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.
-
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kickstartadventure.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014-11-30_00007.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kickstartadventure.com/home/gender-bender-dna-twister-extreme-review/&h=600&w=800&tbnid=0SdKLqtyow6SdM:&zoom=1&docid=bMA5PjPW50yAZM&ei=PhtRVcbgL5K1sAST8YHwAg&tbm=isch&ved=0CHEQMyhHMEc [b][/b]
-
reply for later reading
-
stop bumping this thread
-
Didn't read lol
-
Cancer is evolution.
-
This dude. *copy*~~~~>*paste*...."now believe evolution is wrong!" I choose to believe the consensus of 99% of the scientific community, because they, (unlike you or I) spend their entire lives devoted to this, and don't just read what someone said and believe it.
-
-
A few power points it feel on the subject... It theoretically takes many lifetimes to be observed. We have only begun recording information for the last few thousand years... And that's being generous. It isn't as though there was a focus on the intricate details of random species until a few hundred years ago. My conclusion to that is this... Why have humans come to conclusions on the subject, with such a small amount of time passing? Would it not make more sense to observe over a longer period of time, instead of treating the occurrence as fact or fiction? On a social level, I've always seen the scientific and religious community as a " Mexican Standoff ", personally. A scientist and priest both require blind faith to be followed. Don't be confused by the wording. A priests beliefs requires faith within the majority of his system, whereas the scientists version is more " figurative ". The reason being that, there is a lot of theoretical ideas that a common human being cannot comprehend. You can scream it to the masses, wether it is accurate or not, but there will be many empty heads bobbing up and down, or left to right. I like these kind of discussions. More so from a Historians point of view ( why not add another imperfect area of belief to it? ). I find that both are guilty of indoctrinating masses of people into blind faith. From the religious corner, I'll simply quote " IN HOC SIGNO VINCES ", and leave it at that. As for the scientific community, the repression of highly intelligent individuals is astounding. More than a few who wouldn't be a talking head, or partake in their centuries version of " Manhattan project ", are pushed into obscurity. If I went to one of the most extreme individuals, I'd believe we descended from Aliens. If there was a modern day Constantine, perhaps he would have an Isotope in his insignia, along with the crown and cross.
-
Are you dumb? Seriously, I hope you're trolling
-
Edited by goduvthnder1221: 5/9/2015 7:56:24 AMInteresting read. Edit: read through some of your posts. Personally I think the universe is old. I think the astronomical and geological evidence is sufficient to support this idea. However if evolution if, and a big if, macro-evolution were to be the driving force for the diversification of the species, it would need something cosmic to increase the probability that is currently so close to impossible they can almost shake hands (hence a lot of scientists middle ground of intelligent design) In reality I care very little about evolution as an argument towards God, whether it was immediate manifestation of animals or the most complex dominos ever created. I think the origin of the Universe, origin of Life, and the origin of consciousness present a much more convincing for God.
-
Changing the world's view one destiny forum novel at a time
-
Dang that was a lot to read
-
This has to be b8.
-
Dis guy smoked alot of crak to get such info
-
I can't believe people can be so retarded but yet write so long and pointlessly. There is more fact to evolution than there is to creationism. You can search for evidence easily by using what science created [u]the internet.[/u]
-
I like how you used both fact and true to describe something even you called a theory.
-
how is this thread still on the front page?
-
Sounds like you like to feel smart around non experts. You should bring your argument to a scientific forum as opposed to a gaming forum.
-
Yep. Guided evolution is the truth.
-
What BS! Where is the proof that God exists, you are supposing he created us in his image and it is a fact and that the bible presents us with facts yet it cant be proven.
-
Oh sorry, I couldn't see the point of this thread behind that wall of text
-
Why is this a selected answer?
-
autism. autism everywhere
-
Evolution is a fact but how prokaryotes were formed in the first place is a theory. As for the rest of your pseudointellectual argument, it's all just religious bullshit.
-
Alright listen nobody really knows how it all happend. Sorry. Science isn't always correct but just because science isn't always correct that doesn't automatically mean the bible is real. If you want answers become a scientist and get in the lab and make a theory that makes sense with evidence.
-
You sir, have several problems. The first, and I say this not to insult or demean, is that you are a hypocrit. You have made a statement of your beliefs, and when most folks respond in kind, about the only answer you give is - [i]"State your facts - none? Okay."[/i]. You then proceed to belittle the people with stylish yet childish wit, whilst [i]claiming[/i] to be logical. Also, refusing to accept someone's point of view does not equate to them having no facts - it equates to your ignorance and intolerance. Shameful behaviour from someone who is obviously very intelligent, and abusing that gift mercilessly. Finally, I respect your beliefs, whilst I don't share them, but find it ironic that you source the Bible as a statement of fact, yet can offer nothing but your [i]belief that it is a factual document[/i] as evidence of its veracity. Again, hypocrisy. I apologise if this offends you, and will not discuss your initial points until you open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong - but I had to share my thoughts on this, and forgive the term, troll post.