|
Anxiety
|
 |
« on: April 12, 2009, 07:11:49 PM » |
|
Do you believe in evolution? If so, what are the implications of this belief to your religious/spiritual beliefs?
If not, why don't you believe in it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2009, 02:07:27 PM » |
|
No I don't believe in evolution at all. In fact, no solid evidence exists that supports evolution.
All life appears to be designed, and evolutionists have failed to adequately explain why. Adaptation to environmental changes, mutations, and natural selection has not validated macroevolution.
Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation of life. Sir Fred Hoyle and Charles Wickramasinghe stated in their book, Evolution from Space, that ?they estimated the probability of forming a single enzyme or protein at random, in a rich ocean of amino acids, was no more than one in 10 to the 20th power.? Next, they calculated the likelihood of forming all of the 2000+ enzymes used in the life forms of earth. This probability was calculated at one in 10 to the 40,000th power. They popularized the following clich?: ?belief in the chemical evolution of the first cell from lifeless chemicals is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747.
Recent advances in microbiology have shown the incomprehensible complexity of DNA and the living cell. The human DNA molecules are the chromosomes that comprise the human genome. The purpose of the DNA is to specify the information for the human blueprint. Information is separate from the chemicals that are just the media for the information. Only intelligence can generate information. How can we believe that such complicated information could have generated randomly?
Thermodynamics 2nd law. This law, known as the law of entropy, applies not only to usable energy but equally to organization and things wearing out. The natural flow is from organized to unorganized, complex to random, new to ?worn out.? We see this principle in our everyday lives. Energy, applied with intelligence, is necessary to reverse the ever-increasing entropy or randomness of creation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2009, 03:43:55 PM » |
|
No I don't believe in evolution at all. In fact, no solid evidence exists that supports evolution.
All life appears to be designed, and evolutionists have failed to adequately explain why. Adaptation to environmental changes, mutations, and natural selection has not validated macroevolution.
Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation of life. Sir Fred Hoyle and Charles Wickramasinghe stated in their book, Evolution from Space, that ?they estimated the probability of forming a single enzyme or protein at random, in a rich ocean of amino acids, was no more than one in 10 to the 20th power.? Next, they calculated the likelihood of forming all of the 2000+ enzymes used in the life forms of earth. This probability was calculated at one in 10 to the 40,000th power. They popularized the following clich?: ?belief in the chemical evolution of the first cell from lifeless chemicals is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747.
Recent advances in microbiology have shown the incomprehensible complexity of DNA and the living cell. The human DNA molecules are the chromosomes that comprise the human genome. The purpose of the DNA is to specify the information for the human blueprint. Information is separate from the chemicals that are just the media for the information. Only intelligence can generate information. How can we believe that such complicated information could have generated randomly?
Thermodynamics 2nd law. This law, known as the law of entropy, applies not only to usable energy but equally to organization and things wearing out. The natural flow is from organized to unorganized, complex to random, new to ?worn out.? We see this principle in our everyday lives. Energy, applied with intelligence, is necessary to reverse the ever-increasing entropy or randomness of creation.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-against-evolution-faq.htmCute! Plagiarism: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work Not really sure if that was your intent, but it's generally a good idea to cite the source you're getting your information from, let alone copy and pasting. Quotation marks don't hurt either. Just out of curiosity what were the search terms you used? Did you Google "is there any solid evidence against evolution?" Also, an "All About Creation" website probably isn't the most objective source for information on the topic. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2009, 05:36:18 PM » |
|
I know what plagiarism is and no that was not my intent. Next time I will post the link. If there was an author noted I would have given the author the credit. The search terms I used were "scientific evidence for creationism." I think the information is objective and very convincing. Could you give me some solid evidence that evolution is the default position?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 06:16:28 PM by Lee Encinosa »
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2009, 07:47:57 PM » |
|
Could you give me some solid evidence that evolution is the default position? Yes, but I suspect it would be more than you would ever read, or care to read for that matter. However, if you're feeling particularly motivated I would suggest starting with this: http://books.google.com/books?id=6IjHqEm3ENQC&dq=on%20the%20origin%20of%20species&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q=&f=falseFor quick refutation, let's start from the top with your (their) argument. All life appears to be designed, and evolutionists have failed to adequately explain why. What does it mean to appear to be designed? I for one, don't think anything appears to be designed. Furthermore, if we ignore the fact that this is just a rhetorical device and not actual evidence for the case of creationism, this presupposition still rests its merit entirely on appearances. As we well know, mere appearance does not make something so.  Information is separate from the chemicals that are just the media for the information. Another presupposition, it appears you (they) have rested their conclusions in their presuppositions. This one really makes no sense at all, and there is nothing that suggests information exists apart from the physical properties of the being. In fact it's really nonsensical to even believe it works this way. For example, information cannot be read if it is not observable (separate from the physical "media"). Adaptation to environmental changes, mutations, and natural selection has not validated macroevolution. Here is a link for 29+ evidences [sic] for Macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/Thermodynamics 2nd law. This law, known as the law of entropy, applies not only to usable energy but equally to organization and things wearing out. The natural flow is from organized to unorganized, complex to random, new to ?worn out.? "First of all, on any scale other than the grandest of all-600 million years of life on Earth-species do not evolve from simple to complex, and life does not simply move from chaos to order. The history of life is checkered with false starts, failed experiments, small and mass extinctions, and chaotic restarts. It is anything but the Time/Life-book foldout from single cells to humans. But even in the big picture, the Second Law allows for such change because the Earth is enveloped within a system that includes a constant input of energy from the sun." See: http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/25_answers.htm (a less-than-equal unobjective look at the situation) I think the information is objective and very convincing. Your definitions for scientific and objective are very questionable. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2009, 07:50:42 PM » |
|
Also, out of curiosity, when do you think the Earth was created?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2009, 10:31:05 AM » |
|
Yes, but I suspect it would be more than you would ever read, or care to read for that matter. I will have to answer you in seperate post's as I can't fit everything in one post. I read alot actually. I did read chapter 6 "difficulties of the theory." We have to remember that evolution is just a theory and not a fact and has never been proven. Evolutionists want you to believe that their view is scientific and that creation isn't. Evolution has never been proven by experimentation and observation, so it is not a scientific view. Evolution is just as religious as Creation because both views require faith on the part of their adherents. No one saw God create the universe, and no one saw the "big bang" occur. Both views are religious as far as origins are concerned. James L. Melton"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work,a crowd of difficulties will have occured to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered;but to the best of my judgement,the greater number are only apparent,and those that are real are not,I think,fatal to the theory." Charles DarwinSounds to me Chuck is really not sure of himself and has some doubt. You also have to look at what Darwin said about the human eye. 1) In his Origin. Chap. VI, he has a section entitled "Organs of Extreme Perfection," which begins, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus for different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." He then goes on to state it could have happened.
2) The "Perils of Pauline" strategy that Darwin employs here is his key approach, especially in Chs. 6--9. He begins by making a large concession, but then adds that once we understand his way of viewing things the objections will diminish or disappear. Repeatedly, he seems to put the theory at risk through these seemingly damaging admissions, but then rescues it. What always fascinates me about our hero is that while on the one hand he affirms he appeals to reason, his very view of reason (as this passage in its entirety would show) involves active imagination. Of course imagination is central to science--but as a part of reason, not in opposition to it. The honorable gentlepersons opposite, starting with Chuck himself, are engaged in an epistemic revolution. What is at issue is to get the reader to fill in the blanks by analogy and then to accept Chuck's particular blend of reason and imagination as reason. In part it is, but then there is the other part that requires us to extrapolate the process even without evidence.
by Helen FrymanOne has to take all the information and analyze it objectively and then form a conclusion. I have looked at alot of info objectively that point's to a perfect creator rather than all living matter coming from nothing. Order cannot come out of chaos. Nature is perfect and there is a purpose behind it. http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-evidence.htm |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2009, 12:13:20 PM » |
|
What does it mean to appear to be designed? I for one, don't think anything appears to be designed. Furthermore, if we ignore the fact that this is just a rhetorical device and not actual evidence for the case of creationism, this presupposition still rests its merit entirely on appearances. As we well know, mere appearance does not make something so. http://www.creationism.org/heinze/AppearanceOfDesign.htmYou don't think anything appears to be designed? That's quite an embarrassing statement! When we look at an automobile we all agree that it was designed by engineer's who are intelligent. But when we look at the universe and everything in it that God says He created which is much more complex than an automobile we dismiss it as evolution. Why? This information that I have given you is in fact actual evidence for the case of creationism and not a rhetorical device. Evolutionist's are just grasping at straws. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:20-22 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 13, 2009, 12:50:22 PM by Lee Encinosa »
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2009, 12:49:26 PM » |
|
Also, out of curiosity, when do you think the Earth was created? It's irrelevant how old the earth is. Only God know's how old the earth really is and I know where you are trying to go with this one. You would say the earth is 100's of million's or even billion's of years old to allow the theory of evolution to be validated. In fact, RNA, DNA, proteins and some other ingredients of living things are so complex that the only things in nature that can make them are already living cells. Once formed, they start breaking down so giving them millions of years would solve nothing. Thomas F. Heinze |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2009, 03:53:35 PM » |
|
I will have to answer you in seperate post's as I can't fit everything in one post. I read alot actually. I did read chapter 6 "difficulties of the theory." We have to remember that evolution is just a theory and not a fact and has never been proven. So you skip to parts of books that best fit what you already believe? Sounds scientific to me. I don't mean to keep up the ad hominem, but it's increasingly frustrating when you readily admit to and enjoy your dogmatism. You are correct. Evolution is a theory, but it is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community based on empirical data gathered from the fossil record, the genome project, geological record, etc. I'm not certain evolution is how we came to be, but it's the best explanation for the origins of life with the most evidence, so it is what I currently believe. Contrastingly, creationism is untestable and unfalsifiable. Sounds to me Chuck is really not sure of himself and has some doubt. You also have to look at what Darwin said about the human eye. Oh, I think what you're suggesting is that the scientific method (and by consequence, Science) is open to revisions to its conclusions based on different results, and that by the nature of its system starts with doubt -- a hypothesis, which then gets tested because of said doubt(s). Scientists have doubts. This is a good thing! Certainty is what causes us to keep believing things that simply are not true. If evidence comes out contrary to evolution, or parts of evolution, it is taken under consideration and changes to the theories are made. (There isn't just one theory about evolution by the way there are several, and several more types of those several. Just check out the 2nd link I posted.) You don't think anything appears to be designed? That's quite an embarrassing statement! By anything, I meant "any life form." But if you asked a determinist this question he might answer as I originally had for all things, not just life. Is a ripple in the water designed? This information that I have given you is in fact actual evidence for the case of creationism and not a rhetorical device. And you're using another rhetorical device to prove this? For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen... The invisible quality of my TV set gives me the greatest, most divinely powered cable programming I've clearly seen. In fact, RNA, DNA, proteins and some other ingredients of living things are so complex that the only things in nature that can make them are already living cells. Once formed, they start breaking down so giving them millions of years would solve nothing. Thomas F. Heinze Let's be very clear. This discussion is not about abiogenesis. If you want to a talk about the origins of how life may occur, create a new topic. For now, we are discussing evolution which studies and attempts to explain how already living things change over time. For this reason, many religious adherents find compatibility between their faith and evolution, which is very interesting to me. My intent was not to have a creationism vs evolution debate. Quite frankly that's about as appealing as explaining the heliocentric model of the solar system with a flat-earther. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2009, 08:03:47 AM » |
|
My intent was not to have a creationism vs evolution debate. Quite frankly that's about as appealing as explaining the heliocentric model of the solar system with a flat-earther. That was not my intent either. You asked in your first post whoever didn't believe in evolution to give our reasons why we didn't believe in it. I wasn't trying to debate I was just posting info that gives reasons why I don't believe in evolution. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2009, 08:18:27 AM » |
|
So you skip to parts of books that best fit what you already believe? Sounds scientific to me. I don't mean to keep up the ad hominem, but it's increasingly frustrating when you readily admit to and enjoy your dogmatism. Quite frankly,Darwin's theory on evolution is very antiquated. I'm not going to read a book whose contents don't hold any water. As you probably know by now I am a conservative Christian and I don't follow all the liberal theories that lead the world astray. Why should it frustrate you? You have your belief's and I have mine. God has given us the truth! Amen!  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 14, 2009, 10:50:32 AM by Lee Encinosa »
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2009, 10:26:21 AM » |
|
You are correct. Evolution is a theory, but it is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community based on empirical data gathered from the fossil record, the genome project, geological record, etc. I'm not certain evolution is how we came to be, but it's the best explanation for the origins of life with the most evidence, so it is what I currently believe. Contrastingly, creationism is untestable and unfalsifiable. Just because evolution is accepted by the scientific community doesn't mean that it is correct. How can you test evolution? Isn't evolution untestable as well. Since creationisam is untestable and can't be proven false then creationism has to be true. Something either has to be true or false. Fossil record - In addition to the lack of transitional fossils that would show that one group came from another, fossils showing the development of organs are also absent. Let's take wings for an example. Flight is a complex process. Evolving it would have taken many tries over a long period of time, leaving behind fossils with quarter wings, half wings, etc. Flying insects, birds, reptiles, and mammals are not even claimed to have evolved from a first winged creature. Evolutionists claim that each of these groups of flying creatures evolved from some animal in its own group that did not have wings. None of them left transitional fossils to show how wings developed. Fossils of wings, and other organs pop up in the fossil record already formed. The gradual transformation that Darwin thought the fossil record should show but does not, is what the theory of evolution requires. Many biology books, instead of admitting the problem as Darwin did, present a make believe fossil record which shows what they want to show, hoping the reader will believe it is real.
Thomas F. Heinze |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
USFEngineer
LifeQuest Leadership
Jr. Member
 Offline
Posts: 67
What's a number?
|
 |
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2009, 01:36:28 AM » |
|
I personaly don't believe in macroevolution. Not because I think it's wrong, but because I've heard arguments from either side and neither seems that conclusive. Of course I've never met an objective (or even semi objective) scientist to talk about the subject with. Also, I've never done the research nor seen the data outside of some funny looking bones.
That being said, I see no conflict between Genesis 1 and 2 and macroevolution.
As for the impact on my faith... I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. The method by which he did it does not change who He is or my faith in Him. It also does not change the validity of the lessons found in Genesis or their meaning.
As far as the investigation of who's right and wrong... I'm reminded of Paul condeming parts of the church for carrying more about endless geneology and mystisms then about preaching the Gospel.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A child recently asked me what eight times four is. I thought about it for a while. I put together some experiments. I ran some tests. I searched through numerous published articles on number theory.
I then came back to the child and responded, "What's a 'four'?"
|
|
|
|
