Despite what is taught in schools, there is not ONE shred of evidence for evolution and yet the evolutionists say we have faith!! I find it interesting at what is deemed as "chaos" is only that to them who do not believe in Gen.
Despite what is taught in schools, there is not ONE shred of evidence for evolution and yet the evolutionists say we have faith!! I find it interesting at what is deemed as "chaos" is only that to them who do not believe in Gen.
Actually there IS evidence for Evolution. There are two kinds of Evolution. Macro and Micro. One is without a doubt proven. The other has "evidence", however it's the conclusion of what the evidence means that is what we disagree on
And I might add some of the evidence is weak, but evidence none-the-less...
But the bigger issue is not so much what evidences do they have, but what crucial evidences are totally missing :-)
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Not far from what I believe. It seems much more likely than a literal Adam, formed from dust, and a literal Eve, formed from Adam's rib, who literally spoke with a serpent and literally ate the fruit, etc. etc.
But some hard-core literal creationists stick to their guns. Even so far as to say that if Genesis is not literally true, then you can't trust anything else in the Bible.
I believe in the literal Adam and Eve myself as the bible goes to great lengths to describe them as two real people. They also probably walked the Earth somewhere between 12 and 30 thousand years ago -some evidence seems to suggest 30-50 thousand years.
However, I am firmly in the day age camp and watch in sort of sad amusement as the young earth crowd has to do contortion after contortion to fit the geologic and astronomic evidence into a 6 thousand year old Universe.
Despite what is taught in schools, there is not ONE shred of evidence for evolution and yet the evolutionists say we have faith!! I find it interesting at what is deemed as "chaos" is only that to them who do not believe in Gen.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence supporting both micro and macro evolution. So much so, that fundamentalists have been forced in recent years to accept micro evolution as fact.
Where a believing scientist would disagree with a nonbelieving scientist is on the question of "What does it mean." Some scientists like Richard Dawkins emphasize what appears to them to be "meaninglessness" in nature. Others, such as Christian De Duve see nature as providing evidence of "meaningfulness."
Despite the recent opening of a multi-million dollar museum in N. Kentucky devoted to their teachings, "Creation Science" and its proponents are on the skids. They have failed to provide any kind of a theoretical model that explains what we observe in nature. We'll talk about their complete lack of EVIDENCE later; they don't even have a theory.
The Unification Church (the "Moonies") has attempted to fill this deficiency by giving millions in funding to Philip Johnson's Discovery Institute. Johnson, for obvious reasons won't talk about his funding with any more candor than Kent Hovind talks about his taxes. The Discovery Institute has spent the past decade and a half rehashing Michael Behe's discredited "Irreducible Complexity" argument. Other than the fact that Dr. Behe actually supports biological evolution, nothing new has come from DI in years.
The Church has almost always chosen to fight the wrong battles. From the castrated eunuchs of the once completely Christianized Eastern Med. region (now almost completely Muslim), to the Doctrine of the Trinity, to geology and the age of the earth to biological evolution: the true miracle is that we're not all having this discussion in Arabic right now.
I would beg to differ that "Irreducible Complexity" has been discredited. Some of Michael Behe's examples, such as a mousetrap, have been poked full of holes, but on the cellular level, it is indeed a huge issue. The most BASIC components of a cell, such as a few protein molecules (shoot, a SINGLE protein molecule) and more problematic, the cell membrane, are simple not something that can arise under any random circumstances.
The simplest possible life form is still to be determined but as of now it consists of a couple hundred DNA sequences, a cocktail of protein and amino acids wrapped up by a cell membrane. And even this can only survive in absolutely optimum laboratory conditions.
Anyone heard the theory that light used to travel much, much faster than it does now? Yeah, ya see, that's why we can see galaxies today that are millions of light years away, and yet were created only 6,000 years ago, ya see.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
I would beg to differ that "Irreducible Complexity" has been discredited.
Yeah, that's right R.W. - beg! Disagree with me, will you? sorry!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWayne
Some of Michael Behe's examples, such as a mousetrap, have been poked full of holes, but on the cellular level, it is indeed a huge issue. The most BASIC components of a cell, such as a few protein molecules (shoot, a SINGLE protein molecule) and more problematic, the cell membrane, are simple not something that can arise under any random circumstances.
The simplest possible life form is still to be determined but as of now it consists of a couple hundred DNA sequences, a cocktail of protein and amino acids wrapped up by a cell membrane. And even this can only survive in absolutely optimum laboratory conditions.
It's actually on the cellular level that most of the criticism is focused. There are some "real world" examples like the following which I proposed - only to see someone else publish it first in the FAQ. But I have to confess their explanation was more pithy than mine.
I tried to explain one major problem with Irreducible Complexity to a stone mason friend, this way:
We were standing beneath a stone archway like the image I've stolen below:
You're probably familiar with how the arch works, but let me bore you with an explanation. Notice the heavy stones that form the arch itself. Now, imagine you're the mason and you want to build this arch. To get the thing laid up you need to first lay stone "A" and then let "A" sit in place until the mortar has hardened to allow it to bear weight. Next you must lay up stone "B."
But for stones "B" and onward you've got a real problem. Now you must hold stone "B" in place and hope that gravity doesn't take over and send "B" to the ground. "C" and onward actually require you to defy gravity. My point to my stone mason friend was that the stone arch had to have been built in ZERO GRAVITY. He laughed, and pointed out the obvious:
You use a wooden or other scaffolding to support the structure until the mortar is set and the keystone is in place. Then when the arch is secure you remove the scaffold and move on. "But," I protested, "there's no evidence that there was a scaffold here."
"That's because they did a good job and cleaned up after themselves. There's no purpose for the scaffold after the arch is in place and so it is removed," he explained. Then he asked me what my point was:
Note: If you're not familiar with talkorigins it can be rather rough and tumble for the Christian at times. One of the primary contributers to the archive, however, is a believer who teaches and works at a nearby school of higher learning. As always, read with discernment, don't get your hackles up too easily and keep a good sense of humor.
There are many chemical "structures" in the living cell that from their present appearance, would seem to be "irreducibly complex." However, when a biochemist looks for these same "structures" in other organisms they will sometimes find the little "scaffolds" still in place or other clues as to how the complex molecule came to be. Behe claimed that there had been no research done on this subject. Unforunately there was literally an avalanche of examples cited by the scientific community- some of them miffed by what they thought was neglect to their own voluminous writings.
I have been thinking of the "anti-Behe" argument as actually being an argument in favor of "meaningfulness" and "direction" in biological evolution. Someday I hope to get enough time to see if there's a solid Theistic argument in all of that.
Yeah, that's right R.W. - beg! Disagree with me, will you? sorry!
It's actually on the cellular level that most of the criticism is focused. There are some "real world" examples like the following which I proposed - only to see someone else publish it first in the FAQ. But I have to confess their explanation was more pithy than mine.
I tried to explain one major problem with Irreducible Complexity to a stone mason friend, this way:
We were standing beneath a stone archway like the image I've stolen below:
You're probably familiar with how the arch works, but let me bore you with an explanation. Notice the heavy stones that form the arch itself. Now, imagine you're the mason and you want to build this arch. To get the thing laid up you need to first lay stone "A" and then let "A" sit in place until the mortar has hardened to allow it to bear weight. Next you must lay up stone "B."
But for stones "B" and onward you've got a real problem. Now you must hold stone "B" in place and hope that gravity doesn't take over and send "B" to the ground. "C" and onward actually require you to defy gravity. My point to my stone mason friend was that the stone arch had to have been built in ZERO GRAVITY. He laughed, and pointed out the obvious:
You use a wooden or other scaffolding to support the structure until the mortar is set and the keystone is in place. Then when the arch is secure you remove the scaffold and move on. "But," I protested, "there's no evidence that there was a scaffold here."
"That's because they did a good job and cleaned up after themselves. There's no purpose for the scaffold after the arch is in place and so it is removed," he explained. Then he asked me what my point was:
Note: If you're not familiar with talkorigins it can be rather rough and tumble for the Christian at times. One of the primary contributers to the archive, however, is a believer who teaches and works at a nearby school of higher learning. As always, read with discernment, don't get your hackles up too easily and keep a good sense of humor.
There are many chemical "structures" in the living cell that from their present appearance, would seem to be "irreducibly complex." However, when a biochemist looks for these same "structures" in other organisms they will sometimes find the little "scaffolds" still in place or other clues as to how the complex molecule came to be. Behe claimed that there had been no research done on this subject. Unforunately there was literally an avalanche of examples cited by the scientific community- some of them miffed by what they thought was neglect to their own voluminous writings.
I have been thinking of the "anti-Behe" argument as actually being an argument in favor of "meaningfulness" and "direction" in biological evolution. Someday I hope to get enough time to see if there's a solid Theistic argument in all of that.
You know...if it was a Christian using his argument about the scaffolding being there then being removed so you can't see the evidence of it, they'd accuse God of trying to deceive everyone. By that I mean a Christian argument for the argument that the earth has been around for so long...some say that God just made it that way.
so that chemically it looks the age it should be but in duration God sped up the process.
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Anyone heard the theory that light used to travel much, much faster than it does now? Yeah, ya see, that's why we can see galaxies today that are millions of light years away, and yet were created only 6,000 years ago, ya see.
But we "see" light traveling across interstellar and even intergalactic distances moving at the present speed of light.
In the case of my avatar, this is a period of several months - 20,000 years ago. For me to make this animated gif I would have to have been "Adam" himself if the "light speed deterioration" theory was true. ******* "The Man" won't let me load my old animated avatar back up. But here's a thumbnail:
Consider: When Voyager 1 was first launched in 1977 it reached the distance of the moon after a couple of days. Its regular radio transmissions took a predictable 1.3 seconds to reach Earth. When Voyager 1 reached Jupiter, it took a little around 35 - 40 minutes for the signal to travel to Earth (depending on where Earth was in its orbit around the sun- 43 minutes to reach the sun itself). Currently its taking about 14.36 hours for a transmission to be received. The space throughout our solar system is predictable in nature and light travels prdictably throughout the solar system.
The eclipses of Jupiter's moons were observed by Galileo and he recorded a strange "variance" in their timing. That "variance" was of course due to the 35 - 40 minute travel time for the light to get from Jupiter to Earth. Today, math wizards with too much time on their hands can go through Galileo's 400 year old observations find the speed of light hasn't changed at all. Looking at my avatar gives proof that the speed of light hasn't changed in the last 20,000 years.
This pic shows that it hasn't changed in the last 167,000 years: A star with a "halo" around it explodes and becomes visible on earth for the first time. Over a period of years the shock waves continue out toward the "halo" of gasses and there they cause rapid compression and the subsequent fire show that we see later.
This is from the Large Magellanic Cloud- a "companion" galaxy to the Milkyway and about 167,000 light years away. The first pic is from 1987 and I believe they go up through 2002. Light travels at the anticipated speeds through "intergalactic space" and we observe no anomolous behavior over the space of 167,000 years.
In the following example- we observe a star going "supernova" close to 10 Billion years ago. And "10 Billion" is a conservative estimate of the distance. We are observing ongoing physical processes across vast distances of space. The smaller objects are known to be galaxies that are more than 12 Billion years ago (and away).
******* Add another note here: The YECs (Young Earth Creationists) will often bring up some recent experiments of "faster than light speed" and "slower than light speed" experiments. In all of these experiments, the change in light speed was only accomplished over very short distances- and I mean very short- micromillimeters. And the effects could only be achevied by passing the laser amplified light through some sort of medium like cessium. Einstein's "constant" (the 'c' in EMC) is qualified to be "within a vacuum." They knew even back then that an intervening medium will effect the light. But Einstein and so many others, can be proven today to be correct- at least for dates up to around 10 or 12 billion years.
I have yet to find anyone, including YECs who will try and say that there is solid cessium between Earth and the nearest galaxy. They just bring up these things and then withold crucial data from you in order to deceive. Sorry, but I've been debating these guys for more than a decade. There's not one YEC (including those with "ministries") on the circuit who hasn't been found out to be involved in some sort of deliberate falsification or twisting of the facts. It's a money making charade. And sometimes it doesn't even take that much money.
You know...if it was a Christian using his argument about the scaffolding being there then being removed so you can't see the evidence of it, they'd accuse God of trying to deceive everyone. By that I mean a Christian argument for the argument that the earth has been around for so long...some say that God just made it that way.
so that chemically it looks the age it should be but in duration God sped up the process.
Now Prax, you are being far too cynical in ascribing motives to those who you may have had discussions with in the past. Let go of the bitterness.*
*See my post earlier this evening where I did the same thing with "ultra cons."
Your question actually gets into the old Victorian "Omphalos Debate," known more popularly as "Did Adam Have a Belly Button?"
Obviously Adam had no need for a belly button, so did he have one? In other words, how far would God go to make Adam look like a full grown human being without actually being deceptive? Most of us have physical scars from falling down as children. Did God give Adam a cut on his knee to represent the "time" he fell down as a child?
Did Adam have the arterial sclerosis of a 30 year old man? (Many young earth creationists put forth the idea that Adam was 30 when he was created to begin his "ministry" at the same "age" as Jesus had begun His). In any event, did Adam's veins look like they had been pumping blood for 30 years (or however "old" he was?) Did Adam have the mirco fissures and wear patterns on his teeth equivalent to an adult human? A forensic investigator can come pretty close to guessing your age by the microscopic wear patterns.
Applying these types of questions to the "scars" on the earth, how far was God going to carry this "appearance of age" deception? And deception is exactly what it amounts to.
Not only did "God create rocks that appear to be billions of years old" but He put the remains of once living creatures inside those rocks. And not just their remains, He made it "appear" that these creatures had walked about leaving footprints. They breeded. They ate one another. Were these creatures ever "alive" or were they planted by Satan or planted by God to "test" our faith? Those were explanations that used to be quite popular before the late 1960's when space travel and other scientific progress put pressure on the fundamentalists to come up with something better.
Some of the oldest rocks on earth are sandstones in Australia. They consistantly test out to around 3 billion years old. That's their "chemical age" (really atomic). But these sandstones are made up of sand crystals that are smooth. The individual crystals are smooth. That means, as silicates they formed the way we observe silicates forming today through the gradual seperation of silicates from heavier minerals in slow cooling granite domes. The granite dome, mountainlike in size, was then ground down by erosion and this sand is the result. Later, the sand crystals lithified in a chemical process whereby the individual crystals formed themselves into a different kind of rock - this time sandstone.
That's a lot of work for nothing if God was only trying to pull a fast one on us. But then, I have found Him to be of quite a different character than the "deciever" that many of my brethren have tried to persuade me of. He is true. We are only beginning to understand how true.
sorry!
Linear Mode
