Cat93 wrote:Hey Silverfang, I just want to say I understand where you are at. However, there are a lot of good sites that can help you understand science a lot better without having to be really good at science. I just found a site called "Science Against Evolution." This site tries to stay away from any religious discussion, so an atheist might be more willing to read it. It does a really good job of refuting evolution
You don't need to "refute evolution", it is a false idea that it is either evolutution or God. Simply put, evolution, by RANDOM CHANCE, is impossible, evolution by PLANNED chance, however, is very possible (nothing is impossible with God). Thus, we have two choices, evolution did not happen, this shows that there is a God, or evolution did happen, this shows, now by evidence we can see and measure, that there is a God, saince it cannot happen if it was not planned. Either way, we end up at God. Your beleif in or disbeleif in evolution is not at issue to your faith in God.
The site above may indeed show how evolution is impossible, however, it is only impossible if there is no God, and it happened by random chance alone.
Many anti evolution sites are under the delusion that if evolution is true, than God is false, and thus are willing to accept any idea that will show evolution as false, even if it is on shakey scientific grounds, or has even been shown false. Thus, simply going to anti evolution sites may not get you much real science. Those that DO have real science, however, show the real science behind evolution, come to the conclusion that it cannot happen by random chance (true), and that therefore it did not happen, (quite possibly false, since anything is possible with God). It is simply accepting that evolution must have happened by purely random chance, which aint so in a universe with a God around it. That cosmic ray which made that desired and usefull mutation could have been planned from the beginning of the universe by God. If it had not, well then, chances are it would not produce the desired mutation (most mutations are undesired, harmfull ones).
BTW, the above science against evolution page seems to be young earth. Thus, it is not science, and should be ignored. It is based on the idea that it is either God or evolution, and that therefore we NEED to make evolution impossible, by making the earth young, and thus giving evolution no time to work. But we do not NEED evolution to be impossible for God to be true, since evolution really is impossible unless God IS true, at which time it is indeed very possible. Thus, no evolution equels God, and evolution equels God, either way we alwasy end up at God. So there is no reason to "defend God" by attacking any idea, no matter how well scientifically grounded it may be, that "proves" evolution.
I mean, look at this quote from that website:
62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
Uh huh, riiiiight, a completly false attack. Eating cooked food will not indeed make you smarter, but being the offspring of parents who KNOW how to make fire (not easy!), know enough to gather firewood ahead of time (or make the kid do it), know how to make something to cook the food in, and know how to cook it, and also know how to teach all this (language) to their offspring, DOES make you smarter. How many animals do you know that cook their food? So what does that tell you?
They are probably saying this due to the evidence of cooked vegatable matter found in Neanderthal teath. However, Neanderthals had brains on average slightly bigger than we do today. They had evidence of hundreds of years of bone growth, which the scientists change into very fast bone growth that doesnt stop when they reached adulthood (see Andre the Giant, he had this problem and ended up looking a bit like a Neanderthal
http://www.andrethegiant.com/about/photos.html), because those scientists were afraid that otherwise we would notice the parralels to the very long ages of pre flood man seen in the bible (this bone growth will turn up the same if it happens over hundreds of years or over a shorter time much faster). These same Neanderthals made skin tents, jewelry, cosmetics, tools, and had buriel customs (the graves have been found) complete with ritual objects in the grave (usually found associeted with belief in an afterlife). Check it out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals Look about halfway down the page, compare it with Andre the Giant, see the similarity? Also check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior language, culture (complex social groups, jewelry, body paint), they sometimes attacked each other (sin!), made complex tools like bone awls to stitch skins together (takes brains to invent one and use it and teach others later to make one and use one), possibly some medicine (although being able to live to be 900 years old they were probably pretty healthy, right?), and ate plants such as grains and legumes (some agriculture of a sort?).
The idea that they were genetically different than us today and that therefore we cannot be decended from them is false, of course they are gentically different from us, we cannot live to be 900, after the flood reduced them to 8 total, there must have been genetic drift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift and they lost that trait and ended up like we are today (" Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variation"). The shorter lived new people (post flood Africans) could outbreed them and did so, since they could have a generation along in 20 years and the earliest anyone is said to have had a child in the bible is 70, and it goes way up from that, so in the same time frame, 5 generations or more on average for the new men compared to one for the neanderthal/pre flood man.
Frankly, thesis 62 here
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i6f.htm is flat out dishonest, a lie, a bald faced lie. Does that qualify it as being from God, or God inspired? Who is the father of lies, is it God, then who is it?
I must therefore reject the science against evolution website.
.
) than ID. Legatus is a bit aggressive, but he has a point - the biggest argument against evolution (or the most obvious) is that it's unlikely. Theistic evolution would eliminate that and also theological arguments against evolution. I still think though that many people are pressured into accepting it because they don't want to argue that their views are scientifically right or wrong.
you are free to contradict the concept of free will and therefore you have. That is as free as it gets.