Evolution vs. Creation Topic

Is He Right Or Wrong About This?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No.

    Votes: 3 100.0%
  • Total voters
    3
Take a look in the mirror and tell me you are evolved! Pssh! Yeah right!

I think you all can see this is a soft spot of mine. I vehemently detest evolution!

God's creative nature and power is one of the central attributes of who he is.
 
Last edited:
Cosmicwaffle said:
Evolution is a Godless

Do you even know what's in the Bible? Do you believe it?
Click to expand...

Interesting thing about scientific theories,

I gotta God.
You gotta God.
All God's chilins gotta God.

But scientific theories are godless.

Do I know what is in the Bible? Actually no, but I reading about it. :)
 
ASUK said:
The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming. All life on this planet is related because we all share common ancestors. Those that deny it are welcome to do so if it makes you feel warm and cozy but it still happened.

What are you worried about anyway? Just because we evolved out of a primordial soup doesn't mean you can't find salvation through Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Ahh mystery solved! Tree huggers are just embracing their distant relatives. All along I thought they were just collecting splinters.
 
Let's make sure, as this topic progresses, that we keep the mud slinging out of the picture. The facts are that the scientific community cannot prove evolution no matter how much they say otherwise, and the righteous cannot prove God because He doesn't want to be proven to those who don't want Him. It's all faith for everyone. God calls us to see the evidence of things hidden, linking them in faith. Scientists just demand blind faith. Why do you think Richard Dawkins no longer keeps his theories on earth, because he can no longer deny the required design aspect of creation, so he's put the creator into outer space and aliens, but never addresses, who made them? More blind faith. DNA disproves evolution 100%.
 
Saved By Grace said:
Hello everyone. Quick question about something.

My friend and I got into a conversation recently about Creation and Evolution. I told him I believed God created the Universe and everything there is to be known and he agreed. However, he did tell me that God created everything but that animals evolved overtime. He said that there was scientific proof of the animals evolving. I didn't really know how to respond to that. He seems to believe in Creation and Evolution. I am the same way in terms of "Survival of the Fittest".

This led me to this topic in which I want to know everyone's opinions regarding this. Did the animals possibly evolve overtime? I say, "No." But I don't really have anything to back this up, this is mainly just how I have been raised. Not the "scientific" kind of guy. This is just a question. Please don't turn this into an argument and follow the rules of CFS.
Click to expand...

Evolution #3

Lamarck (1 August 1744 – 18 December 1829), promoted the idea that species change. His work on embryology led him to the idea of common descent, and he believed that the environment causes the changes in organisms. He was the first to develop a truly coherent evolutionary theory. Darwin accepted his ideas about decent, but not his ideas about the reason for change.

Darwin read about both Hutton and Lamarck in Lyell’s geology book, and he used Lamarck’s idea of descent and Hutton’s idea of time. He added the idea that the environment selects change. He basically predicted that there must be a source of change, but he did not know what it is.

Darwin called his theory Natural Selection. It was only one of several competing theories of evolution. or more simply stated, theories of why organisms change.

I suppose people can believe that species change or not. After all Quran says so. However, seems to me they should use standard grammar when they say one way or the other.

Saying that evolution is a theory is really sucky grammar. Evolution is change. Changes are facts, or at least statements represented at facts. Facts cannot be theories. So saying that evolution is a theory is a thick-headed, nonsensical thing to say. Natural Selection is a theory. Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory. Changes cannot be theories. At least not if you want to use proper grammar.
 
ASUK said:
The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming. All life on this planet is related because we all share common ancestors. Those that deny it are welcome to do so if it makes you feel warm and cozy but it still happened.

What are you worried about anyway? Just because we evolved out of a primordial soup doesn't mean you can't find salvation through Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

Yes it actually does. You want to serve a God that put Adam's fore fathers through millions of years of cruel natural selection? I don't. To hell with that god!!!! He can kiss my white cherry behind.

Our God (Jesus) teaches us the opposite to natural selection. So either there are 1. Two Gods or 2. Evolution took place via loving our enemies and giving cloak and coat to survive or 3. evolution is 99% dream and 1% fact.

Heb 2:7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor.

Does it say ''He made us way beneath the angels and over many years of cruel natural selection ordained by God, we arrived at a point just beneath them... and at that point ...which was the year of Adam and miraculously Eve... is the time that they and their descendants were of reasonable intelligence and became accountable for sin and needed a Savior.''

When Adam fell, did he go to his ape father for counsel? I can just imagine it. ''Dad I just ate of the tree God told me not to, what do you suggest I do?'' I feel naked. ''Ooh ooh aah aah'' :giggle:.
 
Saved By Grace said:
Hello everyone. Quick question about something.

My friend and I got into a conversation recently about Creation and Evolution. I told him I believed God created the Universe and everything there is to be known and he agreed. However, he did tell me that God created everything but that animals evolved overtime. He said that there was scientific proof of the animals evolving. I didn't really know how to respond to that. He seems to believe in Creation and Evolution. I am the same way in terms of "Survival of the Fittest".

This led me to this topic in which I want to know everyone's opinions regarding this. Did the animals possibly evolve overtime? I say, "No." But I don't really have anything to back this up, this is mainly just how I have been raised. Not the "scientific" kind of guy. This is just a question. Please don't turn this into an argument and follow the rules of CFS.
Click to expand...

Evolution #4 -- Malthus

Lyell’s Elements of Geology told Darwin about Lamarck’s ideas about descent, Hutton’s ideas about Earth’s age, but Lyell did not mention Malthus.

Malthus (13 February 1766 – 23 December 1834) an influential English scholar, today might refer to himself as an economist. His Essay on the Principle of Population may have been the source of Darwin’s ideas about selection. Malthus wrote about human population causing famine, but Darwin saw it as an answer to the question about what selects some species and not others. Darwin noticed that trees make more seeds and animals have more offspring than are able to survive. Like a key in a lock, the offspring which fit the niche survive and the others don’t, so Darwin realized that the environment selects which organisms fit into the lock and which don’’t. The enviornment would determine which organisms fit into the environment and which do not. Fitness could be stronger or weaker, faster or slower, bigger or smaller. The environment would determine which criteria to select.
 
Evolution #5 -- Mendel

Modern biologists think that Darwin found one thing, the environment, that accounts for change in species, but he never found the thing, now known as genes, that changes organisms so the environment has something to select.

Farmers must have known since the stone age that selecting some animals to breed or seeds to plant changes the animals or plants.

Gregor Johann Mendel (20 July 1822 – 6 January 1884), a German-speaking friar made close observations about it between 1856 and 1863, which coincides with the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

Mendel and Darwin never met. Historians think that if Mendel and Darwin had met, then they would have had a cowarbunga moment. Something like Archimedes in the bath tube.

Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection was not accepted by all biologists until almost 100 years later. At least four other theories competed with it: Creationism, something called homunculus, Lamarckism, and Spontaneous Generation.
 
Ghid said:
Evolution #5 -- Mendel

Modern biologists think that Darwin found one thing, the environment, that accounts for change in species, but he never found the thing, now known as genes, that changes organisms so the environment has something to select.

Farmers must have known since the stone age that selecting some animals to breed or seeds to plant changes the animals or plants.

Gregor Johann Mendel (20 July 1822 – 6 January 1884), a German-speaking friar made close observations about it between 1856 and 1863, which coincides with the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

Mendel and Darwin never met. Historians think that if Mendel and Darwin had met, then they would have had a cowarbunga moment. Something like Archimedes in the bath tube.

Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection was not accepted by all biologists until almost 100 years later. At least four other theories competed with it: Creationism, something called homunculus, Lamarckism, and Spontaneous Generation.
Click to expand...
Natural selection is merely the working out of the variations already present in DNA. It is often described as 'survival of the fittest.'

Natural selection will not cause a jump from one species to another.

And the Second Law of Thermodynamics (increasing entropy, order to chaos) states that any change to a highly ordered system will lead to less order. In other words, any mutation will be detrimental to an organism, not lead to a higher form.
 
HisManySongs said:
Natural selection is merely the working out of the variations already present in DNA. It is often described as 'survival of the fittest.'

Natural selection will not cause a jump from one species to another.

And the Second Law of Thermodynamics (increasing entropy, order to chaos) states that any change to a highly ordered system will lead to less order. In other words, any mutation will be detrimental to an organism, not lead to a higher form.
Click to expand...
Exactly, order does not come from chaos.
 
ASUK said:
The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming. All life on this planet is related because we all share common ancestors. Those that deny it are welcome to do so if it makes you feel warm and cozy but it still happened.

What are you worried about anyway? Just because we evolved out of a primordial soup doesn't mean you can't find salvation through Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

NOPE!

One can not accept evolution and Creation. They can not be mixed. It is either one or the other.
 
HisManySongs said:
Natural selection is merely the working out of the variations already present in DNA. It is often described as 'survival of the fittest.'
Click to expand...

If "working out" means selection, then that is correct.

HisManySongs said:
Natural selection will not cause a jump from one species to another.
Click to expand...
Well yes, there could be another reason.

HisManySongs said:
And the Second Law of Thermodynamics (increasing entropy, order to chaos) states that any change to a highly ordered system will lead to less order. In other words, any mutation will be detrimental to an organism, not lead to a higher form.
Click to expand...

The biology teachers at my school insist that organisms are neither higher nor lower. Organisms are more fit or less fit. I don't know which, more fit or less fit, would be more organized. Seems to me that if the less organized is more fit, then the environment will pick that one.

I suppose if the environment does not have enough energy, then the organism with the more chaotic system could be more fit. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not in our biology text. I don't see how it is relevant.
 
Ghid said:
If "working out" means selection, then that is correct.

Well yes, there could be another reason.



The biology teachers at my school insist that organisms are neither higher nor lower. Organisms are more fit or less fit. I don't know which, more fit or less fit, would be more organized. Seems to me that if the less organized is more fit, then the environment will pick that one.

I suppose if the environment does not have enough energy, then the organism with the more chaotic system could be more fit. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not in our biology text. I don't see how it is relevant.
Click to expand...

According to the Bible: we live in a 'broken'; "fallen" sin filled world; in the next there will be no more death. We forget that we live in the aftermath of the flood (as well as the separation state from God); in a world that is barely a reflection; 'a shadow' of the things to come-we won't have to 'fight to survive'.
 
Ghid said:
If "working out" means selection, then that is correct.

Well yes, there could be another reason.



The biology teachers at my school insist that organisms are neither higher nor lower. Organisms are more fit or less fit. I don't know which, more fit or less fit, would be more organized. Seems to me that if the less organized is more fit, then the environment will pick that one.

I suppose if the environment does not have enough energy, then the organism with the more chaotic system could be more fit. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not in our biology text. I don't see how it is relevant.
Click to expand...
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is very relevant. It governs how systems operate. It's a law of nature and should be in your text.

Have you ever considered how incredibly complex the human body is. There are hundreds of intricate systems utilizing complex molecules.

And evolution wants us to believe this came to be through a process of very small changes (99.999 % of which are actually a step backwards) over an incredible period of time. The number of changes necessary for any one of these systems is beyond the scope of evolution. Each complex system would require dozens or more mutations (again 99.999 % of which are steps backwards) happening at the same time.

Sorry, evolution requires more faith than I have.
 
Major said:
NOPE!

One can not accept evolution and Creation. They can not be mixed. It is either one or the other.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with this. Some aspects of evolution stem from creation. For example, Survival of the Fittest. You can accept both. Remember, evolution is just a theory. When you do accept both, it depends on what you believe. Millions of years or thousands can't be proved. The age of the earth doesn't matter if you believe in creation.
 
“Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.”

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. “

“And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

“But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be”

“And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”
 
Ghid said:
Evolution #3

Lamarck (1 August 1744 – 18 December 1829), promoted the idea that species change. His work on embryology led him to the idea of common descent, and he believed that the environment causes the changes in organisms. He was the first to develop a truly coherent evolutionary theory. Darwin accepted his ideas about decent, but not his ideas about the reason for change.

Darwin read about both Hutton and Lamarck in Lyell’s geology book, and he used Lamarck’s idea of descent and Hutton’s idea of time. He added the idea that the environment selects change. He basically predicted that there must be a source of change, but he did not know what it is.

Darwin called his theory Natural Selection. It was only one of several competing theories of evolution. or more simply stated, theories of why organisms change.

I suppose people can believe that species change or not. After all Quran says so. However, seems to me they should use standard grammar when they say one way or the other.

Saying that evolution is a theory is really sucky grammar. Evolution is change. Changes are facts, or at least statements represented at facts. Facts cannot be theories. So saying that evolution is a theory is a thick-headed, nonsensical thing to say. Natural Selection is a theory. Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory. Changes cannot be theories. At least not if you want to use proper grammar.
Click to expand...

Embryology, metamorphosis, fetus to an adult, caterpillar to butterfly…
That is observable in a short period of time...

Yes, evolution is change... simple grammar..

"Evolution" is not the same with "Darwinian Evolution" though.... the latter is not observable in a short period of time.
 
Saved By Grace said:
I don't agree with this. Some aspects of evolution stem from creation. For example, Survival of the Fittest. You can accept both. Remember, evolution is just a theory. When you do accept both, it depends on what you believe. Millions of years or thousands can't be proved. The age of the earth doesn't matter if you believe in creation.
Click to expand...

That's OK. A lot of people who believe in evolution feel the way you do.

It is one or the other but for a Christian it can not be evolution. Evolution denies a Creator and Christianity accepts a Creator.

It is a no argument debate my brother.

Evolution says that life came from raw elements of the earth and nothing more. That is called "spontaneous generation".
Life began when dead raw elements somehow generated life from dead stuff.

Christianity says that God created the universe, the earth and all living things by Himself. Jesus it is said in Genesis molded life from clay with HIs own body fluid and then breathed life into a human.

These are two opposite programs which can not be joined.
 
Ghid said:
If "working out" means selection, then that is correct.

Well yes, there could be another reason.



The biology teachers at my school insist that organisms are neither higher nor lower. Organisms are more fit or less fit. I don't know which, more fit or less fit, would be more organized. Seems to me that if the less organized is more fit, then the environment will pick that one.

I suppose if the environment does not have enough energy, then the organism with the more chaotic system could be more fit. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not in our biology text. I don't see how it is relevant.
Click to expand...
Your text book is as complete as a photo album is of the world. The details are glossed over and ignored so an agenda is painted and ignorance is pushed so a lie is born.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top