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.
A wonderful Sunday greetings to all of you!
The Lord works in myterious ways.
If he decides he wants to use evolution as his method, who are we to argue with his intentions.
He cannot use evolution, as the term is used today. Evolution assumes some kind of undirected (important!) abiogenesis to produce the first living organism, then additional undirected (important!) natural selection arising from random mutations to every living thing (plant and animal) that exists today (common descent). If God exists, then existence is dependent upon Him and nothing, by definition, is therefore undirected. Mutually exclusive.
If he decides he wants to use evolution as his method, who are we to argue with his intentions.
Right now the argument is being poisoned by people with anti-God socio-pathologies.They harm evolution much more than they help it.
Exactly, if anything about evolution is valid in God’s creation and this is what He uses, evolution in itself would BE intelligent design.
Now if only they would learn something about it...
But that may be asking too much, as Heinlein so eloquently phrased it:
Belief gets in the way of learning.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
“The probability of a protein forming by chance would be 1064 [10 with 64 zeros after it] to 1!”
This is not a good argument, because both a lot of chance is involved, and the patterns that they form are mathematically derived. A good comparison is to say that it would be very unlikely that carbon atoms would form a molecule in the shape of a soccer ball. But they do, because they can readily assemble into that kind of shape, and when they do, it is very stable. So once it happens, 64 carbon atoms tend to stay that way.
Amino acids also tend to form patterns like that. And once they do, they tend to form patterns that can be duplicated by other, independent amino acids, that affix themselves to the first pattern and form a mirror image.
The zinger is a huge amount of time for this to take place. From the time they can do this, to the time they actually pull it off and make a complex protein, may be a couple of billion years or more.
Eventually you end up with a complex protein, best described as looking like a steel wool pad, made up of a great number of compression and tension springs. It can be stretched out into a single wire, but when you let go, it consistently reassembles into the exact same pad of steel wool.
The odds of it coming together spontaneously are tiny, this is true. But over a vast length of time, and a lot of trial and error, less so.
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is. Dinosaurs.
No, it isn't. Birds.
Yes, it is. Fossils.
No, it isn't. God.
Yes, it is. God made it all including evolution.
No, it isn't. Bible.
There. The thread should be finished.
Not according to my HS biology teacher, a Marist Brother in the Catholic HS I went to.
We Catholics, have absolutly no problem separating science from religion. We can believe in the Lord and still follow science, at least science that is grounded in fact and not crap like the global warming fraud.
You left out some of the most compelling components:
NEA
Godless liberals
ACLU
courts
acitivst liberal judges
vs. normal people.
Indeed the religious people that deny God despite all the evidence are ruining it for everyone.
As I pointed out, socio-pathological cultists have hijacked evolution to the point no one recognizes it anymore, including above all themselves.
I like Robert Heinlein. His book “Stranger In A Strange Land” is one of my favorite books.
Strawman. Automatic [auto-F]
Evolution is completely and fully compatible with Christianity.
Abiogenesis is highly improbable. I think evolution is highly improbable too. It makes sense that natural selection occurs in a conservative sense. Three legged deer, and myopic eagles are unlikely to survive. But what are the odds that an error in reproduction will lead to improvement? Very low.
The best evidence for evolution seems to be with viruses and bacteria. New strains of bacteria arise that are resistant to antibiotics. This suggests that a new and improved strain has arisen by chance and selection. But it’s my understanding that once antibiotics are removed, the new strain is out-competed by earlier strains. So there was no unambiguous improvement after all. This is like the sickle cell mutation that helps people resist malaria. Absent malaria, the mutation is simply harmful.
I think the comparison between global warming and evolution is apt. The science is not settled in either case, despite the fact that many loud voices insist that it is settled. True science thrives on independent thinking, not publicly funded consensus and mass produced opinion.
Faith isn't science.
Something is considered scientifically true only if it can be repeatedly verified under laboratory conditions.
So, then, all of astrophysics is invalid? If someone has repeatedly created a star under laboratory conditions, I missed the memo.
That is why evolution remains only a theory.
In such sketchy company as gravity.
An elegant solution.
False. Evolution is a process by which one form of life becomes another. It is not concerned with the origins of life. Evolutionary theory does not state that the process is "undirected" -- only that no external supernatural force is required to explain observed phenomena.
If a sparrow falls, we may determine that it expired due to natural and well-understood biological causes, and that it fell because the force of gravity drew it to the nearest massive object, which we call Earth. Did God mean for the sparrow to fall? That is something science can neither prove nor disprove, and thus does not concern itself with.
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.