Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Well that is the great irony of creationism - they try to argue that evolution is a failure because it does not show any of the evidence for a designer that the ID movement itself has failed to produce. As if it's own failure were the fault of the science.
Can we get one thing crystal clear here.....no one is disputing that adaptation (micro-evolution) is a fact. All creatures have the ability to change characteristics within their own genetics to adapt to climate change or food source alterations. None of that is in dispute. What is in dispute is whether it is a stretch to assume that these small changes can somehow leap into the realms of fantasy where science is "assuming" some things by inference, and taking it into the realms of fantasy, where proof becomes a matter of interpreting the findings in the fossil record in favor of their theory.
This is just funny. What is the natural conclusion from this fact? Why does the Vit C factor have to link them like it can only mean one thing? The deductive powers of science are skewed to add up to their own ridiculous conclusions. It can mean more than one thing....just like the pelvis in a whale may be more useful than first thought....not vestigial at all. The creature's natural diet would more than make up for any Vit C deficiency. Both are designed to obtain plenty of Vit C without even being aware that they need it.
No, I 'm sorry...it is not an explanation of facts at all...it is an explanation of how they "think" the facts add up.
If their facts are not facts to begin with, then how is there any certainty to their conclusions? Opinions, even professional ones are only opinions.
I thought this was interesting.....from your link. (It's the same site I quoted before)
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution."
OK, so what do we have here? "Questions about the details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution."
Since the fossil record is far from complete and the mechanisms of evolution are for the most part unknown, how can things be stated as facts?
"It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old."
The Bible does not argue with this, though creationists might. I am not a creationist. I believe in intelligent design but not that God started life and allowed it to evolve mindlessly from single called organisms over millions of years.
"It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old."
Cellular life still exists...we are all cellular beings. We are all made from the same raw materials, but humans are vastly superior to any apes in ability and language. Why is it assumed that there must have been ape-like cavemen? Primitive peoples co-exist with modern civilisation even now. What does it prove? The illustrations that are presented in science text books and Internet sources as factual reconstructions, are nothing more than the imaginings of scientists. This is what they "think" the bodies of these creatures looked like. They aren't photographs.
It is a fact that palaeontologist have discovered fossils in the strata but as the comment quoted in my previous posts (in blue) suggested, the strata is not even an infallible indicator of when these creatures existed. When changes to the environment are taken into consideration, upheavals or erosion or floods could have messed up the whole story.
"It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago."
This also agrees with the Bible. The order of appearance in Genesis is as science asserts.
How did Moses know the order in which living things appeared?
Then six "days" (creative periods of unstated length) in preparing the earth for living creatures. (3-31)
Calling them "days" in no way limits them to 24 hour periods.
Day 1: light; day and night (3-5)
Day 2: expanse (6-8)
Day 3: dry land and vegetation (9-13)
Day 4: heavenly luminaries become visible. (14-19)
Day 5: fish and birds (20-23)
Day 6: land animals and humans (24-31)
"It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now."
We have seen many extinctions of creatures that were long gone before man even arrived, so again. What does this prove? Did they have a purpose before we got here and their services were no longer required? Who knows? Science doesn't and neither do we.We simply aren't told.
"It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms."
This is true but evolutionist shy away from discussion about it, because they simply cannot explain how life suddenly sprang into existence. It is impossible for science to create life. They can pass it on but all they can really do is guess about how it changed from a single called organism into all the life we see on earth past and present. What they lack in evidence is more than made up for by their imagination.
"Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans."
Now we see the sleight of hand in the wording.....from "ancestral forms" to "birds from non-birds and humans from non-humans"......where are these chains of evolving ancestral forms who were not birds and who were not human?
Show them to us....not in illustrated form but in the flesh (or bone or fossil) and show us how science arrived at their conclusions without using speculation and assumption about what "might have" or "could have" taken place.
"No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
And you can really compare something that is provable and with something that isn't, and pretend that they are the same?....they are not even in the same ball park.
The earth is a "Goldilocks" planet.....just the right distance from the sun in the right part of our galaxy....it is just the right size and shape and spins at just the right speed at just the right tilt on its axis and it has just the right mixture of gases so that living things can breathe oxygen without fear of lightning a fire and everything exploding? All just random chance of course....nothing designed about any of that.
We have this miracle substance called water that just happens to be vital to all life on earth, yet in its natural state in the oceans it is too salty for land dwelling animals to drink a drop of it. In order for water to be drinkable it has to have the salt removed....by an amazing process called precipitation.....which is just another fluke of nature. No design there either.
Green vegetation is also the stuff of life. Other living things on this planet survive by consuming living plants which serve the purpose feeding everything that eats vegetation, whilst at the same time, grass and trees stabilized the topsoil so that they prevent erosion.
Trees just happen to breathe in what we breathe out and vice versa.....again just an incredibly useful accident of nature.
When death occurs among living organisms, again co-incidentally, creatures in abundance feast on the corpse and absorb its nutrients back into other living things which feed other living things and replenish the planet and life itself itself.....and there we have an amazing symbiotic Eco-system that again just popped up out of nowhere.
You have gone nowhere close to convincing me of the "facts" of evolution, when I contemplate what you guys gloss over as if it's all just part of the fantasy.Do you realize what you are asking us to swallow? Your version of events is more fanciful than ours and requires much more gullibility IMO.
And what are "the various forces in molding evolution"? A bunch of clever men, with slippery language making sure that God goes away in the hearts and minds of those who don't see through their agenda.
You can all believe as you wish....but I hope you can see why I can't swallow most of it. The small amount of truth that is offered by science does not mask the vast amount of guesswork that others will blindly accept as "gospel".
Yes, there are many. You have been given citations for them.
Yes, we know what you are saying - and it is false. There is proof of large scale evolutionary change. To deny it is to be denying the truth.
I agree...God programmed all creatures with this ability. They do not have to think about it or will it to change...it just naturally takes place due to external circumstances.
I don't think I would go that far. I think that they accept intelligent design when someone in the field of science comes up with a good idea....but apparently only clever humans are capable of designing things that work.
It seems amazing to me that for every good thing that scientists come up with, there are many more things that ruin life on this planet.
Everything God designs, is recycled, self-sufficient and and self-perpetuating. It results in clean air, clean rivers and oceans and biologically living soils to grow organic produce that is actually beneficial for the health of all creatures.
Man pollutes everything he touches......
Man pollutes everything he touches......
He did actually.....but man chose to be independently stupid....then he blamed God for his lot in life and became even more stupid. He enshrined his stupidity in pseudo-science and claimed to be so superior that he no longer needed the one who gave him life.Then it's a shame that God didn't design man to be more intelligent.
Interesting is it not that it is theists like yourself who are most likely to fully demonstrate your above quoted post true.
ID doesn't masquerade as science....but evolution does.
Evolution is based on belief too...no real evidence.