This topic was posted , thanks JimSEA.
Posted on 09/23/2016 3:50:31 PM PDT by JimSEA
“The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea in Bithynia (In present — day Turkey), convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first ecumenical conference of bishops of the Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicaean Creed.”
I believe that the word of God, the essence of God, and the nature of God is also revealed in the reality that we live in every day as well as in scripture.
I too believe Satan is real but that he has no control of reality which is a manifestation of God. Who could argue that reality, as experience by all living things, is totally subordinate to the Bible?
I am not a deist, I believe that most of the Bible is divinely inspired, however we live in a fallen world and the text of the Bible, as we know it may have been corrupted by man. The Bible enables man, with his limited capacity to understand the deeper reality of creation, to understand the deeper, spiritual meaning of reality and God, but that does not mean that science and critical thinking based on observing and testing the rules and behavior of the reality that was created by God as another "form of scripture" has no place in understanding God.
Sorry... But kinda not.
Here's where it stumbles: mere mutations are insufficient to explain drastic improvements to design. For example, basic light sensors in primitive organisms could not have evolved lenses to become eyes. To have that happen would require suspension of every principle of statistical analysis. The actual construction of a shaped, transparent structure would require a positive design element and could not conceivably be an accident. Too many separate elements of chance to be possible.
This is only one small example of the many thousands of unexplained evolutionary changes in relatively short spans of time that point to external design rather than happenstance.
Nature, as part of the universe we live in, is relentlessly destructive from our viewpoint in that materials oxidize and break down, structures crumble, energy dissipates. Nothing makes itself better on its own: that requires an external force to make the change.
If you had ever been responsible for the design and production of an advanced system, you'd know that nothing happens by accident. Evolution exists, of course but it is part of a really advanced design process.
Thank you -— I don’t feel picked-on by you!
The evolution of the eye is frequently brought up to disprove evolutionary theory. A starting point in response is that the evolution of the eve is well understood:
The evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of species.
The development of the eye is considered by most experts to be monophyletic; that is, all modern eyes, varied as they are, have their origins in a proto-eye believed to have evolved some 540 million years ago.
The majority of the process is believed to have taken only a few million years, as the first predator to gain true imaging would have touched off an “arms race”.[citation needed] Prey animals and competing predators alike would be forced to rapidly match or exceed any such capabilities to survive.
Hence multiple eye types and subtypes developed in parallel.
Eyes in various animals show adaption to their requirements.
For example, birds of prey have much greater visual acuity than humans and some, like diurnal birds of prey, can see ultraviolet light.
The different forms of eye in, for example, vertebrates and mollusks are often cited as examples of parallel evolution.
As far as the vertebrate/mollusk eye is concerned, intermediate, functioning stages have existed in nature, which is also an illustration of the many varieties and peculiarities of eye construction.
In the monophyletic model, these variations are less illustrative of non-vertebrate types such as the arthropod (compound) eye, but as those eyes are simpler to begin with, there are fewer intermediate stages to find.
The missing steps are too large, too dramatic: to go from primitive light receptors to a true eye with a lens system is not just a case of chance through repetitive accidents. It is a steady, progressive development cycle in a specific direction.
The process of evolution points to a design feature of the original genetic structure. That structure could not have been accidently generated no matter how much you might believe in chance. Aren't scientists of evolution good at math?
This topic was posted , thanks JimSEA.
This topic was posted , thanks JimSEA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
