SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Evolution proof?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Evolution proof?


A couple of posters asked about the proof of evolution. Here are two things to consider.

A. Domesticated dogs. All domesticated dogs are the descendents of Siberian wolves. From the tiny tea cup chiwowa (sp?) to the great dane and everything in between. This shows the plasticity of morphology of animals.

B. Neoteny, meaning the retention of juvenile characteristics into adult hood. They say a picture is worth 1000 words. This link is worth many more. The picture of the juvenile chimpanzee looks just like a human.

www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Neoteny_in_humans.htm

This may not be conclusive proof, but taken together these points put the burden on the person who denies evolution because they demonstrate that human evolution from primates is clearly possible.



 2003/12/12 10:16
Nasher
Member



Joined: 2003/7/28
Posts: 404
Watford, UK

 Re: Evolution proof?

Try this:

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/dasc/EATB00.HTM


_________________
Mark Nash

 2003/12/12 10:27Profile









 Re:


Nasher,

Evolution at the Bar was written about 30 years ago and is hopelessly out of date. Much of the scientific evidence required to answer his questions has been produced since the book was published.

Jake

 2003/12/12 13:00
5nva
Member



Joined: 2003/8/15
Posts: 179


 Re: Evolution proof?

Jake:

Your points put no burden upon me, one who denies the foolishness of evolution.

God created man in His own image. That my friend is enough for me, as I live by faith and trust in Gods word.

I will not ask some questions that came into mind to refute evolution because I'm sure you have a very non-biblical and anti-Christian explantion.

I will state once again to you, that how can you, being a professing Christian believe such non-sense as demonstrated here and in your homosexual beliefs.

Mike


_________________
Mike

 2003/12/12 13:18Profile









 Re:


Mike,

Being a Christian does not require a person to reject evolution. Nor does it require us to view the Genesis story as literal. Being a Christian requires acceptance of God's grace through Jesus and nothing more.

Mike, be careful in using words such as "foolishness." Jesus spoke against this.

Jake

 2003/12/12 13:48
Jason
Member



Joined: 2003/3/15
Posts: 138


 Re: Evolution proof?

Jake, all you have proven is adaptation. No person will reject the fact of adaptation.

The problem with the theory of evolution (remember, it is just a theory -- and a poor one) is that it says that animals actually evolve into OTHER ANIMALS. What you have shown above is that dogs "evolve" into different types of dogs, not that dogs can become another species.

Secondly, evolution is impossible because of the simple fact that one species cannot mate with another and produce potent offspring. (Horses and donkeys can mate, but mules are sterile, for example.) In order for evolution to be correct, there would have to be the exact same change from one species to another in several animals of the same generation, at the same time, and in the same place. Otherwise, this newly developed species would simply die out because it cannot mate with another animal -- the egg will simply not receive sperm from another species. Science has yet to demonstrate that this can even happen.

Thirdly, not even humanist scientists will take a stand for gradual evolution (as opposed to gradual adaptation, which you have shown above). The theory has developed into a "punctuated equilibrium" model that essentially has animals not evolving for thousands or millions of years and then basically a "warp" in which animals suddenly become a different species all at once.

This is because there is no proof for gradual evolution -- they admit this. They therefore have, in order to place the theory in hypothetical grounds that cannot be scientifically disproven, proposed a theory that is so improbable it would be much more sensible to believe the Genesis account. They also have, in the punctuated equilibrium, posited that we are now in a non-evolving period -- meaning that we will not be able to get anything to evolve in a meaningful way at this period in time. This was done because science realized that it couldn't produce evolution in a laboratory (animals have anti-evolution safeguards in their genetics -- like the egg not taking sperm from another species), and they needed a way to explain why we can't witness evolution now. Brilliant move, but it takes evolution out of the realm of believability and demonstrates all the more how it is a religion of its own.

Finally, evolution is an attack against everything Christianity must take for granted in order for Christ to be anything meaningful at all. First of all, if evolution is correct, there is no such thing as "sinful behavior," because we were not created in the image of God with his own commands on our hearts. Rather, we are the descendants of beasts, meaning that whatever we do (be it homosexuality, bestiality, murder, etc.) is simply a part of our nature -- something we naturally do and not inherently wrong. What is labeled "sin" is actually simple social convention, developed to protect the species at large. God and redemption are therefore ruled out.

If you are to "believe" in Christ, perhaps you should believe what he said. Remember that he cited the Genesis account as literally true in the Gospels. Paul also assumes that the Genesis account was true. If you are to disagree with them, you do not believe Jesus, after all. Take your pick: disbelieve the Son of God, his apostles, and all the prophets; or disbelieve humanist scientists who are attempting to re-write history in order to remove their responsibility for sin. If you choose the second, have fun on this earth, for animals do not have eternal souls -- at least as far as science has found. In addition, if you choose the second, you reserve the right for yourself to be called "fool," not only by men, but by the Word of God both now and at the judgment.

"The fool has said in his heart, "NO! God."

 2003/12/12 14:29Profile
5nva
Member



Joined: 2003/8/15
Posts: 179


 Re:

Jake:

'Becoming' a Christian requires nothing more than acceptance of God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Being a Christian requires complete trust in God, His word and His ways.

1 Cor. 3:19 - For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God..

Eph. 5:15-17 - Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.
So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Gal. 3:1 - You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

Luke 24:25 - And He said to them. O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken.

I am not calling you foolish. I am calling the idea of man evolving from an ape foolish.

Mike


_________________
Mike

 2003/12/12 14:38Profile









 Re:


Mike,

Here is an article based upon the book "Finding Darwin's God" (Darwin was not an atheist!) written by Kenneth Miller, a professing Christian and scientist. He answers your objections and questions far better than I ever could.

www.brown.edu/Administration/Brown_Alumni_Magazine/00/11-99/features/darwin.html

 2003/12/12 15:16
jouko
Member



Joined: 2003/10/9
Posts: 172
Ex-England colony of Australia

 Re:

Jake, I as opposed to you and the professor must be reading a different Bible and that includes a different Genesis. Take the creation out of the Bible and you have created Darwin's god.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him.
Joh 3:18 He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
Joh 3:21 But he who practices truth comes to the Light so that his works may be revealed, that they exist, having been worked in God.

jouko


_________________
Jouko Hakola

 2003/12/12 19:30Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Jake
you wrote:Here is an article based upon the book "Finding Darwin's God" (Darwin was not an atheist!) written by Kenneth Miller, a professing Christian and scientist. He answers your objections and questions far better than I ever could.

I am not a scientist although I am fascinated by science. However, I am not intimidated by the experts and, although theer grasp of the details of the evidence is quite beyond my scope, I can follow their arguments and philosophical trends.

I have read Miller's book and without getting into the nitty gritty I think he makes a fundamental mistake right at the beginning in his section of 'proofs'.

Miller is a scientist but I wonder if he has ever thought about 'proofs' and 'rules of evidence'. He wants to make the point that science 'has proved evolution'. However there are different degrees and kinds of proof. For example, mathematical proof is the purest and most absolute. Not only can it be proved that the the square on the hypoteneuse is always equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, it can be proved, absolutely, that it can never be otherwise. In this mathematics has proved something does exist and at the same time proved that something different cannot exist. For a logical mind this is a kind of earthly heaven, where everything behaves just as it should. ;-) It is not possible to imagine a right-angled triangle in which Pythagorus does not work. However, QED eliminates any need for faith.

Then there is scientific proof which begins with a 'hunch' or hypothesis which is tested. When the hypothesis cannot be disproved by calculation or experimentation you have a theory. When it can be proved you have a law, but even if it can be proved, the law cannot guarantee that it holds in every imaginable situation. Nevertheless, in a closed system science can be satisfied with its 'proofs'. Although it can never prove that the opposite or different can 'not exist'. Most mathematicians slyly feel that scientific proof is inferior to mathematical proof. Scientific proof needs a system of scientific beliefs.

Then we have forensic proof which is the kind of 'proof' that the courts demand. Here you can have majority verdicts, circumstantial evidence, and much incomplete evidence which is however sufficient to 'prove' to the jury that the accused is guilty. Most scientists would think that forensic proof is inferior to scientific proof. Most mathematicians would think that forensic 'proof' is a joke. Forensic proof demands a high degree of 'faith' or confidence in the witnesses.

Miller takes circumstantial liklihoods, conjectures and extrapalations and says they 'prove' evolution scientifically. He has crossed from forensic proof to scientific proof and doesn't seem to realise what he has done. (A thorough going scientist will not accept a court's verdict as 'proof'.) He then claims that science has 'proved' evolution. Science can do no such thing, unless science can prove that something different was not the case. In order to 'prove evolution' science has to disprove that God created, and the proof should take place in a laboratory where it can be monitored by other scientists. A proof that says things could have happened in a certain way is not scientific proof; it is probability and circumstance. It might satisfy a court of law but it should never satisfy a scientist. It is a betrayal of scientific method and philosophy. When science has 'proved' that 'God did not create' our cosmos then we will have a 'scientific proof'. When mathematics has proved that God could not have created the cosmos then we will have our 'mathematical proof'.

Until then all we have is forensic evidence which must rest heavily on the credibilty of the witnesses. This is forensic proof. As a general rule, :-D, I have found God to be somewhat more reliable than the scientists. I'm sticking with Genesis.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/12/13 4:58Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy