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.
There are some who teach evolution because they believe it to be true.
—but—
I know a lot of folks who do not want to live God's laws, so they push evolution. It gives them “proof” that God is false and that they do not need to follow His laws.
They say something, not because of it value in it self; they say it for the value it has in proving their belief in something else.
Interesting perspective.
I find it somewhat pointless to debate faith and belief with Evolutionists (both of which they often deny), so I mostly stick to the scientific and ethical aspects of Evolution.
For the FR-evolutionists, that statement fits them like a glove
Perhaps you should open up enough to hear higher teachings before this span time runs out.
Beware Arjuna, those that worship lessor Gods will go unto them
this span = this life span
Silly man. Corn dogs evolved from pigs!
The theory of evolution is based on a vast amount of scientific evidence. And to date there is no scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.
Some ideas have been examined and dismissed, based on the evidence provided, decades or centuries ago. Until scientific evidence is provided that shows the theory is incorrect or incomplete, why should scientists pay these old ideas any attention?
Or are you suggesting that scientists reexamine old and discarded ideas continually, lest they be thought "close-minded?" Perhaps those proposing these old ideas be reevaluated once again could be troubled to come up with evidence warranting a reevaluation?
Any number of posters here could benefit from a visit to a phrenologist.
Heck, no, I am not suggesting anything. I am stating as fact that you are a very close minded person, more close minded than any IDer on here.
This thread started with a statement:
“The probability of a protein forming by chance would be 1064 [10 with 64 zeros after it] to 1!”
You, instead of refuting that or proving it to be untrue, posted your typical non-sequitur, which is both irrelevant and insulting:
“It is gratifying that so many religious people take an interest in science.
Now if only they would learn something about it...”
Wow, kids, there’s some science for you.
“And to date there is no scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.”
That is incorrect, ridiculously so. In fact much of what ID teaches is exactly that: the inability of evolution theorists to adequately explain a number of phenomena, including the mathematical anomaly which opened this thread. I doubt you have read “Darwin’s Black Box”, or having read it, closed your mind to its implications. Instead you and the other Evos try to divert the discussion by pretending all you opponents are young earthers, or want to impose religion on science, or some other bilge like that.
So as Heinlein said and you are a rather good example of:
“Belief gets in the way of learning.”
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal." Click on my profile page for more guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.
Kind of like multiverse, string and M-theory.
And to date there is no scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.
Except of course what several SCIENTISTS say is scientific evidence that contradicts evolution.
There's a certain amount of faith one must have to confirm evolution. But the cultists don't want any faith to creep into science but their own. Simple as that.
These mathematical projections are useless if the factors are not correctly modeled.
It is common to see mathematicians calculate the odds of all sorts of events as next to impossible; but does evolution actually work in that manner?
Evidence suggests it does not.
Here is an example of two ways of looking at the evidence. You need to roll 25 dice and come up with all sixes. Pretty huge odds against that, eh? Never happen in hours or even days of rolling dice, eh?
Well what if evolution rolls all the dice and keeps the sixes, rolling only those which are not sixes. You'd end up with all sixes in a very short time.
With these two ways of looking at the problem mathematicians who come up with the huge odds are choosing the first method, while evolution works with natural selection--much more akin to the second.
Here is an online lecture that explains it quite well:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
I shouldn't have to explain all of these things. The information is out there, but creationists just choose to ignore it.
I shouldn't have to explain all of these things. The information is out there, but creationists just choose to ignore it.
Supreme arrogant evo-cultist irony at it's very finest!
“The information is out there, but creationists just choose to ignore it.” [excerpt]Where did I say that?
Thanks for the ping!
Please stop stalking me. That is against the forum rules.
“Please stop stalking me. That is against the forum rules.”LOL!
Looks like the coyote is going to try an pull an Obama, refuse to answer legitimate questions by running for cover.
And to you Religion Moderator why is the coyote and other atheists allowed to run their antiG-d crusade on religion threads in the name of science?
The post at 17 was not stalking, it was however taking a dispute from thread-to-thread and therefore was removed.
Coyote never did answer the question about whether or not he was pro-life or pro-abortion.
I wonder why not...
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.