Creation vs Evolution

Started by Robtard221 pages

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Rob. if you asked me how I came up with the solution for a math problem (not how many different ways that I could have gotten the answer) and I tell you that I got the answer by addition, would it make sense to say that I could have gotten the answer by doing it another way? No it doesn't make any sense. Listen, I said that if you asked me how I came up with the answer (not how many different ways there are of finding the answer). If my response to you is that I added, then my reply has in fact answered your question. There is no need to state that I could have done it another way because I haved just answered your question.

Conversly, if you asked me how many different ways could I have come up with the answer, now I can elaborate. I can tell you all of the various ways that I could have gotten my answer.

I said all that to say this: God has revealed to us how He created matter, space, time, and life. He did it by speaking. There is no reason to say that He could have done it another way. That is conspicuously obvious, but the fact is He didn't do it any other way. He chose to do it through speaking not evolution. When God spoke it was done. Evolution is based on the premise that things "evolve" over eons of time. It does not take God eons to create the universe and earth. It took God only six days. He could have done it sooner.

Clear thinking, rational people don't read about how someone has done something and then come to a conclusion that that person did it another way. Still don't understand then re-read this post.

I am not asking you to question God's power or God's motives, just try and apply common sense and logic to God and how you interpret God.

Originally posted by Robtard
I am not asking you to question God's power or God's motives, just try and apply common sense and logic to God and how you interpret God.

Which might I add, Chirstians have been doing since the Renaissance.

Originally posted by Robtard
I am not asking you to question God's power or God's motives, just try and apply common sense and logic to God and how you interpret God.

I didn't accuse you of asking me to question God's power or motives, did I?

Here is what I am trying to convey: God has explicitly stated (in no uncertain terms) how He created the universe (He did so through speaking) so why even bring up a hypothetical like evolution in reference to God creating?

You said, "...if God created evolution, it would also be by Gods words...."

But He didn't create evolution. Based on the record that we have of humanity's origin it is clear that God did not want to use an inferior method like evolution. Evolution is a protracted process that supposedly occurs over eons of years. But everything that God does has a spiritual import and significance. For example, human beings are the only creatures that are made in God's image. No other creature has this claim to fame. Evolution presupposes that all organisms evolved from lower life forms into higher life forms. This process runs counter to God's process of creating creatures that are in His image. God's image is not that of a lower life form that evolved into a higher life form. So right off of the bat this methodology will not work. God wanted creatures that were made in His image and that were made fully mature and ready to reproduce from inception.

Jesus is alive!!!!!! why dont you do as your hero to make everyone the main picture.................why do you have to color your reply blue............has it dawned on you among actually the most in this life that many have a black background and blue doesnt really go well with that combination.......or do you have some divine intervention that told you to go all blue

Originally posted by finti
Jesus is alive!!! why do you have to color your reply blue............has it dawned on you among actually the most in this life that many have a black background and blue doesnt really go well with that combination.......

exactly...

anyway, i don't think i wanna believe i came from a monkey or something, so i gotta disagree with the evolution stuff.

and i believe in God and him creating the whole world, so...

your prerogative to do so,but when you question your faith in a deity, and you should, why does your god need mans approval of his existence through worship...........? omnipotent beings wouldnt crave their creations to worship it, thats vanity and how do that really mix wit this goody goody biblical god

hmm... so i don't have an answer to what you said...

i just take everything by Faith.

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
exactly...

anyway, i don't think i wanna believe i came from a monkey or something, so i gotta disagree with the evolution stuff.

and i believe in God and him creating the whole world, so...

You clearly don't undertand anything about natural selcetion of evolution. How are you to then judge?

Originally posted by Alliance
You clearly don't undertand anything about natural selcetion of evolution. How are you to then judge?

know.. something... bout it... from history lessons... and i don't like it one bit...

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
exactly...

anyway, i don't think i wanna believe i came from a monkey or something, so i gotta disagree with the evolution stuff.

and i believe in God and him creating the whole world, so...

u dont like the idea of evolving from a monkey, but you're okay with the idea that you were created from dirt ? 🤨

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
u dont like the idea of evolving from a monkey, but you're okay with the idea that you were created from dirt ? 🤨

at least it said i was created by God...

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
at least it said i was created by God...

...Who doesn't exist.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
...Who doesn't exist.

who really does exist....

i believe he does, so...

respects what you think.

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
know.. something... bout it... from history lessons... and i don't like it one bit...

Hello. What the hell is your history class going to teach you about the theory or the evidence supporting it.

You are uneducated on this subject, please admit it.

Originally posted by Alliance
Hello. What the hell is your history class going to teach you about the theory or the evidence supporting it.

You are uneducated on this subject, please admit it.

something about world history... *shrugs* and its on biology class too...

and yes, i should've just admitted in the beggining... *scratches head and grins sheepishly* not really into that subject, so dunno lots bout it...

"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
(Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)

"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
(Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition) Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292)

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

"Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group. Thus, it has seldom been possible to piece together ancestor-dependent sequences from the fossil record that show gradual, smooth transitions between species."
(Hickman, C.P. [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Washington and Lee University in Lexington], L.S. Roberts [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Texas Tech University], and F.M. Hickman. 1988. Integrated Principles of Zoology. Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, St. Louis, MO. 939 pp.; (pg. 866))

"When we view Darwinian gradualism on a geological timescale, we may expect to find in the fossil record a long series of intermediate forms connecting phenotypes of ancestral and descendant populations. This predicted pattern is called phyletic gradualism. Darwin recognized that phyletic gradualism is not often revealed by the fossil record. Studies conducted since Darwin’s time likewise have failed to produce the continuous series of fossils predicted by phyletic gradualism. Is the theory of gradualism therefore refuted? Darwin and others claim that it is not, because the fossil record is too imperfect to preserve transitional series...Others have argued, however, that the abrupt origins and extinctions of species in the fossil record force us to conclude that phyletic gradualism is rare. "
"A number of contemporary biologists, however, favor various hypotheses of the punctuated equilibrium theory...They base their hypotheses on fossil records which have large “chains” of missing organisms. Although missing-link fossils are occasionally discovered, the record does little to support Darwin’s concept of gradual, long-term change...Others opposed to hypotheses of evolution through sudden change argue that because such a tiny percentage of organisms becomes fossilized...drawing definite conclusions from fossil evidence about evolution through either gradual or sudden change is not warranted."
(Hickman, C.P. [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Washington and Lee University in Lexington], L.S. Roberts [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Texas Tech University], and A. Larson. 2000. Animal Diversity. McGraw Hill, NY. 429pp.; (p. 23, 261))

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
(Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
(Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)

"None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another."
(Luther Sunderland, science researcher)

"It is sometimes suggested that Darwin's theory is systematically irrefutable (and hence scientifically vacuous), but Darwin was forthright about what sort of finding it would take to refute his theory. "Though nature grants vast periods of time for the work of natural selection, she does not grant an indefinite period" (Origin, p. 102), so, if the geological evidence mounted to show that not enough time had elapsed, his whole theory would be refuted. This still left a temporary loophole, for the theory wasn't formulatable in sufficiently rigorous detail to say just how many millions of years was the minimal amount required, but it was a temporary loophole that made sense, since at least some proposals about its size could be evaluated independently."
(Dennett D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," 1996, p.46)

"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."
(Tom Kemp, Oxford University)

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places."
(Francis Hitching, archaeologist).

"There is no need to apologise any longer for the povertyof the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration... The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."
(T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective",Science Progress, vol 48, January 1960, pp. 1, 3.)

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution [i.e., a species becoming a new species] accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
(Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution (Freeman, San Francisco, 1977), p. 39)

"Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides means of 'seeing' Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them." (emphasis added)
(David Kitts, Ph.D. Palaeontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol.28 (Sep.1974) p.467)

"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin."
(Chinese Paleontologist Dr. Jun Yaun. Chen)

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
something about world history... *shrugs* and its on biology class too...

and yes, i should've just admitted in the beggining... *scratches head and grins sheepishly* not really into that subject, so dunno lots bout it...

Then perhaps, you should learn what it is before you critique it? And I do reccomend that you learn the thory and the evidence supporting it from REPUTABLE sources, not some website that JIA throws up.

If you'd like help, I'd be happy to point you in some directions or answer your questions. You can pm me or aske here.

But until that time, please stop critiquing something that you know so little about. If you don't want to learn what Natural Selection is, then don't, but please don't bash it until you understand it.

While true that the “missing link” for man hasn’t been found there are so many others that lead up to modern man that show the evolution of primitive man to modern man.

didn't darwin contradict himself afterwards?

or am i wrong again...

No, Natural selection was published late in Darwin's life. He spent a lot of time doing it. To my knowledge he never contradicted it, but his Theory of Natural Selection has been changed significantly since his time.