Posted on 12/14/2008 8:37:32 AM PST by tpanther
Strength For The Journey New Creation People Part 1 August 4, 2005 Is Evolution A Fact?
READ: Genesis 2:1-7, Hebrews 11:1-3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. —Hebrews 11:3The theory of evolution is not without its problems. One scientist says this about life starting on its own: "Amino acids would have to be arranged in an exact sequence to form a protein . . . just like the letters in a sentence. Mere laws of chemistry and physics cannot do that. The probability of a protein forming by chance would be 1064 [10 with 64 zeros after it] to 1!"
Many people assume the theory of evolution to be true. But can it be scientifically proven? Something is considered scientifically true only if it can be repeatedly verified under laboratory conditions. The claim that life sprang up on its own out of a long impersonal process cannot pass this test of truth. That is why evolution remains only a theory.
So if you're ever tempted to doubt the Genesis account of the creation story, consider the alternative. The odds against even a simple protein creating itself are astronomical. How much more reasonable to believe God and His Word: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:3).
Isn't it more reasonable to believe that God designed and created the universe? (Genesis 1:1). — Dennis Fisher
All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small, All things wise and wonderful— The Lord God made them all. —Alexander
All creation points to the almighty Creator.
Also, there are few limitations to the religious beliefs a poster may express as long as he complies with the Religion Forum guidelines.
Well a ‘yes’ answer to that question would be anti-FR is all I can guess.
The FR-Evos like operate in the shadow of inference any.
“it was however taking a dispute from thread-to-thread” [excerpt]Indeed, you are correct.
interesting that the many millions of clear transitional fossils that would have been found throughout the fossil record if the many animals morphed into different types of such, are still not found....fact, end of story.
As long as it is clear they are doing religion, even if they insist it is science they are doing.
As a group, the FR-evos do not now do science, nor have they ever done science. What they do is hijack the science threads for their atheist G-d hating crusades, and that is pretty plain to most people.
Yeah, well, we probably should try to discuss it because I think that might fall under the heading of ‘making it about another poster’ or possibly ‘taking a dispute from thread-to-thread’.
Conservatives are only allowed to play nice, liberals play trashy.
Rulz is rulz.
...we probably shouldn't try to discuss it because...Ugh, lousy typo, sorry!
You are wrong.
As for the topic of the thread, and I say this in all seriousness, I consider the descent of species by gradual modfication from a common ancestor--the fact of evolution, if you will--to be as firmly demonstrated as almost any fact of science. Any theory that does not account for common descent must be considered refuted.
Furthermore, I consider Darwin's theory--the source of modification was the inheritance of random variations of parental traits, followed by the natural or sexual selection of the offspring--to be a more accurate and complete model of its subject than the atomic theory of matter is of its.
“I consider the descent of species by gradual modfication from a common ancestor--the fact of evolution, if you will--to be as firmly demonstrated as almost any fact of science.” [excerpt]When you say I consider you are asserting this as a belief rooted in faith?
“Any theory that does not account for common descent must be considered refuted.” [excerpt]Not in empirical science.
“Furthermore, I consider Darwin's theory--the source of modification was the inheritance of random variations of parental traits, followed by the natural or sexual selection of the offspring--to be a more accurate and complete model of its subject than the atomic theory of matter is of its.” [excerpt]Again, is this a statement of faith or are you asserting this as fact?
"Faith" to me means "acceptance in the abscence of any evidence, and even in spite of evidence to the contrary". In that sense, my considerations are not at all rooted in faith.
“Whenever anyone says "this is a fact", it can only ever mean "based on what I have seen and heard, my opinion is that it is true".” [excerpt]This is a fact: objects, unless acted upon by another force, are pulled toward the earth.
“"Faith" to me means "acceptance in the abscence of any evidence, and even in spite of evidence to the contrary".” [excerpt]Exactly.
“In that sense, my considerations are not at all rooted in faith.” [excerpt]I see.
Of course, same as anyone's. But evidence-based (i.e. informed) opinions outweigh those that are not evidence-based.
This is a fact: objects, unless acted upon by another force, are pulled toward the earth.
Oh, yeah, anyone can test my claim.
The objects I choose are photons. I shine them directly away from the Earth. According to my measurements, they are not slowed down at all, ever, regardless of how far they travel. There may be a change in frequency over distance, but I can exactly explain that purely with kinematics (i.e. geometry), without involving dynamics (i.e. forces) at all. They are not "pulled toward the Earth" in any sense.
You stand refuted. Goodnight.
It depends on if what you are believing is true or not. If creation by The Creator is true than it is not believing this that would get in the way of learning, which it does, by the way.
Not enough time.
“You stand refuted. Goodnight.” [excerpt]You have refuted my position very nicely.
Evidence that contradicts evolution is edited out by the evolution adherents. It is not unlike how Conservative political viewpoint is edited out of Universities in much of this country. Also, so called global warming "facts" are accepted and anything that contradicts the established accepted viewpoint is edited out. Scientist who dare to contradict the false viewpoints are usually mocked and not accepted. Also, it is claimed that the people who believe differently are stupid and brainwashed. The established elite do what they want with the truth and have plenty of Godless followers eagerly accepting what is put forth as truth. As long as you can believe that there is no God you think you are free from His constraints and can go on living in rebellion from Him.
Look, evolution says that man's moral and intellectual faculties, as well as his mind and his religion, evolved from apes. And, in addition, man's mind is only different from that of apes in degree, not in kind. Do you get the import of this? What does Orthodoxy teach about man's moral and intellectual powers? That they evolved by small improvements from apes?
You should read the chapters on Natural and Sexual Selection in T.H. Morgan's Evolution and Adaptation. It may put some doubts in your mind. There's a link to the book on my FR page.
One arrogant habit (of many) of evolutionists is their insistence that you adopt their definitions for commonly used words like 'proof', 'evidence', 'truth', 'theory', 'fact', 'hypothesis', 'ape', 'human', 'chance', 'verify', 'refute' and, especially, 'science'. There's no reason to even entertain such ridiculous demands--laughing in their face is the only appropriate response. And yet they insist. They must think of themselves as deities or something.
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.