SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )



HopePurifies wrote:
Creation apologists have readily responded to every point in this essay. Check out or any other place and see what they have to say about it. If you have done this, and are not convinced by their response, you could tell us why.
This essay isn't that impressive, and doesn't show any of us more than we've already heard.
I believed in evolution fervently a few months after my profession of faith. I read probably every article on I just didn't see any contradiction with evolution and the Bible.
But then I realized that Jesus quoted the creation account. Hit one. Then I read a lot of stuff over those months and realized that evolution isn't necessary. Why limit God to the use of evolution? Survival of the fittest is a sad fact, and a result of the fall. It is not the method that God would have originally intended for the development of His creation. Human-kind is not the apex of evolution. If we didn't have similar DNA and such than the animals and plants then we couldn't get as much nutrition from eating them. But we are completely different than animals. They were spoken by word, we were created by dust and the breath of God and in the image of God.
I'm really sleepy, so I'll leave ya to hearing and listening and responding and all that. May God lead us all in wisdom and truth.

Thanks for this to the point comment!

I confess I didn't even bother reading the essay, becaue of having, like you, "heard it all before".

I will do so if you like, but it does seem a waste of time.

What thrills me is that God created our genetic makeup so incredibly [i]rich[/i] that it was possible for organisms of each "kind" (perhaps roughly corresponding to what we call families or genera - a wider grouping than species) could adapt and diversify to fill all the different habitats of the earth.

And even after the Flood, this could happen, and is still happening, when they were narrowed down to only ONE pair of animals (in most cases).

It's only in recent years that the gene pool (the genetic richness and variability of a population) has become so poor in the case of some animals and plants that they are probably becoming extinct simply because they can't cope genetically with changing conditions any more.

This is "devolution", not evolution, because genetic richness is being lost to a population. Yet even many scientists imagine this is evolution, in spite of the evidence otherwise.

If you have done this, and are not convinced by their response, you could tell us why.

Yes indeed, it would be interesting to know if there is any rational response that can be made.

Although, merely picking holes in the details of Creation reasoning isn't enough. Even scientists, even creation scientists can make mistakes. The point is the broafd thesis, the weight of evidence for and against Evolution.

Try making a list of pros and cons re Evolution, for example, and see which list is more likely scientifically. (bear in mind that such things as mutatation, speciation, adaptive radiation etc are [i]processes[/i], that some thikink produce Evolution. They are not Evolution in themselves. Indeed they are EXACTLY what one would expect from a literal reading of the Bible account of creation and the events that followed.

The question therefore is, whether these processes are likely or unlikely to produce "upward" change such as Evolution requires, not do they fit in with the Bible account - because they obviously do! If they are likely to produce "evolutionatry changes, you are now in a position (scientifically) where Evolution is perhaps as likely as Creation, rather than less likely!

Personally (merely from the scientific point of view, even without the Genesis account), I don't think the evidence for Evolution is even good enough to make it a "toss-up" which you believe!



 2007/6/28 6:14


In the words of Larry Norman... "I aint gonna let no paleantologist make a monkey out of me!"

(to save everyone time asking who Larry Norman is... )


 2007/6/28 8:07

Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri


If you want to go one step back, think of designing a Carbon atom with the attributes that make life possible, and then go one stage back to designing the quarks and leptons that mean that of the 92 or so naturally occuring elements, Carbon is formed in a way that supports life; truly awesome! Just because the data also fits an evolutionist model, doesn't mean it supports evolution. A good scientist will look for an experiment that distinguishes between two models. None of the biological data presented does that; it can easily be made to fit either an evolutionary or a creationist model.

Thanks for sharing this Mike. I was thinking something similar, but could not articulate it well enough to address it.

Robert Wurtz II

 2007/6/28 8:55Profile

Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


None of the biological data presented does that; it can easily be made to fit either an evolutionary or a creationist model.

So true.

An evolutionist sees biological relationship as evolutionary relationship while it is quite reasonable to see genetic similarity and homology as design relationship.


Mike Compton

 2007/6/28 12:44Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy