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.
-
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.
-
Watch and learn. I'd love to see any of you debate him.
-
>people who think evolution cannot he part of gods plan.
-
Well put
-
Oh my, you sound just like 16 year old me 0_0
-
Of the 1,000 people who disagree, you pick the [b][u]1[/u][/b] person who agrees with you as an answer. You proceed to tell everyone else that their close-minded, not acknowledge actual rebuttals, and ignore the fact that virtually everyone disagrees with you. *Starts a slow clap*
-
OK I'm confused about evolution. What type of evolution are you talking about? The first law of thermodynamics says energy can't be created nor destroyed. I understand that evolution came from a singularly but I was reading an article last night and it said that they don't know where all of the energy came from. That is my problem...I'm not understanding where all of the energy came from...of it's not in violation of the first law then why is this law saying energy can't be created nor destroyed? The laws of the universe explain how the universe works. Like the second law, things tend to break down. Evolution is adding genetic information to the thing, but the second law contradicts it? I'm confused in understanding the logic. Can you explain?
-
"[quote]... Or how human beings evolved from apelike ancestors.[/quote] That's as far as I made it.
-
You people are hopeless, we wont let you destroy the next generation!!!!
-
Edited by CommanderLouiz: 5/5/2015 10:52:32 PMGreat job starting a flame war. Gr8 B8 M8 I R8 8/8 Edit: You must also believe anything you Read on thee internet, don't you?
-
Edited by angry0lbgrampa: 5/5/2015 11:46:41 PMI was about to say no way a forum goer wrote this. Well done and a good read thanks.
-
Last bit of counterclaim on my part: creationists such as yourself tend to use the Bible as their only solid piece of evidence, while evolutionists like myself use embryology, the fossil record, and homologous structures to support the theory of evolution. [spoiler]Goodbye now. I've given up on you.[/spoiler]
-
This is a great example of how evolution is flawed, but evolutionists will always try to justify it. Liken it to a trial, if the plaintiff and defendant have two versions of the story, and they contradict each other, it most likely will turn out that one of them is speaking the truth, the other a lie. We (the jury, if you will) have to determine which is wrong by looking at the facts, or the facts that are most contradicted by the story of either one. So go on. Choose
-
Just to clarify, these "reversions" in evolutionary process are actually just introduction of similar genes. In the instance of genetically limiting a population such as in the example of bugs being sprayed with DDT, when you discontinue the limitations provided by the poison, evolutions of genetic structure that do not possess the DDT resistant gene can then survive and reproduce, as opposed to the DDT resistant generations simply becoming non-resistant. The reason the species does not continue to be specifically resistant is due to the introduction of non-resistant individuals surviving long enough to pass on their genes
-
This isn't even bait. It's just stupid.
-
lol did not read
-
OP became a fig when he stated the bible as truth
-
So do the people who don't believe in evolution think us humans have been exactly the same for all the years we have been on this earth. Doesn't sound right to me, I don't know about the fossil record but does it not show evidence for evolution?
-
I was hoping you would make a sound argument with solid facts. But then you brought up the Bible. Point invalidated.
-
[quote]Evolution is a fact, but...[/quote] but nothing.
-
Edited by Kone19ps: 5/4/2015 5:56:47 PMIt's nice you're so sure. Already spent too many years arguing this to keep doing it here. You're wrong. Your interpretation of the theory of evolution is vastly inadequate, skewed, and more a collection of half thoughts. It seems you did try to do your research but stopped at applying that information with a multidisciplinary approach once you hit the "irreducible complexity" hot topic. You can have Christianity and God with macroevolution. It's not hard until people start taking scripture literally and applying their own "logic" to fill in gaps they are too limited to discover. Please try to be more open minded. Religion is flexible and open to interpretation. It can adapt, but when you start denying science to make the world fit in your preconceived bubble you're only hurting our future as a species. Watch the evolution episode of cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson. It goes over the evolution of the eye in simple terms. It's right on Netflix
-
I think I found your problem: you underestimate nature's capabilities to the point of declaring elementary facts false.
-
Before I came to this forum I thought morons like you were a thing of the past :^)
-
Men created god in their image.
-
Fact=Confirmed idea about nature Theory=Widely believed idea with much evidence but impossible to prove. I'm not against evolution. I'm just reminding everyone here that although there is a lot of evidence for it, it's impossible to prove.
-
You can't say it's a fact the follow it by [quote]but...[/quote] I'm atheist and believe in evolution, I just thought that was funny.