rejecting what evolutionists say.

I can only use myself as an example for certain but I know from reading other posts that others feel that we aren't just slapping God onto science. . When I started grad school, I was worried that I was going to "give in". I prayed much those first few semesters, especially the evolution classes. I wanted wisdom and discernemtn and I did not want to compromise my beliefs. I don't believe I am, however, many will feel like I am because I agree with much of what research says (Age, microevolution...)

Thanks for responding....interesting name...

[archaeologist]

Gosh this is getting fun. Zoe v. Arch, an epic unending battle. I'm rather enjoying this...

it is not supposed to be a battle or a form of entertainment.

You said they never talked about evolution so we shouldn't, doesn't make sense.

no, i am saying their is no historical foundation to support the theory of evolution`while there is for creation.

The ancients thought the planets were gods running around through the sky. They thought that the stars were images of people

so? modern man used to believe the moon was made of cheese or whatever. well with that said, some people did, so i can bet that not all the ancients believed what you said. generalization is a dangerous game to play with the ancient world.

This depends on whether or not you are an evolutionist or not

not at all. the hybrid experiments show that creation was correct. the result doesn't change because you believe differently. also you go to any hospital, plant nursery, vet hospital and you will see the results of creation in action. you can never see evolution in action because the time frame allotted for it is too great to provide any proof or verifiable observation.

evolution is based on conjecture and false hope while the believer can point to all of time to show that creation has been active throughout.
evolutionists claim they have proof but it takes more tocometo that conclusion while we believers can point to it, now.

Arch, you need to calm down and stop assuming someone is attacking you personally

maybe so but i usually post and talk on non-christian sites and as forum monk will attest, that is what i always get. so maybe i need an adjustment period.

besides zoegirl and friend were very subtle in their personal attacks, they were there.

[Forum Monk]

maybe so but i usually post and talk on non-christian sites and as forum monk will attest, that is what i always get. so maybe i need an adjustment period.

I will attest. I did join a scientific forum after Arch left a few days before. Virtually every discussion turned into personal attacks against him. It was well beyond disagreement. It was at times, out and out antagonism for anything Christian. I spent a lot hours reading the old posts to try to understand the mindset of certain people and their arguments. And in doing so, I realize where Arch may have learned to be very defensive because even now, six months later, he is still maligned from time to time on that board.

[archaeologist]

one more point needs to be added:

8. evolutionists claim that the theory is always changing. which is true. as time goes on and as points are refuted, evolutionists have made many changes, though each time before the change was proclaimed as true, it was soon changed to a new truth. it once was believed and taught that man came frommonkeys or the ape. old textbooks have many a picture of the sequence change; now they are sayingt that man and ape had a common ancestor. quite a difference.

this is another one of their fatal flaws

the truth never changes. even if no one believes it, it just doesn't change the fact that the truth is the truth no matter which century or millenia you are in.

if no one believed that Jesus came to earth , lived and died and then rose again it would still not change the fact that He came to earth lived, died and rose again.

belief doesn't change the truth, science, archaeology and so on cannot change the truth. no matter how hard they try.

[zoegirl]

I never call your thoughts poop or misleading, false, or have called you to repentance for your conclusions (you have stated multiple times that those who dare to look deeper into issues need to repent, a damning statement)

I have always said and still say that you don't address the problem. Despite what you said, you didn't go beyond the surface of the issues, nor did you dispute anything you simply shouted that it wasn't so. You don't explain you just rely on the "you're wrong", never explaining why.

I do feel that you don't show a complete understanding of their theory and even biology, but I will gladly be proved wrong. You have yet to do so.

I wll gladly change my opinion, and apologize if you will do me the courtesy of showing me that you can address those points. I gave a very rational, logical, point by point basis and you have never addressed them. Why should I believe you can debate evolution when you haven't done so?

Go for it, I love discussing things. I wouldn't have survived grad school if I didn't. I wouldn't care it you don't agree if we actually had a discussion. Iron sharpens iron. lets revisit the post.

[zoegirl]

one more point needs to be added:

8. evolutionists claim that the theory is always changing. which is true. as time goes on and as points are refuted, evolutionists have made many changes, though each time before the change was proclaimed as true, it was soon changed to a new truth. it once was believed and taught that man came frommonkeys or the ape. old textbooks have many a picture of the sequence change; now they are sayingt that man and ape had a common ancestor. quite a difference.

this is another one of their fatal flaws

the truth never changes. even if no one believes it, it just doesn't change the fact that the truth is the truth no matter which century or millenia you are in.

if no one believed that Jesus came to earth , lived and died and then rose again it would still not change the fact that He came to earth lived, died and rose again.

belief doesn't change the truth, science, archaeology and so on cannot change the truth. no matter how hard they try.

YEs, I will agree that the truth doesn't change, but our understanding does.

We used to believe that the world was flat, didnt' change the fact that it was round, but our understanding changed.

We used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe even though it wasn't and then we changed our understanding.

We used to believe that bad air caused diseases even though it doesn't, our understanding changed.

In the late 1800', early 1900's Doctors didn't wash their hands after examining corpses, delivering babies afterwards and inducing childbed fever. Didn't believe and trust in data showing that midwives who didn't perform autopsies had fewer deaths than they did. Insisted that they continue the practice.

We used to think the sperm was the only thing needed for conception and that the womb was simply the "fertile place". THought there were little human beings within the sperm cell.

We thought health was determined by the balance of four humours and that bleeding and cupping people were curative.

At one time we suspected that proteins were the genetic material, it took multiple experiments to finally seal that theory.

Our understanding changed. All of these changes were produced by people who were willing to question. Even Galileo, who questioned the dictates of the church, was curious enough to examine evidence.

We can come up with countless other examples of how our understanding of our world changed. God gave us responsibility to be stewards. That includes understanding waht He assigned us stewardship over.

The nature of science is that theories change. The nature of God's truth is that it never changes. We are simply trying to determine truth. The secular scientist denies God, but that is his/her goal as well. They will be limited, but they are trying in their own way.

We can pray that God in His wisdom provides insight to us and reveals His truth to keep changing evolutionary theory...I doubt it though, since it offers those who deny God a way out.

Regards
zoegirl

[archaeologist]

Despite what you said, you didn't go beyond the surface of the issues, nor did you dispute anything you simply shouted that it wasn't so

that is your opinion. you are not privy to where and how i came to those conclusions and you do not consider all the factors involved wheni wrote what i wrote. you assume and jump to conclusions too much, like you are trying to maintain a superiority over anyone who disagrees with you.

evolution is a non-starter but because this is a spiritual world and evil gets toplay in it, people will believe it.

do feel that you don't show a complete understanding of their theory and even biology, but I will gladly be proved wrong.

just because i do not show all that i know does it mean that i do not understand. i am not like you who needs to get self-worth from posting in a manner that displays everything i have learned.

Iron sharpens iron. lets revisit the post

why? you have shown me that you have very little comprehension of what is talked about.

We used to believe that the world was flat, didnt' change the fact that it was round, but our understanding changed.

no, SOME people believed that not all.

We used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe even though it wasn't and then we changed our understanding

NO, SOME people believed that, not all.

We used to believe that bad air caused diseases even though it doesn't, our understanding changed

so when they give smog alerts throught the big cities of the world, they are just fooling people? the yellow dust problem in the far east actually does make the air bad and actually does cause health problems.

In the late 1800', early 1900's Doctors didn't wash their hands after examining corpses

that is an example of arrogance and pride not misunderstanding the truth.

these are all examples of what you wanted to talk about but not what i ws talking about in my post. when you want to talk about what i am saying then call me.

We are simply trying to determine truth

are you doing it on your own strength in your own way or are you listening to God's leading?

We can pray that God in His wisdom provides insight to us and reveals His truth to keep changing evolutionary theory...I doubt it though, since it offers those who deny God a way out.

not quite sure what you mean by this BUT if you are a believer in God, you better be praying for God's leading and be ready and willing to follow.

[zoegirl]

You completely missed my point.

It was through questioning and discussion and, yes Christian scientists who were doing the questioning.

YOu like to overgeneralize. People in the past thought that bad air caused the plague, yet the truth was in the transmission of Yersinia pestis bacteria that caused the plague. Our understanding was wrong but the truth was there.

YEs the doctors were arrogant....they thought they UNDERSTOOD what was happening. They were wrong. Their understanding needed to change.

Of course smog can cause respiratory problems. Not the same cause fo the problem.

[archaeologist]

It was through questioning and discussion and, yes Christian scientists who were doing the questioning

and you expect the secularists to be honest and listen to what religious people have tosay? you seem to be idealistic or run into different types of secularists than i do.

i do know that evolutionists will attack anyone even their own who gives any credence to non-evolutionary thinking. happened to a guy who was affliated with the smithsonian. tragic story, i will have to see if i can find it.

YOu like to overgeneralize

no i don't.

People in the past thought that bad air caused the plague

well this is the first i heard that theory, sources please, when you get time.

they thought they UNDERSTOOD what was happening. They were wrong. Their understanding needed to change

i wouldn't use the word 'understand' there but then again you have pet theories you like to promote so i can see why you would use it.

Of course smog can cause respiratory problems. Not the same cause fo the problem

so poisons in the air are actually harmless them? which is what you are saying.

[zoegirl]

Here it is

http://www.insecta-inspecta.com/fleas/bdeath/Stop.html

Evenwith the sucessful means pf prevention, it was still not understanding why. Most thought that bad air was responsible.

Before the knowledge of bacteria, people did not understand disease transmission.

Another interesting story.
With the cholera outbreak in London in the late 1800's, a Dr. Snow finally thought he understaood that the cholera was being transmitted from the Broadstreet public water pump, took him a long while to convince the city officials that the water was responsible, still not understanding why. It ended up being the ballast water on board ships from India. The ballast water was dumped in the Thames before docking.

My pet theories are not mine...simply what is being observed.

[archaeologist]

you have stated multiple times that those who dare to look deeper into issues need to repent, a damning statement)

i did not say that, you have a very big problem and it is misrepresenting what i said and has to do with comprehension.

i said those who follow secularist ways, secular thinking, secularist strategies and so on need to repent and get back to God. i said nothing about looking deeper or investigation.

the Bible is very clear about getting knowledge, wisdom and understanding and it is also clear about getting answers for when non-believers ask you questions. it does not say follow the sinner. it says to lean not on your own understanding ... and in trust the Lord{prov. 3:4-6}

you have a lot to learn.

[archaeologist]

The people pushing it, however, know that it can used as a means of getting religion into the science classroom, preferably in place of real scientific theories about evolution and cosmology

point # 9 or 10 i lost track--

'real' theories like evolution or cosmology which have a time frame too vast to even have a ghost of a chance of seeing fulfilled. sorry, they cannot even demonstrate how man evolved with proper adherence to scientific principles so how can they be trusted to make a prediction hat can be discovered and verified in a scientist's lifetime?

comparing fruit flies, finches in a short time span does not prove the theory works nor lends validity to those predictions which take generations to come true.

[archaeologist]

here is another problem of evolution. what age did this species appear at? were they young? old? in between? then how did they know what to do when they changed forms?

when sexual organs were produced, how did early species know what to do with them? children do not in the modern age so how was this knowledge inbedded into the thought process?

how did these species know what to eat or where to get it? surely they would have died out long ago from failure to know what to do once they formed.

a recent article stated that monkeys are thought to have developed morality first but how could they do that or even know what morality was since there is no morality in evolution? how did man learn morality? were they taught by the monkeys?

yes, i am leaving gaps in this as i have a headache and do not want to pursue it deeper but this is a very large problem for evolutionists as they say this knowledge had to come from nothing and then be accepted by all members of each species.

the Bible tells us that without an outisde force with morals that man goes and does his own thing. the book of judges is an excellant example of this:

'when the israelites forgot God, they did what was right in their own eyes'

without God there is no morality and evolution has neither.

[bizzt]

Arch

I think Zoegirl asked this Arch. What do you call a "Genetic Defect" (Evolution) when it is beneficial for the Species? eg. Bigger Beaks on Finches or Different colours on Moths? They were Beneficial to the environment they were in. Is it still a Defect?