Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/15/2006 | Ted Byfield

[MosesKnows]

Accepting evolution and believing in God are not mutually exclusive.

I think I agree. I've never been able to understand why some people think that a creator could not instantly create a rock that was one billion years old.

How could a person who has grasped the significance of the DNA language deny that we are here by plan, not by accident?

Consider! The precision of the genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters.

Atheist amuse God by telling him of their plans.

[Finny]

I would respectfully suggest that your own faith in God may be lacking. Where truth leads, there is God. If truth is natural selection (which is apparent), then natural selection is one of the many mysterious ways that God performs His wonders. Your faith must be pretty shaky if truth, for you, negates God, and you must engage in denial, deliberate ignorance, and falseness to uphold your "faith." I would say that it might perhaps be a warning -- that indeed, I.D. and Creationism are works of the devil who is masquerading as holy, because they deny truth and work on those whose faith is shaky.

Certainly it can be said that evolution IS intelligent design. Adapt to a changing environment and survive -- fail to adapt, and perish. Spiritual laws, however, are unchanging; those human civilizations that fail to adapt to God's straightforward laws for thriving in our spiritual environment (laws such as the ten commandments, seven deadly sins, etc.) perish. Those civilizations that work toward adapting their behavior to those rules, thrive. Darwinism and evolution is about how our earthly bodies may or may not proceed on an earthly plane; God's laws are about how we proceed on a spiritual plane. To me, there is a wonderful symmetry at work, all part of God's design.

Evolution doesn't challenge God. It challenges men.

[Gumlegs]

AK: The environment and potential sexual partners each select.

SLal: Nope the question still remains these could simply predesigned traits that existed in these sexual partners. "After their own kind" as the book of Genesis would say.

This example you gave Does not undermine Intelligent Design at all.

I have to go with SirLinksalot on this one. In fact, I'd go further: there's no example at all that can undermine ID. That's why it's not science.

[freedumb2003]

How many logical fallacies can you count?

I claim the Headline as Fallacy #1! Non-sequietuer!

[Tribune7]

It's always an ignoramus who thinks that understanding biogenesis is necessary before understanding variation and selection.

Like . . .

[stands2reason]

You sound like someone who understands that the state of one's soul is more important than the state of matter. I wish more people did.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia."

Not really. Sickle-cell anemia is a result of someone having two copies of the sickle hemoglobin (Hb S) allele. This allele, when carried in only one copy, infers an advantage for the person against malaria.

Sickle cell anemia is not the result of a new mutation.

[Constantine XIII]

It's like asking someone to list all of the rational and irrational numbers between 0 and 1. :P

[Mephari]

I get the point, but it isn't true :)

Newton's laws of Gravity are in fact, incorrect.

They only work on Earth essentially. Well, only with objects and speeds similar to Earth's environment.

If you ask a physicist if he believes in Newton's law of Gravitation he'll most likely tell you "no, because in most cases Newton's laws do not make an accurate prediction." General Relativity is where it's at.

Einstein proved Newton's Laws inaccurate using measurements of Mercury's orbit i believe.

[Hoodat]

The remaining one-third believe in God, too. They are simply angry at Him and deal with their anger by denying Him.

I have a friend who claims to be an atheist, but when I begin to lead him into a conversation about God, he quickly lets me know how much he hates God.

btw, even satan believes in God.

[Tribune7]

Evolutionary Biology and the theory of evolution are not the same thing.

One of the problems with evolution is the insistence -- by evolutionists -- to conflate them.

The site I've been linking to is for kids. It calls itself "Evolution 101".

If one should say that means Evolutionary Biology 101 (why didn't they say that ?) and not the Theory of Evolution, that person is playing word games.

[Mephari]

"However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from. " - From your linked website.

Your insinuation is that evolution involves the creation of life, which it does not.

The creative of life is handled by a scientific field and in no way by the theory of evolution. I'm not playing word games, I'm reading facts from your source.

[stands2reason]

I would say that it might perhaps be a warning -- that indeed, I.D. and Creationism are works of the devil who is masquerading as holy, because they deny truth and work on those whose faith is shaky.

It is a poison pill - an earthly distraction from the spiritual that leads to pride, false witness, and anger. A real prescription for spiritual damnation.

[Mephari]

That should read "The creation of life is...." Sorry.

[jec41]

It is not possible to undermine ID. That's the problem with it.

Who is trying to undermine ID. People believe what they want to believe. You can argue your belief of something unknown forever if you wish. However when some want it taught as a fact observed by science They have to produce a observed fact and evidence for it to be defined as science. I have this belief that pink fairies mate on the dark side of the moon after dark. Its not possible to undermine my pink fairy belief and I think it should be taught as science.

[Old_Mil]

What would you expect? Did you get your understanding of evolution from Hollywood movies?

No...I actually got it in college and medical school at the hands of PhDs who firmly believed in it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"This allele, when carried in only one copy, infers an advantage for the person against malaria."

Actually, it confers .

[Old_Mil]

It's evidence that wins arguments, not pigskin. I could care less what your creds are, btw, so don't bother posting them.

Of course, it is evidence that wins arguments and the lack thereof that loses them. I'm just curious if you actually have personal understanding of the subject through individual study or if you (like many of the evolutionists on these threads) are merely cutting and pasting information from internet websites that you don't fully understand.

Given your propensity to engage in name calling and avoid the logical merits of the debate, I'd have to guess that it is the latter.

A perfect example is the complete lack of empirical evidence for abiogenesis or endosymbiosis. You see, evolutionary theory apart from ID hinges fully on endosymbiotic behavior in the primordial soup. Take that away, and we're still dealing with lightning induced amnio acid formation. Textbooks and credentialed evolutionists admit this...however when IDers and strict creationists point out the utter lack of empirical evidence for this (there's about as much evidence of endosymbiotic behavior as there is for H.G. Well's "War of the Worlds" actually happening) that evolutionists either retreat and say "well, it doesn't matter" or "mitochondrial DNA resemble bacterial DNA so it had to happen" (just like humans resemble chimps so it had to happen, and so on).

[Tribune7]

"However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from. " - From your linked website.

And evolutionary biology does not include the Theory of Evolution? Where does it say that origins are not part of the Theory of Evolution on that page? On any of the following pages?

Your insinuation is that evolution involves the creation of life, which it does not.

And that is my point. Evolution 101 , remember?

[jec41]

Darwinian or otherwise, the claim that an intelligible universe populated by intelligent beings can come about wholly apart from intelligence, design, or some combination of the two can only be described as something other than emprical science.

Can you provide a quot from anywhere other than yourself for the above statement. Exactly who made this claim? Is it philosophy?