• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Evolution didn't happen, but is it possible?

6days

6days

New member
Arthur Brain said:
So...uh...you think that "evolutionists" think that evolution is improbable?
:freak:
Click to expand...
A billboard on the highway proclaims 'The evolution of the watch'.
At a meeting yesterday the chairman said 'there has been some evolution from our original plan'.
On a TV program today, they discussed the evolution of North American diets.
Last week a dog breeder was discussing the evolution of registered dog breeds.

So yes... evolution of thoughts, technology and techniques is real and observable.

However if you think evolution means a bacteria can evolve into a biologist.... that is not real, not observable and not possible.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The 19th century elitists who concocted evolution and uniformitarianism were pretty tired of religious conflict and wanted to come up with something that would evade all that. Can't blame them, but they made some serious mistakes doing so. It is pathetic that religion had become so territorial and possessive.
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
You might check an NRBTV broadcast from last fall of a creation conference that was pretty recent. There was a paper given on a fruit fly and the researcher was showing that the fly's reproductive stage was at the end of his life, while the mutations were at the beginning. Since they were at the beginning and died with him, there never was a way for them to become definitive for it. The bug's name was C. or F. elegantis. The fact that it is a simpler life form than human (who can reproduce relatively early) meant that the mutations that would be needed for evolution's results today would not have been there.
Click to expand...

We've been through this before. If C. elegans it was a nematode worm, not a fruit fly. If a fruit fly I am unaware of any in a genus beginning with F, but I've been out of the science business for a while so perhaps you can be more specific. Or perhaps you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
oatmeal

oatmeal

Well-known member
badp said:
Evolutionists always resort to a probability argument. They say that even though evolution is highly improbable, it's still possible. (By "evolution" I mean supposed common descent of single-celled organisms to present day)

They say, "Given enough time, evolution will happen." I used to attack this on the grounds that the Earth simply hasn't been around long enough for evolution to happen. But an evolutionist could say, "Although it's highly improbable for evolution to happen in 6000 years, it's still possible."

Evolution even happening is improbable. But so is evolution happening in a few thousand years. If the academic elite who push evolution decided tomorrow that evolution actually happened in 6,000 years, would we use probability to refute that? They would just say, "It's still possible." It seems that attacking evolution on probability grounds is a losing argument.

I get the implications of throwing out probability. To be consistent you'd have to throw out forensic analysis, copyright laws, lotteries, gambling, medicine, construction, meteorology, etc. But most evolutionists don't even think about the implications of their belief, let alone care.

What I'm looking for is a non-probability-based argument against evolution's possibility. Obviously, it didn't actually happen, and it's not happening. The evidence is overwhelmingly against common descent. But is it actually impossible? And how do you prove it's impossible?
Click to expand...

Evolution within a species does happen. Wolves diversify and become domesticated dogs of many varieties.

Japanese love to mess around with breeding goldfish.

But wolves/dogs are still wolves/dogs and goldfish are still goldfish.
 
oatmeal

oatmeal

Well-known member
Jonahdog said:
If you need to believe in a literal Bible, you are correct. One of the several reasons I walked away from Christianity and religion in general.
Click to expand...

The scriptures are to be taken literally whenever and wherever possible, however, we must learn to recognize where God uses figures of speech, where the language is not literal if we are to rightly divide the word of truth, II Timothy 2:15
 
badp

badp

New member
6days said:
However if you think evolution means a bacteria can evolve into a biologist.... that is not real, not observable and not possible.
Click to expand...

What I'm looking for is the argument as to why it's not possible. Evolution obviously has not been observed and there's no compelling evidence that it did happen.. but is it even possible?
 
The Gospel Matrix

The Gospel Matrix

New member
Evolution and Intelligent Design are by no means mutually exclusive, when we are willing to accept the proposition that the Intelligence behind Intelligent Design has used and is using evolution as part of the ongoing process of Infinite Creation.

As with the ongoing evolution of industrialization and technology, which are tangible representations of higher orchestrations, it cannot be ruled out that Prime Creator (God) uses evolution to advance cosmic creation. This we also see represented in phenomena such as the crop circles, which began as basic circle-based manifestations and have evolved over the years into highly complex geometrical constructs. (The crop circles are tangible representations of the ongoing evolution of Cosmic Consciousness; that is, the "mind of God.")
 
The Gospel Matrix

The Gospel Matrix

New member
oatmeal said:
The scriptures are to be taken literally whenever and wherever possible, however, we must learn to recognize where God uses figures of speech, where the language is not literal if we are to rightly divide the word of truth, II Timothy 2:15
Click to expand...

Hello!

Who is it that decides what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken metaphorically within the scriptures? The multitude of varying eschatological views (and other Biblical issues) throughout the Christian institution seems to reveal that the collective of Christianity has not quite figured this out yet, does it not?
 
KingdomRose

KingdomRose

New member
badp said:
Evolutionists always resort to a probability argument. They say that even though evolution is highly improbable, it's still possible. (By "evolution" I mean supposed common descent of single-celled organisms to present day)

They say, "Given enough time, evolution will happen." I used to attack this on the grounds that the Earth simply hasn't been around long enough for evolution to happen. But an evolutionist could say, "Although it's highly improbable for evolution to happen in 6000 years, it's still possible."

Evolution even happening is improbable. But so is evolution happening in a few thousand years. If the academic elite who push evolution decided tomorrow that evolution actually happened in 6,000 years, would we use probability to refute that? They would just say, "It's still possible." It seems that attacking evolution on probability grounds is a losing argument.

I get the implications of throwing out probability. To be consistent you'd have to throw out forensic analysis, copyright laws, lotteries, gambling, medicine, construction, meteorology, etc. But most evolutionists don't even think about the implications of their belief, let alone care.

What I'm looking for is a non-probability-based argument against evolution's possibility. Obviously, it didn't actually happen, and it's not happening. The evidence is overwhelmingly against common descent. But is it actually impossible? And how do you prove it's impossible?
Click to expand...

I'll take this paragraph by paragraph. I can't remember everything at once.

First of all, the evolution you're talking about, and also what people usually think about as "evolution," is impossible. Any honest scientist would admit that. Unfortunately there aren't a whole lot of honest scientists. But there ARE a number of them that are. The fact of "IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY" is what explains the truth of my statement. It IS a fact, though atheists put up a very loud clamour about it and say it has been disproven and is considered bunk. It is a very real idea to consider. Despite the baloney that you will find all around this fact, trying to dispute it as unscientific, look it up. What nay-sayers will say is patently ridiculous, and if you do some research yourself you will see that what I'm saying is true.

Some excellent books on the subject are: "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, "Intelligent Design 101" by (General Editor H. Wayne House) Behe, Colanter, Gage, Johnson, Luskin, Moreland & Richards, and "The Devil's Delusion" by David Berlinski. Really good points.

On your second paragraph:

I actually had someone tell me that if you put a monkey in a room with a typewriter for a few million years he would actually type out, eventually, "War and Peace," or "Gone With the Wind." Or something as profound. LOL!

Certainly nothing would happen in 6,000 years!

BTW...Did you know that the Bible does NOT say that the planet is 6,000 years old? Nor does it say that the things ON the planet were created in 6 twenty-four-hour days?
 
KingdomRose

KingdomRose

New member
Quetzal said:
You can assume all you want, no matter how wrong you really are.


You keep using this ridiculous blanket statement to try to make your (very weak) point. You just told me...


But at the same time claim evolutionists say it is fact? Pick a side, Senator. Do evolutionists claim it to be a "fact" or "highly improbable"?
Click to expand...

They say both. I follow these things pretty closely, and I have noticed that there are so many "probably"s and "maybe"s and "could be"s, etc., to their rhetoric that you wonder how they can say anything with a straight face.

And when Dawkins was asked where life on Earth could have come from, he even said, "Possibly from outer space"!!! Aliens!! I couldn't believe it. No comment from him on how THEY got their start.
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
KingdomRose said:
I follow these things pretty closely, and I have noticed that there are so many "probably"s and "maybe"s and "could be"s, etc., to their rhetoric that you wonder how they can say anything with a straight face.

And when Dawkins was asked where life on Earth could have come from, he even said, "Possibly from outer space"!!! Aliens!! I couldn't believe it. No comment from him on how THEY got their start.
Click to expand...

Richard Dawkins, despite what was claimed in the ID film Expelled by the smug narrator Ben Stein, does not believe in aliensdidit; he specifically stated that it was the most plausible mechanism by which Intelligent Design can be true. Not "I believe in space aliens" as Stein suggested after that segment of the film.​

-- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy
 
badp

badp

New member
I've read most of Darwin's Black Box and the Edge of Evolution by Behe, and I've also read Dembski's Design Inference. I'll check out Intelligent Design 101.

But what you brought up about irreducible complexity is still a probability argument. It's a good argument, but it still leaves room for some dingbat evolutionist to say, "See, there IS a chance!" And considering that now they're talking about trillions of parallel universes coming and going, I think they're going to cling to this type of excuse even tighter than ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top