Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Liberty1970

[[Natural selection was developed by Edward Blythe, a creationist. There is no problem with understanding it as a conservative force that slows down entropy in a fallen world.

You need to define what you mean by “evolution.” There are a wide array of dynamic genetic effects going on over time in God’s created world. If we simply define any and all genetic changes over time as “evolution” then yes, evolution happens.

But if you mean that God “used” blind chance processes combined with natural selection to generate life, then you are going against both Scripture and science. Science shows such processes are wholly incompentent to produce all but the most trivial effects. Even the ‘interesting’ cases such as penicillin resistance, warfarin resistance, malaria resistance and so on are fluke side effects of damaging mutations, not constructive changes at the biomolecular/systems level.

Ultimately, accusing God of relying on ‘evolution’ as most people understand it, is accusing God of being a clumsy, incompetent butcher who uses death and suffering to accomplish his ends - prior to the Fall of man. Atheists like David Hull (in his classic article God of the Galapagos) understand this and rightly reject such a demonic ‘god.’ ]]

Excellent post- worth reposting (Not that anyoen will even blink- but it’s worth repeating- Macroevolution is a biologically, chemically, naturally, and mathematically impossible hypothesis- yet peopel ignore all that, ignore God’s word (Heck, even goign so far as to deny it’s God’s word, but rather just a work by ‘good men’ about ‘good things’,) and still claim ‘God could have used evolution’- Yep- God allowed soem scientifically impossible ‘natural process’ occure because He apaprently wasn’t powerful enough to userp nature himself- He left it to nature to violate it’s own laws- thus making Nature a more powerful god than God is apparently- Those callign htemselves ‘theistic evolutionists’ would apparently rather put their faith in an omnipotent nature than in in Omnipotent God


25 posted on 09/28/2009 9:29:10 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Liberty1970; CottShop
Macroevolution is a biologically, chemically, naturally, and mathematically impossible hypothesis"

Thus spake Zarathustra. (with jiggity sauce)

108 posted on 09/30/2009 4:44:54 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson