Originally posted by RJHinds It is in the Holy Bible that you should seek the truth. 😏
For how life evolved? No, I think science is much more explicit on that front at least. It is clear that the author(s) of Genesis 1 wrote for a relatively unsophisticated audience with little concern for the 'how' of God's act of creation. Yes, God is responsible for creating the world, but you really have no idea how he did it based on the Genesis text. That the organisms spoken of in Genesis 1 follow a logical progression similar to that posited by modern science suggests, to me, that the evolutionists have it right.
Originally posted by epiphinehas For how life evolved? No, I think science is much more explicit on that front at least. It is clear that the author(s) of Genesis 1 wrote for a relatively unsophisticated audience with little concern for the 'how' of God's act of creation. Yes, God is responsible for creating the world, but you really have no idea how he did it based on the Gen ...[text shortened]... ilar to that posited by modern science suggests, to me, that the evolutionists have it right.
But the Holy Bible says life forms were created and then reproduced
after its own kind. It say nothing about life forms evolving because
that didn't happen. 😏
Originally posted by RJHinds Spontaneous reproduction
What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate? Why are there two sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some ...[text shortened]... me with such details; my mind is made up.
This post displays (unsurprisingly) a complete lack of understanding of science. Just like we do not have to give a complete list of everything that ever fell to prove gravity, we do not have to give a list of every change in organisms throughout the history of life on this planet to prove evolution.
The "irreducible complexity" (eyes have to form completely in one generation or they are useless, same for reproductive systems, heart, lungs, ...) argument has been refuted often enough. I'm not even going to take the time to do so here, because you'd just come up with new parts of the body and ask us to explain how they came about. (Though you might want to google "evolution of the eye" for a good example of how that argument crumbles down).
Originally posted by Nicksten This is excellent reading material - and I believe every word especially the part where Darwin himself I belief has disproved his own theory "But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? -Charles Darwin".
It has made me realize that God may be quit ...[text shortened]... gh evidence to humankind to disprove theories like this and other false religions. Praise God!
Would you be surprised that this quote has been ripped out of context and does not mean what RJ is implying it means ? In his actual work it is a rhetorical question, given as a possible objection to his theory, an objection he then goes on to refute.
Originally posted by Barts Would you be surprised that this quote has been ripped out of context and does not mean what RJ is implying it means ? In his actual work it is a rhetorical question, given as a possible objection to his theory, an objection he then goes on to refute.
Nicksten is busted. This was a try to falsify Dawins words. Well, it backfired.
But I don't think Nicksten did this intentionally. He has been fooled to believe this from other creationalistic sources who wants to twist Darwins words by a purpose. Uncountables good christians has been fooled to believe this, Nicksten is just one of them.
It's quite easy to google the true words of Darwin to see what Darwin wrote after this paragraph, so foolishly drawn from its context. Thank god for Google!
Originally posted by epiphinehas Evidence? The fossil record unequivocally supports the notion that life unfolded (bacteria before eukaryotes, eukaryotes before multicellular organisms, fish before amphibians, etc.). If organisms were created by God spontaneously, we'd expect species to appear without being preceded by a logically related ancestor (Zebras before fish, birds before amphibians, etc.). The evidence supports Darwinism.
read the first post again - it supports Creationism. And even if you don't agree, I do.
Originally posted by FabianFnas Nicksten is busted. This was a try to falsify Dawins words. Well, it backfired.
But I don't think Nicksten did this intentionally. He has been fooled to believe this from other creationalistic sources who wants to twist Darwins words by a purpose. Uncountables good christians has been fooled to believe this, Nicksten is just one of them.
It's quite ...[text shortened]... Darwin wrote after this paragraph, so foolishly drawn from its context. Thank god for Google!
Can we get the next paragraph? Even if we can get some text before and after so to understand exactly what Darwin said.
I tried searching, maybe my search keywords suck 🙂
Originally posted by Barts This post displays (unsurprisingly) a complete lack of understanding of science. Just like we do not have to give a complete list of everything that ever fell to prove gravity, we do not have to give a list of every change in organisms throughout the history of life on this planet to prove evolution.
The "irreducible complexity" (eyes have to form completel ...[text shortened]... t to google "evolution of the eye" for a good example of how that argument crumbles down).
No,you do not have to give a list of every change in organisms
throughout the history of life on this planet to prove evolution,
because I know evolution for most believers is really adaptation
dressed up in fancy words. There is actually no proof of real
evolution for it does not happen and never did. What did
happen is called creation.
😏
Originally posted by RJHinds No,you do not have to give a list of every change in organisms
throughout the history of life on this planet to prove evolution,
because I know evolution for most believers is really adaptation
dressed up in fancy words. There is actually no proof of real
evolution for it does not happen and never did. What did
happen is called creation.
😏
Can you give us your definitions of adaptation and evolution ?
Originally posted by Barts Would you be surprised that this quote has been ripped out of context and does not mean what RJ is implying it means ? In his actual work it is a rhetorical question, given as a possible objection to his theory, an objection he then goes on to refute.
He refutes nothing with his words. He is only making excuses to
trick gullible people like you. 😏
Originally posted by FabianFnas Nicksten is busted. This was a try to falsify Dawins words. Well, it backfired.
But I don't think Nicksten did this intentionally. He has been fooled to believe this from other creationalistic sources who wants to twist Darwins words by a purpose. Uncountables good christians has been fooled to believe this, Nicksten is just one of them.
It's quite ...[text shortened]... Darwin wrote after this paragraph, so foolishly drawn from its context. Thank god for Google!
We know the excuses he wrote later, but that does not change the
truth of his original statement for it is still true today. 😏
Originally posted by RJHinds No,you do not have to give a list of every change in organisms
throughout the history of life on this planet to prove evolution,
because I know evolution for most believers is really adaptation
dressed up in fancy words. There is actually no proof of real
evolution for it does not happen and never did. What did
happen is called creation.
😏
How many boks have you read Silicon Ron regarding the evidence for evolution by Natural Selection?
Originally posted by RJHinds We know the excuses he wrote later, but that does not change the
truth of his original statement for it is still true today. 😏
Holes in the Theory of Evolution
11 Jan '12 07:43
Back to Top