User Tag List

Page 1 of 18 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 268

Thread: Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

  1. #1
    Journeyman Hobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    207
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115

    Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

    John 1:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
    "3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

    To most scientists in the world today, the theory of evolution is no longer just a theory but is regarded as a fact. There are differences of opinion regarding the tempo, mode, and mechanisms of evolution, but the basic concepts of the theory have become an established philosophy. Even the educational systems of the world teach evolution by natural selection and the big bang as the only feasible theory of origin, to the exclusion of anything else especially creative design.

    Now natural selection in itself is not a scientific principle, as it is based on circular reasoning. By natural selection, the weaker are eliminated and the stronger survive to propagate the species. It is all started by chance, the idea of the big bang was that a tiny point of nothing started the universe and somehow life started by chance.

    The evidence for evolution is based largely on interpretation and a rationale for the long ages required for the evolutionary events to have taken place. However, each of these parameters is open to alternative explanations which also happen to be in harmony with the biblical account.

    Evolutionary scientists argue that creationism is not science, that it is based on a preconceived ideology, which excludes it from the realms of science. However, if the facts fit the biblical creation account, is it excluded?

    So is there evidence for Creation by design, was the DNA by purpose, and the form of mankind and domain made by a Creator?
    Last edited by Hobie; June 15th, 2019 at 06:13 AM.

  2. #2
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,863
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 2,186 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415234
    Darwin's great discovery was that it doesn't work by chance. Except in the sense you see in Ecclesiastes:

    Ecclesiastes 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

    Still, the smart money is on the swift, strong, and wise, even if time and chance are involved. And as Aquinas points out, God can use contingency as easily as He can use necessity to effect divine providence.
    This message is hidden because ...

  3. #3
    Journeyman Hobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    207
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115
    Well the problem evolutionist are finding is the fossil record does not show creatures gradually changing into others, there is nothing from the sea crawling out on land and all the way to man. Now look at the idea of natural selection as the very name “selection” implies that you’re choosing between two or more variants. So that means that the end result is extinction of one in favor of the other. Natural selection never increases the number of variants; it only decreases them. So the problem is how does a mechanism that makes less and less end up making more and more”?

    Then you have the built-in ability of some animals to adapt to changing conditions, much too rapidly to have anything to do with any proposed evolutionary mechanisms or millions of years. For example, island deer have been seen to respond to a scarcity of resources by decreasing their body size, by as much as two-thirds.

    So the evolutionist are coming up with new ideas to try to allow for Creation yet hold on to Evolution. The Gap Theory proposes two cycles of Creation. In the first cycle, there is an initial six-day Creation. Everything is then destroyed by God, and a gap or period of time occurs. Then, the Creation described in Genesis occurs.

    This interpretation allows for long time periods. However, there is no evidence of a gap in the fossil record and this model raises more questions than answers.

    Progressive Creation suggests that God created numerous times, and that these Creation episodes were spread over long ages. Scripture does not support this theory.

    Theistic Evolution says that God directs the process of evolution and helps it along when it comes to the difficult barriers. This is just not what the Bible says, and its just a way to get around Creation and basically the Creator Himself...

  4. #4
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    38
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobie View Post
    John 1:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
    "3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

    To most scientists in the world today, the theory of evolution is no longer just a theory but is regarded as a fact. There are differences of opinion regarding the tempo, mode, and mechanisms of evolution, but the basic concepts of the theory have become an established philosophy. Even the educational systems of the world teach evolution by natural selection and the big bang as the only feasible theory of origin, to the exclusion of anything else especially creative design.

    Now natural selection in itself is not a scientific principle, as it is based on circular reasoning. By natural selection, the weaker are eliminated and the stronger survive to propagate the species. It is all started by chance, the idea of the big bang was that a tiny point of nothing started the universe and somehow life started by chance.

    The evidence for evolution is based largely on interpretation and a rationale for the long ages required for the evolutionary events to have taken place. However, each of these parameters is open to alternative explanations which also happen to be in harmony with the biblical account.

    Evolutionary scientists argue that creationism is not science, that it is based on a preconceived ideology, which excludes it from the realms of science. However, if the facts fit the biblical creation account, is it excluded?

    So is there evidence for Creation by design, was the DNA by purpose, and the form of mankind and domain made by a Creator?
    Do you believe that God made evil?

  5. #5
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,863
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 2,186 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415234
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobie View Post
    Well the problem evolutionist are finding is the fossil record does not show creatures gradually changing into others,
    There's a great deal of that. Your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise, writes:

    Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
    Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms (emphasis mine)


    there is nothing from the sea crawling out on land and all the way to man.
    Wise admits that there are many of these.

    Now look at the idea of natural selection as the very name “selection” implies that you’re choosing between two or more variants. So that means that the end result is extinction of one in favor of the other.
    No. For example, disruptive selection tends to favor two or more populations evolving from one. Good example are Darwin's finches. Or flies in Hawaii, numerous species having evolved from two separate species that somehow made it there.



    Natural selection never increases the number of variants; it only decreases them.
    No, that's obviously wrong. And it's not just by disruptive selection. A hint was that unusual species tend to be found in isolated areas. Founder effect and a new environment tends to produce a new species, while the old species continues.

    So the problem is how does a mechanism that makes less and less end up making more and more”?
    And now you know.

    Then you have the built-in ability of some animals to adapt to changing conditions, much too rapidly to have anything to do with any proposed evolutionary mechanisms or millions of years.
    You're confusing homeostasis with evolution. One is merely the ability of the organism to alter body processes under stress. The other is a change in the allele frequency of the population. You are limited to the genes with which you were born; your body has the capacity to adapt to a degree, but not as much as a population can change by allele frequencies changing.

    For example, island deer have been seen to respond to a scarcity of resources by decreasing their body size, by as much as two-thirds.
    Happens to humans, too. Starve kids, even a little, and they will grow up smaller. But that's not evolution.

    So the evolutionist are coming up with new ideas to try to allow for Creation yet hold on to Evolution.
    See above. There's a lot going on that you don't understand very well.

    Theistic Evolution says that God directs the process of evolution and helps it along when it comes to the difficult barriers.
    No, that's Michael Behe's story. He doesn't think God can make evolution work without tinkering with it from time to time. In the real world, that's not necessary.

    While evolution is completely consistent with scripture, there are also some forms of creationism that are not ruled out by the Bible. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of classic YE creationism is ruled out by Genesis, however.
    This message is hidden because ...

  6. #6
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,863
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 2,186 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415234
    And most professional creationists now tell us that new species evolved rapidly after the flood from a relatively few basic "kinds."

    So even creationists understand that evolution tends to produce more species, not less.
    This message is hidden because ...

  7. #7
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,850
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked 12,588 Times in 8,919 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147849
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    And most professional creationists now tell us that new species evolved rapidly after the flood from a relatively few basic "kinds."

    So even creationists understand that evolution tends to produce more species, not less.
    Nope.

    Evolution doesn't happen.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 24th, 2019)

  9. #8
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,734
    Thanks
    14,146
    Thanked 21,714 Times in 12,274 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147618

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    And most professional creationists now tell us that new species evolved rapidly after the flood from a relatively few basic "kinds."

    So even creationists understand that evolution tends to produce more species, not less.
    Yes, multiple created kinds at the beginning branching out into what we see today.

    Not some "matter came alive on its own" and "everything is descended from a single first life form".
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 24th, 2019),Lon (June 22nd, 2019)

  11. #9
    Journeyman Hobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    207
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by ioy1273 View Post
    Do you believe that God made evil?
    Do you believe He gave us freewill or made us robots, I think the answer is clear.

  12. #10
    Over 1000 post club Guyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tardation
    Posts
    1,073
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 169 Times in 135 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    12379
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobie View Post
    Do you believe He gave us freewill or made us robots, I think the answer is clear.
    You didn’t answer the question. Did God make evil or not?
    Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same.

  13. #11
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,863
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 2,186 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415234
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    Yes, multiple created kinds at the beginning branching out into what we see today.
    Precisely what you just told me couldn't be.

    Not some "matter came alive on its own"
    More properly, the earth brought forth living things, as God intended. But as you learned earlier, that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, which is about the way living things change over time.

    and "everything is descended from a single first life form".
    It comes down to evidence. As you saw before, the evidence is compelling. Even your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits that we have "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

    Would you like me to show you some of it, again?
    This message is hidden because ...

  14. #12
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    16,003
    Thanks
    9,925
    Thanked 7,769 Times in 5,219 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobie View Post
    Do you believe He gave us freewill or made us robots, I think the answer is clear.
    How much "freewill" do you think you have exactly? It certainly isn't absolute.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    Lon (June 22nd, 2019)

  16. #13
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,833
    Thanks
    2,756
    Thanked 4,793 Times in 2,872 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147736
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    There's a great deal of that. Your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise, writes:

    Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). ... Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
    Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
    A bit awkward in sentence structure, but Kurt Wise doesn't mean to imply that the fossils support Macroevolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    No. For example, disruptive selection tends to favor two or more populations evolving from one. Good example are Darwin's finches. Or flies in Hawaii, numerous species having evolved from two separate species that somehow made it there.
    "After their kind" Genesis 1:11,21,24,26

    Genesis 1:31 "it was good" contrasted with Romans 8:18-23 that suggests creation is under struggle and suffering. Yet evolution suggest millions of years where man is not present. It creates theological problems and inconsistencies.
    Last edited by Lon; June 22nd, 2019 at 10:52 PM.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 24th, 2019),way 2 go (June 23rd, 2019)

  18. #14
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,850
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked 12,588 Times in 8,919 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147849
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Evolution ... is about the way living things change over time.
    Nope.

    Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

    Darwinists want to be imprecise, using "change" as the definition. After all, who in their right mind would deny that things change?

    They want to define the discussion out of existence.

    It comes down to evidence.
    Which is why you follow up with:

    YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits that we have "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
    Darwinists think that opinions are evidence.

    Would you like me to show you actual evidence again?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 24th, 2019),way 2 go (June 23rd, 2019),Yorzhik (June 24th, 2019)

  20. #15
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,850
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked 12,588 Times in 8,919 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147849
    YEC denies all aspects of Darwinism as significant, necessary or possible descriptions of reality.

    There cannot be a universal common ancestor.

    Random mutations can never improve information.

    Natural selection might play a minor role in limited situations, but they are so rare and insignificant as to be next to worthless in a sensible discussion over how today's variety arose.

    Darwinists here have been told these things over and over, but continue to insist that the discussion be conducted on the assumption that their idea is correct.

    They are religious devotees, not inquirers into science.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    7djengo7 (July 16th, 2019),JudgeRightly (June 24th, 2019),way 2 go (June 23rd, 2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us