Evolution for Christians?

During all of recorded human history there has never been a substantiated case of a " living thing " being produced from anything other than another living thing,( which debunks the evolution theory right from the start ) !! It is the materialist that claim all living things evolved into existence from nothing ; when " man`s " science to this very day ; has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by " any natural process ", it has never happened !! Knowledge cannot create itself ! In order for knowledge to exist it had to start from a beginning , and that beginning was of God Almighty !! ! Knowledge can only be gained from knowledge that already existed , GOD ! Matter cannot create itself , matter cannot create knowledge , knowledge cannot be gained without the prior existence of knowledge , and you can`t create order out of disorder ! Still today " man`s science " has no idea how to create DNA , which is the basis for life as we know it !! It` really is pretty simple as it say`s in Genesis 1 : 1 .. IN THE BEGINNING , GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH . If man`s own knowledge cannot explain or create the building block of all life , DNA , then evolution cannot be even consided a basis for the creation of life !!

I disagree with putting a religious slant on an issue of science, even though everyone does it.

First, the "fact of evolution" is "the fossil record" that documents that life started simply and grew in complexity and diversity.

Stephen Jay Gould, a wonderful man, Harvard Prof, and evolution apologist had a great example, but which was wrong.

He said, the fact of evolution is the best evidence that a theory of evolution must exist, just like the fact of gravity is the best evidence that a theory of gravity must exist. Apples did not wait hanging in the air until the theory was figured out, by Newton.

Well let's rephrase this. Let's be a scientist like Newton while he was under the apple tree. He is there relaxing and he closes he eyes for a second. Thump! He opens his eyes, and there is an apple on the ground. He decides he want to observe an apple go from the tree to the ground. An hour later after careful observation, he hears a sound behind himslef, turns to look and.... Thump, Thump! He looks and 2 apples are on the ground. Now he is upset. He vows to observe an apple go from the tree to the ground. He watches and watches and watches and after hours his eyes close for a second and.... Thump, Thump, Thump!!! This goes on for a month, until all the apples are on the ground. What could Newton conclude? His hypotheses could be:

1. The apples fell

2. The apples or tree possess some quality of self-awarenes and can sense him looking. They only fall when they sense he is not looking.

3. The apples teleport to the ground...poof!

A theory of gravity is impossible to define, for Newton has to observe and measure the change in speed as a function of time to calculate the acceleration and the gravitational constant. He can have no theory by only knowing the apple was in the tree and then later it was on the ground. He can ONLY HAVE AN HYPOTHESIS AND LOOK FOR A THEORY.

The is precisely the problem with macro-evolution, it has never been actually observed to occur, and there is no theory that can account for it, except for random mutation and natural selection, which is a proven theory for micro-evolution, but it is only a HYPOTHESIS for MACRO-EVOLUTION, for it is not proven and suffers from fatal flaws. For macro-evolution, the fact is that we see one species, then we see another that is dramatically different, and we do not now how that happened... thump!

For example, the genetic change between a Neanderthal (or whatever was the so-called precursor) and a Human, which is a THUMP, what are the possible hypotheses, for the facts that follow?

1. Hundreds of biological functions were changed. The brain capacity was increased and re-engineered, with improvements in processing power and speech. In fact, the whole body was re-engineered with improvements.

2. Millions of highly precise changes in DNA occurred. Though 99% of the DNA was the same, 1% of 3 Billion lines of DNA code is 3 Million lines of DNA code were changed, very precisel and effectively.

3. These changes were not incremental, but happened all together, at once. This is not like a bacteria becoming super-resistant to antibiotics in a predictable manner (micro-evolution, natural selection). So, how did this happen? What are the possible hypotheses, that should be considered?

1. There is no materialistic hypothesis on how this non-incremental, and very major change happened, except it was a random mutation, that was then naturally selected. But the scope of this mutation and number of mutations/changes is out of the scope of what is known about random mutations and natural selection. If there is a naturalistic explanation, or hypothesis, is has not been communicated as of yet. And yes, people are trying to say, the emperor is wearing no clothes, but, many others believe since the emperor thinks they are wearing clothes, then they are.

In summary, the belief of materialists is, based on faith, that science is working on how life evolved due to sudden and major changes (macro-evolution), and hopefully, someday will uncover the naturalistic explanation, even though it is unrealistically unlikely, and very mysterious at this time. This is the actual state of knowledge.

2. The “Creator Hypothesis”. The creator of the universe, created the universe to create life. Biology is uncovering the steps the Creator went thru to create the diversity of life. As these steps are understood, they will continue to point to a creator.

In addition, DNA is the code of life. All codes are created by intelligence. There has never been, nor ever will be, an occurrence of coded information being created randomly. Coded information always comes from intelligence. A being of eternal consciousness, is intelligent. A creator is the only possible cause of creating the coded information in DNA.

This is a non-religious hypothesis. It is only when you define who the creator is that you slip into religion.

In summary, the materialistic hypothesis for “Macro Evolution” suffers from being nonexistent, or impossibly improbable. The “Creator Hypothesis” is consistent with the creation of the universe, and appears to be the most likely explanation of how the diversity of life occurred, and how DNA was coded, for life is far more complex then ever envisioned.

However, neither hypothesis are proven, nor are they disproven. Macro-evolution appears to be improbable, but, maybe someday a theory will be developed. The Creator Hypothesis can explain what happened, but invokes an unproven immaterial being of eternal consciousness. Both hypothesis need to stay on the table.

Hope this helps,

Ted

There is some stuff in Creationism that made me an atheist evolutionist ask stuff about evolution,

but it only reaffirmed my belief in Evolution,

the thing about the eye evolution, made me wonder, but science had an answer

Specifically on a creationism website it was asked what benefit to those generations who did not have full eye sight when they "evolved" eyes?

The answer was the patch might have helped with heat sensitivity.

The point is, theorize, and don't just go for god of the gaps.

And seek evidence to back the point.

I don't see how we can going back several hundred million years.

The page can't be found...

Anyway, almost all clever arguments against evolution have been refuted over and over. Evolution is a fact, it has been demonstrated over and over (this is not saying that the evolution of man from apes has been demonstrated, this is a theory, a well founded theory, consistent with the data).

A website that actually does work:

www.talkorigins.org

Give me a link that works-there are no convincing arguments against evolution. You lot have only been trying to challenge it for 150 years and it's better established now than it's ever been.

Edit-That site is referring to "entropy and the second law of thermodynamics" -a complete red herring. It only applies to a closed system and the earth is not a closed system. What that does is reinforce my belief that creationists are intellectaully dishonest and interested only in protecting their theological beliefs by any means possible rather than engaging in serious scientific investigation.

Your link doesn't work, but judging by the rest of the website, I don't hold much hope of it actually having any real science. Christians have both been defaming science in order to cling to their belief, or rationalizing away differences between Christian claims and scientific evidence to cling to their beliefs for a long time now.

Christians who don't like evolution because of its obvious contradiction with their storybook tale will defame science and ignore or rationalize away evidence for evolution. Christians who realize that evolution is fact will rationalize away any contradictions in their storybook and pretend that it actually supports evolution.

Either way, Christian belief doesn't have much to do with reality.

Same old song and dance.

You guys have got to come up with better lines. Take a good basic biology class and learn the facts.

Some of it's elements aren't even used by ICR anymore. Every one of it points has been soundly refuted by experts many many many times. The entire page is bunk.

There are no intelligent arguments against evolution. Those who have stopped evolving are those who don't grasp evolution.

Just fixing your link for you....haven't read it yet. Just don't say atheists aren't nice and helpful. LOL

Okay, I read it. There's nothing there that persuades me. It's all just opinion...no facts that debunk evolution at all.

DISCLAIMER: The link below is NOT mine. Just helping out the asker!