 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Troy Hamby |
| The Bard wrote: | | Troy Hamby wrote: | | The theory of evolution... is widely accepted by MOST scientist (including Christian scientists) as an established REALITY backed up by the facts as they know them. |
Doesn't matter.
Evolution is a biological, physical, mathematical, statistical, and logistical impossibility. It just doesn't happen... and never did.
There is nothing outside of mere circumstantial evidence that even remotely supports the theory and the fossil record outright refutes it.
Period.
It's not an established reality no matter how hard some scientist may close his eyes, clinch his fists, and wish it to be.
It simply is not. And we KNOW that to be the case.
I will, however, agree that the refusal of some (whether dishonestly or ignorantly, I cannot always tell for sure- but it must be one of the two) to allow for and old-earth creation- such as we see in this thread- even in Scripture, is problematic.... for them, anyway. |
i would be willing to vehemently argue for a literal creation...God created everything we know and evolution is bunk. But I am very iffy on the age of the Earth and Universe as a whole, especially saying it's only 6-8K years old. |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2460
8/19/13 1:40 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Phillip Johnson |
| To say outright that evolution does not happen is quite silly, unless you can narrow your terminology. We actually witness the adaptation of bacteria and viruses in a matter of a few months, sometimes less. Single-celled life forms can adapt quite quickly. Through selective breeding, man has influenced dramatic adaptations in plants and animals in a matter of years, and we have not even had a very lengthy period of record to establish that evolution (as it seems you infer) can't happen. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4989
8/19/13 4:19 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Phillip Johnson |
| The Bard wrote: | | Phillip Johnson wrote: | | we have not even had a very lengthy period of record to establish that evolution (as it seems you infer) can't happen. |
We don't need a lengthy period of record to establish that the impossible is impossible.
Species do not become other, separate species. And things do not "evolve" from absolute nothing. Single-celled life forms do not evolve from rocks and nothingness and become fish which grow legs and become frogs which grow tails and feathers and fly away and grow fur and become monkeys which learn to walk upright and become man. Things don't just magically appear on their own, nor do they become something they're not.
Sorry. It doesn't happen. Never has. Ever.
It's an absurdity... as well as a known impossibility.
And I didn't just infer it. I stated it outright. |
So it must be true!  |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4989
8/19/13 4:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Phillip Johnson |
| Do you believe that donkeys, horses and zebras have a common ancestral breed? What about lions and tigers? Wolves and Coyotes? Polar bears, grizzles, black bears, and pandas? |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4989
8/19/13 4:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| As much as I loathe Phillip (SMILE)... |
Aaron Scott |
He's right. To smugly claim that mathematics and logic make it plainly impossible for evolution to take place...is to be disingenuous with the facts.
The foremost scientists, logicians, mathematicians of our time are evolutionists.
BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ATHEISTS.
Some have places a false choice before us. They would have us think that if you believe in evolution, then you clearly don't believe in God.
NOT SO.
You can believe in EVOLUTION AND CREATION. There are a variety of ways to do this. You can believe that evolution took place, even though God began it all. You can believe that in the wide river of evolution, some things evolved under God's specific direction. You can also believe that in the wide river of evolution, that God stepped into the flow and instantly created some things.
I'm not saying that it did not happen exactly as literal interpretation would lead us to think. I am saying, however, that to blithely deny that evolution can take place is to be dismissed immediately from educated company. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/19/13 4:43 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Travis Johnson |
It's indisputable that micro-evolution happens. I doubt there is a science or a religion professor at Lee University that would disagree with that. I'd be shocked if Dr. Mortenson disagreed with that.
That in no way is problematic for orthodox Christianity. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7862
8/19/13 4:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Evolving into different species... |
Aaron Scott |
This is one thing that most of my beloved literalist brethren throw out: One species cannot evolve into another species.
Yes, they can.
BUT...but the person who DEFINES "species" can make it appear that such cannot happen. Let me give you an example....
Let's say that we have an aquatic animal that has a branch that eventually evolves to a land animal. I think, what with crawling catfish (and tumors!) we can see that this COULD conceivably have happened (some fish can live out of water for extended periods as they make their way along with their fins).
Well, this all took place in the distant past. So we come along, we see these two different animals--one aquatic, one land-based. They no longer reproduce together, etc. Well, the DNA might show that they are closely related (like a hippo and a whale, perhaps), but we would never claim they are the same species!
WHY?
Why, because if it were the same species, they could reproduce together--duh!
Except that is circular reasoning (begging the question). Yes, if you DEFINE "species" as "a life form that can reproduce only with its own kind," then OF COURSE you are not going to accept that species X and species Y are connected.
Just a thought. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/19/13 4:50 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Bard...your just playing, now |
Aaron Scott |
Bard, surely you are just trying to stir the pot. For your comments show a profound ignorance of what evolutionary theory claims.
In any case, if you DID see a frog with wings, you would NEVER allow that it was a case of evolution. Rather, you would claim that it was a new, previously undiscovered, species.
Question: Name what scientists would have to find our show (within reason) to make you believe in evolution.
I'm betting you can name nothing...which means your position is not based on evidence.
Richard Dawkins has come right out and at least said that if we found humans in the same layer as certain, far earlier, lifeforms, evolution would tumble. (Of course, I doubt they'd give up that easily--they would want to confirm that it was valid, etc.) But AT LEAST he has something that CAN disprove his theory.
What would disprove your position? I'm betting nothing. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/19/13 4:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Bard... |
Aaron Scott |
No, it's not "generally" what evolution embraces.
For instance, here's this jewel: "If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?"
Literalists think that question makes sense. An evolutionists just shakes his/her head in wonder. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/19/13 5:14 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Phillip Johnson |
| Bard, you don't want to answer the question I asked regarding common ancestors? It's an interesting line of thought. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4989
8/19/13 5:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Phillip Johnson |
| Ok fair enough, you don't want to answer the question. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4989
8/19/13 5:36 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Phillip Johnson |
| Diverging adapting species due to time and some barrier where the species can no longer reproduce with the other pretty much defines evolution. I guess it comes down to how far you are willing to accept that it actually has happened, and how far you believe those species can or have diverged. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4989
8/19/13 5:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
dtgrant |
Quote Troy Hamby:
| Quote: | | ... if you accept the young Earth theory, the Bible and science are completely antithetical and no compromises can be made? |
Not at all. The Bible and true science are completely compatible. No compromises are necessary.
Science is practiced by fallible man in a fallen world. Man errs often.
It is impossible for ‘true’ science to contradict the Bible.
The Bible is TRUTH. God cannot lie.
Quote Troy Hamby:
| Quote: | | And what about the Christians who accept the Bible as the TRUTH but disagree with your version of the TRUTH? |
There is only one TRUTH. We believe the written account of creation as given in Genesis. Which creation account (scripture reference please) are you referring to as another version of creation?
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/19/13 5:50 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| What is your authority? |
Poimen |
| The Bard wrote: |
And that is what evolution espouses- that everything evolved, magically from one single common ancestor- that from one single-celled organism, all of life as we know it evolved and became something it was not and something which it had no potential to be, violating known biological, mathematical, logistical, statistical, physical laws in the process. |
Not to mention its incompatibility with Scripture, which we all know to be the truth, the word of God, and which we all profess to be inspired and authoritative, our rule of faith.
The questions of origins is one of faith. You either have faith in an unobservable THEORY of origins called evolution, or you have faith in the word of God. But it IS a question of faith, and thus of authority.
Science and faith have the same evidence, the same materials. So why are their conclusions different? Because they have different starting assumptions, and different sources of authority. For believers the Bible is, and must always be, the authority.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Last edited by Poimen on 8/19/13 6:03 pm; edited 2 times in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/19/13 5:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
John Jett |
sorry, if you believe in a 12 billion year old earth AND evolution, then you are in the same camp as Steven Hawking who concludes that there is "no need for a creator". To deny that conclusion is intellectually dishonest. I certainly agree with his logic based on his view, (which I disagree with).
I'll give an alternate version of his conclusion. If the earth is 12 billion years old, and life evolves from one form to a completely different one, then all God needs to do is live that long and take the credit for it. (of course I don't believe that, but that's what God is reduced to in the the belief in both evolution AND 12 billion years). |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4955
8/19/13 6:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Poimen |
| The Bard wrote: |
The written account as given in Genesis (and the whole of Scripture) lends itself also to another interpretation (old-earth creationism with its various theories- except of course, evolution) other than the one you espouse. Neither of which we can know for certain is the actual true and proper interpretation. |
Maybe it is too insignificant a nuance for others, but I much prefer and can find agreement here with your use of the term "lend", as opposed to your previous expression "legitimate".
| Quote: | | The text is ambiguous. |
Not to me. Though I understand how some could find it so -- especially after decades of assault and inroads from "theological" views whose source of authority is not Scripture, but rather compatibility with the claims of scientists (who are but fallible men, however intelligent).
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/19/13 6:11 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Poimen |
There is no ambiguity in Genesis one regarding creation. Rather a clear cut statement, including order and time. And when coupled with Jesus' own words about the creation of man as husband and wife being part of the creative work of God, "in the beginning", it is unclear how any believer can maintain any honest assertion of ambiguity.
There is no ambiguity, if taken as given. One has to read ambiguity into the text for any to be there. Genesis records God's ex-nihilo creative work as the beginning, unfolding and concluding in six consecutive days, with God resting on the seventh. It is not ambiguous about that at all.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/19/13 6:46 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Likewise |
Poimen |
Sigh.
Your protests just will not make it so.
The text is not ambiguous. More than one conclusion cannot reasonably be drawn from the text.
It isn't.
That's just a fact.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/19/13 7:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| I'll just restate and repeat, and |
Poimen |
We can keep that going ad infinitum. But I'll just mention that, and move on instead. 
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/19/13 7:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Likewise |
John Jett |
| The Bard wrote: |
Fortunately (fortunately for me, that is), that simply is not a fact. You're either misinformed or are blatantly dishonest. I prefer to think that the latter isn't true.
Your personal preferences and biases to do not determine what is reasonable.
Sorry. |
Point out the ambiguity. You pointed out a good example with the duck, now point out the ambiguous lines in Genesis. I don't completely dismiss an "older" earth since I think there is room for a re-creation of sorts (the gap theory), but I believe in a literal 6 creation days, I absolutely do. Those don't have to be the ONLY creation days, but they are the ones that apply to life as we know it now. If those are the ambiguities, then I can understand that, if, however, the 6 days are what you call ambiguous, I don't see it. And you want to talk about lame, everybody pulling out "a day is like a thousand years" and applying it to Genesis is lame. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4955
8/19/13 7:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
