Evolution is a fact only at a very small scale. It is fantasy when it is used to explain how plants and animals came into existence or how human beings supposedly evolved from apelike ancestors. We might summarize the fantasy by saying that, where the theory of evolution is true, it is not very interesting, and where it is most interesting, it is not true.
If “evolution” merely refers to a process of cyclical (back and forth) variation in response to changing environmental conditions, then evolution is a fact that can be observed both in nature and in laboratory experiments.
For example, when a population of insects is sprayed with a deadly chemical like DDT, the most susceptible insects die but the individuals most resistant to the poison survive to breed and leave offspring, which inherit the genes that provide resistance. After many generations of insects have been sprayed, the entire surviving population may be comprised of the DDT-resistant variety, and some new form of insect control will have to be applied. Such changes are not permanent, however, because the resistant mosquitoes are more fit than the others only for as long as the insecticide is applied. When the environment becomes free of the toxic chemical, the insect population tends to revert to what it was before.
A similar effect explains how disease-causing bacteria become resistant to antibiotic drugs like penicillin, which then are no longer as effective in controlling the disease as they formerly were.
Almost all illustrations of “evolution in action” in textbooks or museum exhibits are similar to these examples. They involve no increase in complexity or appearance of new body parts or even permanent change of any kind. Small-scale, reversible population variations of this sort are usually called microevolution, although “adaptive variation” would be a better term.
It is misleading to describe adaptive variation as “evolution,” because the latter term commonly refers also to macroevolution. Macroevolution is the grand story of how life supposedly evolved by purely natural processes from very simple beginnings to become complex, multicelled plants and animals, and eventually human beings, without God’s participation being needed at any step along the way.
Charles Darwin assumed that macroevolution was merely microevolution extended over very long periods of time. Biology textbooks, museums, and television programs still teach people to make the same assumption, so that examples of microevolution are used as proof that complex animals and even human beings evolved from simpler organisms by a similar process.
The primary flaw in the story of macroevolution is that all plants and animals are packed with information—the complicated instructions that coordinate the many processes enabling the body and brain to function. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous living advocate of Darwin’s theory, admits that every cell in a human body contains more information than all the volumes of an encyclopedia, and every one of us has trillions of cells in his or her body, which have to work together in marvelous harmony.
The greatest weakness of the theory of evolution is that science has not discovered a process that can create all the necessary information, which can be likened to the software that directs a computer. Without such a demonstrated creative process, evolution is merely a story, because [b]its supposed mechanism can neither be duplicated in a laboratory nor observed in nature.[/b]
It is true that there are patterns of similarity among living creatures. For example, humans, apes, mice, worms, and even plants have many similar genes. The important question is not whether there are similarities among all living things but whether those similarities came about through a natural process akin to the observable examples of adaptive variation that we find in textbooks and museum exhibits.
One mistake Christians often make in debating evolution is to take on too many issues at once, rather than starting with the most important problem and solving it first. For example, evolution requires a time scale of many millions of years, while many people understand the Bible to allow for an earth history of only a few thousand years. The evolutionary time scale is debatable, but debating it involves several complex scientific disciplines and distracts attention from the most important defect of the theory of evolution. The only mechanism the evolutionists have is a combination of random variation and natural selection, illustrated by the survival of the insects that happened to be resistant to an insecticide. [b]This Darwinistic mechanism has never been shown to be capable of creating new genetic information[/b] or new complex body parts such as wings, eyes, or brains. Without a mechanism that can be demonstrated to be capable of the necessary creation, the theory of evolution is just a fantasy with no real scientific basis.
The Bible teaches, “In the beginning God created” and “In the beginning was the Word.” A simple way of explaining this basic principle is to say that a divine intelligence existed before anything else and that intelligence was responsible for the origin of life and for the existence of all living things, including human beings. [b]No matter how much time we might allow for evolution to do the necessary creating, the evidence shows that the process would never get started[/b] because all evolution can do is to further minor variations in organisms that are already living, without any change in their basic classification. When the Bible says, “In the beginning God created” (Gen 1:1), it is presenting us with a fact, which we need to know to understand everything else, including what we were created for and how God wants us to live.
The Bible also says that God created men and women in His own image. That, too, is a fact. If it were not true, there would be no science, because [b]no theory of evolution can demonstrate how intelligence came into existence[/b], including the intelligence of misguided people who misuse science to try to explain creation without allowing any role to God.
“In the beginning was the Word.” The Bible says it and, properly understood, the evidence of science confirms it. Anyone who says otherwise is peddling fantasy, not fact.
-
Reading through all the replies i see a common trait with the OP. 1) Puts out false biased information from biased non-credible sources. 2) Counter argues with illogical biased information. 3)Gets excited when other incorrect biased religious people comment. (The select answer is someone else who is wrong and biased towards religion) 4) Whenever someone counter argues him, like a typical biased religious person he avoids most of it and counter argues 1 portion of it taking it out of context. 5) [b][u]Completely ignores the fact he contradicted himself and in his own words shouldn't believe in God.[/u][/b] If you really have any intentions of having a debate with someone you need to have an open mind which you don't. Science isn't biased and uses factual information and before anything in science is deemed credible there is a process for it.
-
*proceeds to slap you with a hardcover copy of [i]On the Origin of Species[/i]*
-
For a second there i though this was entirely made by you
-
Edited by Kalameet: 5/2/2015 3:14:23 PMDon't do it, bro. I won't have you go full retard on me.
-
While eloquently written, many people of the scientific community have reviewed Johnson's work and have concluded that he misinterpreted almost every source in his work [i]Darwin on Trial[/i], one going so far as to say it was the most deceptive book he'd ever read. I'm guessing this is an excerpt from [i]Darwin on Trial[/i], yes? Please correct me if it is not.
-
Scrolled down to see your conflict of interest (religion). 2/10 for effort
-
Edited by Crispy Squ1rr3l: 5/1/2015 11:05:45 PM-.- This debate will never end. As God is based off a belief that is young, and written by "Humans". Please. If you are going to spew forth this. Make sure you understand timelines and all cultures. Christianity is a very young cult. Still nothing more than a flicker in the life span of this planet.
-
Pretty fascinating, you're by far the most thought provoking voice I've heard on the matter. I still disagree but you've got some pretty good points
-
This post is a fantasy. Begone.
-
Got a few questions, yes or no answers will suffice if you feel like answering them. 1) Does it concern you that the majority disagree with you and think your ignorant? 2) Do you think that people just disagree with you to disagree? 3) Do you understand what an unbiased source is? 4) Do you think everyone else is just wrong? 5) Do you even realize that you aren't capable of being objective? 6) Do you realize by your own words you shouldn't believe in God?
-
Edited by Tormented_Anus: 5/2/2015 4:54:58 AMYour bias towards religion is apparent. You say evolution can't be real because no-one can or has observed it. Well then, with that same logic, god can't be real because no-one has seen proof of his existence either. And don't give me any bullshït about how you bought a Starbucks coffee and the foam looked like Jesus's face, that isn't proof.
-
Tl;dr Evolution is a fact, so God mustn't be real God is real, so evolution is a lie Logic.
-
Edited by 1v1: 5/2/2015 5:31:53 AMDarwin finches. Bacteria. Go do your research before you make yourself look like a fool.
-
https://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post?id=118893539 Here's some more for ya :)
-
Edited by Britton: 4/30/2015 4:04:32 PMThe mechanism of evolution can be and is observable. That mechanism, is how natural selection by the ecosystem the organism lives in, selects for or against the slight genetic differences every organism receives from its parents in its DNA, that is then passed or not passed on. DNA is the mechanism of evolution, and its guided by the environment. One of my favorite phrases used is how creationists claim there needs to be an increase in complexity. This phrase is misleading, as it implies where we are now is the most complex we can be. Complexity is a very subjective term. Evolution isn't about complexity, its about diversity. Even still, the biggest change in complexity was single cell to multi-cellular life. One small change can enable another small change, and so on until a new function is present that wasn't before. Its a gradual stacking of change. Appearance of new body parts is indeed very rare, because if we look around at animals we see a very common theme as far as major body parts go. Quick! Name a mammal that has more or less limbs than another mammal and no vestigial bone structures to indicate where it once was. Or better yet, name a vertebrate that doesn't have homologous structures with other vertebrates. There's a reason you can't, its because those structures are indeed quite hard to add or take away, and merely change shape. Our common ancestors characteristics are still present even millions of years after we evolved from them into massively different organisms. Also, intelligence isn't exclusive to humans. We may have the most advanced intelligence on earth, but studies of other animals strongly suggest there are other intelligent species on our earth, example: dolphins. Intelligence, like any other characteristic, is something that can be naturally selected for. Evolution does take millions of years, and how fortunate it is that the earth was proven to be over 4.5 billion years old many years ago, and that number has only gotten more accurate over time. You claim evolution isn't capable of generating new information? Then how do you explain a species of skinks that have always laid eggs, having an separate population of the same species beginning to give live birth? I suppose the fossil record is too "controversial" for creationists (even though it isn't in the least, but acknowledging it does destroy their entire idea) but it does show, very well, how animals change and become complex from simple life forms, and then diversified from that point. Darwin's origin of species has been published since 1859. That's 156 years that evolution has been known about. So out of the around 3.8 [b]billion[/b] years we know that life has existed, your argument is that because we've been actively observing evolution for [b][u]LESS[/u][/b] than .0001% of of the time life has been around and evolving, and we haven't observed a massive change in species, evolution is somehow debunked? You cannot be serious. Do we really need to wait till every species as we know it, save a few, have gone extinct and evolved into new ones to say its been observed? Another important distinction is that creationists love to add abiogenesis to the the theory of evolution to try to discredit it. But they are separate. Nothing in the bible can be interpreted as fact, [b]observed or tested[/b] especially in a scientific context. So there's no need to even dive into it. Your entire counter argument is invalid. You can't counter scientific evidence with hopes and dreams. Unfortunately much of your post is rambling, so I wont address all of it. What I have above should be sufficient unless you desire more details.
-
Earth is a prison planet and humans were dropped off here by enlightened beings because we are selfish parasites.
-
This Philip E. Johnson guy needs to hear about the God of the Gaps fallacy and so do you OP. Just because science hasn't found a way to explain it yet doesn't mean that it was automatically 'God's Work'. That kind of thinking is exactly why we have people opposing the advancement of technology and why the world doesn't already have mass produced, effective hovercraft. The poor fools you are.
-
Since a normal human can only use 10% of his brain capacity, you should stop talking about Evolution and just accept, that it's the only logical way how human is, what it is right know, cause this whole bullshit you writing isn't going to make you more intelligent.
-
Evolution doesn't take millions of years, it takes billions. So to put that into perspective, the age of earth is 4.54 billions years old.
-
I'm just going to leave this here.
-
Yea you have no life. Go ride a dinosaur.
-
Conclusion: your arguments are 99.9% word geyser and 0.1% poor evidence/support.
-
God you people are so stupid. The earth is billions of years old. Scientifically proven fact. And you know what macro evolution is? It's just a bunch of micro evolutions put together. So so stupid
-
Edited by PrinceMillsap: 5/1/2015 6:31:08 AM
-
Also, populations do not simply revert back to their original state after a more favorable gene becomes universal to said population. There is no "back and forth" in genetics.
-