Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

    It seems that the more we learn as scientific and archaeological finds come to light, the less people believe in Evolution. Scientist summarizing Darwinism tell us as follows: “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species — perhaps a self-replicating molecule — that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.”(Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True (New York: Viking, 2009), p. 3.)

    Yet there are no not one piece of evidence found of a gradual change from a "self-replicating molecule" to all the different species. There are no evidence of gradualism or that later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones. We don't find a fish changing to land crawler or a lizard changing to bird, in fact there is no evidence whatsoever of the ancestors or fossils that would show the lineage of any species. You cant put them in a way to support this as one scientist says, “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”(Gareth Nelson, “Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969),” in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, “The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography—25 years after ‘ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law’ (Nelson, 1978),” Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.)

    No species in the series could possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form. Scientist try to postulate why this is, or come up with ideas why there is no connection that should be there if the species evolved, but they all fall apart. They even admit there is none, "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”(Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time. New York: Free Press, 1999, pp. 5, 32, 113-117. Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2006). )

    Evolution along with the 'Big Bang' idea are losing the people as more evidence comes to light. How could the universe just appear out of nothing, and be spinning in all different tangents rather than one way as they should, be larger than we can even chart in such a short time. Many ideas of man which no longer seem to have any validity with people today.

  • #2
    lots of gullible people do

    Comment


    • #3
      They now are coming up with another idea since they cant find ancestors for their evolution idea. Here is the idea of Darwinism "There are two phases in classic Darwinian evolution. First, there is the arising of variations from one creature to another or one individual population to another. That was thought to occur incrementally, in very slow stages, by mutations in the genome. Once there are variations among individuals, natural selection, the survival of the fittest, acts upon those variations."

      But there is no incremental evolution, so they now are trying to come up with another way, say it can jump from a one celled creator to whatever, hmm, can we say its a reach. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...bacteria-news/

      Comment


      • #4
        I believe in selected elements of evolution.
        I believe that Young Earthers are insane, and I believe that atheists are nuts.

        I believe that God created the universe and all things and that he created ma in his own image. Beyond that, the timeline for all this and how it was accomplished is not what it appears to be in the Bible.

        I don't think that real history, as in factual historical facts, begins in the Bible until the story of Abraham. Taking the Genesis creation account literally is not a proper reading of it in my opinion.

        In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words. In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current.

        The fact is, Genesis 1 is meant to teach one thing and one thing only: That God created everything out of nothing, that he created man in his own image, that man separated himself from God through disobedience, and that God immediately set about the long - or at least it seems long to us - process of healing that rift, a process which culminated with the death and resurrection of Christ. That is ALL it teaches.

        Everything in Genesis is meant to convey that truth, but it is done in the ancient Semitic style of writing, using allegories, fantastic imagery, and all based on traditions that were handed down for centuries. I do not believe there was a serpent, or a tree, or a garden, etc. These are all images & allegories, in a certain style of writing, meant to convey the fundamental truth I stated above.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
          I believe in selected elements of evolution.
          Darwinists.
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Darwinists.
            You quoted 7 words out of a six paragraph explanation and concluded that I am a Darwinist? That's just stupid.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
              You quoted 7 words out of a six paragraph explanation and concluded that I am a Darwinist? That's just stupid.
              Efficient.
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
                You quoted 7 words out of a six paragraph explanation and concluded that I am a Darwinist? That's just stupid.
                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Efficient.

                Efficient, and stupid.

                I know what I am, and I am not a Darwinist. It's more like you are a science-denier.

                I suppose you think the world is only 10,000 years old? LOL

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
                  Efficient, and stupid.

                  I know what I am, and I am not a Darwinist. It's more like you are a science-denier.

                  I suppose you think the world is only 10,000 years old? LOL
                  Appeal to ridicule.

                  Why do you reject the plain reading of everything up to Abraham?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                    ......Why do you reject the plain reading of everything up to Abraham?
                    I do not "reject" it. Please do not misrepresent my post. I "interpret" it based on the style of writing used.

                    As I said: "To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words. In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current."


                    I do not reject any scripture. Neither do I childishly read it literally. I try to understand what God was trying to convey based on many factors.

                    Consider Psalm 91:4: "He will cover you with His pinions, And under His wings you may seek refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark"

                    Are you going to tell me that God actually literally has wings? Or are you going to interpret those words correctly to understand their true meaning

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
                      I do not "reject" it. Please do not misrepresent my post. I "interpret" it based on the style of writing used.
                      By "interpreting" scripture, you inherently reject the plain reading of scripture.

                      I do not reject any scripture. Neither do I childishly read it literally. I try to understand what God was trying to convey based on many factors.
                      I didn't ask why you reject scripture.

                      I asked why you reject the plain reading of scripture.

                      So again, why do you reject the plain reading of scripture up to Abraham?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                        ....I asked why you reject the plain reading of scripture.....

                        Because not all books were meant to be read that way. I would point you to John's Revelation, which is another book that is obviously not meant to be read literally. And I will again point you to my previous example:

                        Originally posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
                        Consider Psalm 91:4: "He will cover you with His pinions, And under His wings you may seek refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark"

                        Are you going to tell me that God actually literally has wings? Or are you going to interpret those words correctly to understand their true meaning

                        It is not hard to understand that different books are written in different ways and require different ways of reading them.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
                          Because not all books were meant to be read that way. I would point you to John's Revelation, which is another book that is obviously not meant to be read literally.
                          You seem to think that I am asking why you don't take everything in the Bible to be literal.

                          That's not what I'm asking.

                          I'm asking why you don't read the words on the page and let them speak for themselves, be they literal or figurative, and instead try to interpret it to mean something completely different than what it says. Why do you not read scripture plainly? Why do you try to interpret it?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                            You seem to think that I am asking why you don't take everything in the Bible to be literal.

                            That's not what I'm asking.

                            I'm asking why you don't read the words on the page and let them speak for themselves, be they literal or figurative, and instead try to interpret it to mean something completely different than what it says. Why do you not read scripture plainly? Why do you try to interpret it?
                            Why do I try to interpret it? Uh, to try and understand them? I have no other answer to that.

                            I have stated my position. Exiting thread.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
                              Why do I try to interpret it? Uh, to try and understand them? I have no other answer to that.
                              Do you think that the Bible cannot be understood without interpretation? If so, why?

                              In other words, if it were possible to understand scripture simply by reading it plainly, taking what it says as-is without interpreting it, would that not be better than trying to force meaning onto it that isn't explicitly stated in the text?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X