Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
bcbsr

Thoughts on the Theory of Evolution

Recommended Posts

Thoughts on the Theory of Evolution

 

As it has been presented over the years on many occasions, there are two basic theorems"=

THEOREM #1:  Evolution is the fact of common biological origin of all species?

THEOREM #2: Evolution is the hypothesis that the diversity of species from the common origin came about without God's intervention and not as an unlikely occurrence, but one which was inevitable through simple stochastic processes (processes governed by probability curves)?

 

I've seen convincing evident supporting theorem #1. You can argue that's science. But theorem #2 puts the "Theory of Evolution" outside the realm of science, seeing as that theorem is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. It's more a statement of faith of the evolutionist. In debates arguing against the validity of theorem #2, typically the atheistic naturalist with invoke theorem #1 claiming evolution to be a fact. They play the kind of word games lawyers play by changing the meaning of the word in the middle of the argument. 

If "A" is scientific, and "B" is non-scientific, then does A+B = scientific? Or does A+B = non-scientific? 

Or how about this, if the Theory of Evolution is THEOREM #1 & THEOREM #2, then logically if THEOREM #2 is wrong, then the "Theory of Evolution" is wrong. 

 

WAS EVOLUTION LIKELY?

 

Let's consider THEOREM #2: Was Evolution by purely stochastic means likely?

One cannot simply say, "Well, it happened. Therefore it must have been likely." The stupidity of such an argument can be seen by making it regarding anything. "I found a piece of paper with writing on it. Well, it happened, therefore it must have likely occurred by stochastic means." Yet I've found even prestigious scientists using such arguments to deflect criticisms of evolution. (What a bunch of idiots!)

"Given enough time anything is possible"

This is a typical argument used in support of THEOREM #2. But this doesn't prove the theorem. It doesn't answer the question as to how much time is enough time. And typically these idiots will respond. "Well, it happened, so there must have been enough time." But that's simply a restatement of their own hypothesis. They haven't proven anything. 

While the functional complexity of nature intuitively implies a Creator, they argue that our intuition doesn't work over the long time spans it took evolution to take place. And therefore "intuitively obvious", or what we call "reasonable", is not evidence acceptable to the atheistic naturalistic, who claims we must be "unreasonable" and "counter-intuitive" in our estimation of the evidence. 

Here's my question to such people: HOW MUCH TIME IS ENOUGH TIME?

Consider the Cambrian Explosion where in the span of only 20 Million Years, all the fundamental diversity of mechanisms in species developed. 

"BIOLOGOS" has a page, "Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?" - Their "proof" is simply their own hypothesis which states, "The changes during the Cambrian Era did not occur over decades, centuries, or even thousands of years; they occurred over millions of years—plenty of time for evolutionary change."

Nowhere have they proven their "plenty of time" hypothesis. This is simply a "Let's raise a flag and see if someone salutes it" type of "proof". Or it's sort of the "Emperor's New Clothes" scenario, in which anyone who questions their hypothesis is simply labeled a fool. By they are the fools for claiming such presumptions to be "scientific". 

From what I've found, scientists are generally poor philosophers, invoking logical fallacies to "prove" their philosophical point, like falsely appealing to "authority" in areas of which the "authority", namely themselves, is not really an authority, such as you see above with the claim "plenty of time", of which they haven't verified.

In fact more evolution took place in those 20 million years than in the past 500 million years. If "plenty of time" is based on the rate of evolution over the past 500 million years, then in fact there was not "plenty of time" for the Cambrian Explosion to have occurred.

The proposition that life is purely a product of stochastic events is not science. Rather it's a statement of faith. It's the religion of the atheistic naturalist.
 

ABIOGENSIS

 

Abiogenesis deals with the creation of the first cell. It's not technically evolution as this is prior to there being a self-replicating system, namely the cell, which is the basis for the propositions of evolution. 

The cell is far more complex than anything it produces. It contains a coding mechanism written in a language with an alphabet of four letters and one which not only replicates its own code, but also the replicates the entire cell. It's a factory with a computer programmed to replicate not its own code, and not only the computer, but instructions as to how to replicate the entire factory.

But if you think that's unlikely to come about by chance, consider this. Natural processes produce racemic mixtures.  That's is it produces equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed molecules, optical isomers of one another. But thing about DNA, which is billions of letters long, is that all its letters are left-handed, while all the letters of the RNA are all right-handed. 

Consider a jar of a billion letters of A,T,C,G, half being white and half  black. Now shake the bottle. What are the odds that all the white end up on the bottom and blacks on the top? Not only that, but all the letters must form a self-replicating code. Much as the atheistic naturalists would like to invoke the idea that "given enough time anything is possible", the fact is, "As soon as the environment settled down to be relatively habitable, life appeared. Just half a billion years beyond the formation of the Earth." This is a statement of what scientists  have observed. And they're not saying that abiogenesis had half a billion years to work, but rather it took half a billion years before environmental conditions would allow a cell to survive. And then, suddenly, in some short unspecified time period, life appeared!

It is presently a mystery to scientists as to how the first cell came into being. Here's the question, at what point should we invoke divine intervention as the explanation for a phenomenon? No evidence is ever sufficient for the atheistic naturalist. Their faith is that God doesn't exist and as such there must be a non-divine intervention explanation for all things, but that it's just that we haven't found one yet. 

The atheist is like a man on an island who insists he is the first one there and denies any evidence to the contrary. He sees footprints that are not his and reasons that as the island must be millions of years old that's enough time for erosion to randomly create what appears as footprints. He sees a tree where it appears someone has carved letters into it in a language form which tells of the history of a person who had lived on the island, but the man rejects it again as just a produce of natural chance events which have yet to be explained. Yet in fact there is writing in every cell of every tree in existence, the DNA code. Rejected out of hand by atheists as evidence of the divine but embrace by reasonable people as evidence of God's existence. 
 

The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't support either as they both work to remove God from the equation of how the world came to be.  Evolution is in complete contrast to how the bible describes how things came to be.  If we take the bible for what it is, the Truth, then we must dismiss Evolution as the lie that it is.  As we have seen scientific "conclusions" can be faked, or simply reported falsely.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in either of the theorems, but I do believe in evolution to a certain degree. Let me try to clarify what I mean. In the 50's computers were large enough to fill a room and still did not have the capabilities and power that a computer has today and look how small they are. In a way they have evolved but they did not evolve by sitting on the shelf. They evolved because of an outside source. That's the way I see nature, it was designed to evolve and adapt to the environment surrounding it. With all the variety and diversity of life we have on this planet, I see God's hand in all of it. I took biology, chemistry and A&P classes and what I learned in those science classes only strengthens by belief in a creator because there no way that chance plays role in why we are here.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Welcome @Kennelclub 🙂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Kennelclub, welcome to Christ Forums. I hope you'll enjoy your stay here.

 

 

 

spacer.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 4:35 PM, bcbsr said:

Thoughts on the Theory of Evolution

 

As it has been presented over the years on many occasions, there are two basic theorems"=

THEOREM #1:  Evolution is the fact of common biological origin of all species?

THEOREM #2: Evolution is the hypothesis that the diversity of species from the common origin came about without God's intervention and not as an unlikely occurrence, but one which was inevitable through simple stochastic processes (processes governed by probability curves)?

 

I've seen convincing evident supporting theorem #1. You can argue that's science. But theorem #2 puts the "Theory of Evolution" outside the realm of science, seeing as that theorem is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. It's more a statement of faith of the evolutionist. In debates arguing against the validity of theorem #2, typically the atheistic naturalist with invoke theorem #1 claiming evolution to be a fact. They play the kind of word games lawyers play by changing the meaning of the word in the middle of the argument. 

If "A" is scientific, and "B" is non-scientific, then does A+B = scientific? Or does A+B = non-scientific? 

Or how about this, if the Theory of Evolution is THEOREM #1 & THEOREM #2, then logically if THEOREM #2 is wrong, then the "Theory of Evolution" is wrong. 

 

WAS EVOLUTION LIKELY?

 

Let's consider THEOREM #2: Was Evolution by purely stochastic means likely?

One cannot simply say, "Well, it happened. Therefore it must have been likely." The stupidity of such an argument can be seen by making it regarding anything. "I found a piece of paper with writing on it. Well, it happened, therefore it must have likely occurred by stochastic means." Yet I've found even prestigious scientists using such arguments to deflect criticisms of evolution. (What a bunch of idiots!)

"Given enough time anything is possible"

This is a typical argument used in support of THEOREM #2. But this doesn't prove the theorem. It doesn't answer the question as to how much time is enough time. And typically these idiots will respond. "Well, it happened, so there must have been enough time." But that's simply a restatement of their own hypothesis. They haven't proven anything. 

While the functional complexity of nature intuitively implies a Creator, they argue that our intuition doesn't work over the long time spans it took evolution to take place. And therefore "intuitively obvious", or what we call "reasonable", is not evidence acceptable to the atheistic naturalistic, who claims we must be "unreasonable" and "counter-intuitive" in our estimation of the evidence. 

Here's my question to such people: HOW MUCH TIME IS ENOUGH TIME?

Consider the Cambrian Explosion where in the span of only 20 Million Years, all the fundamental diversity of mechanisms in species developed. 

"BIOLOGOS" has a page, "Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?" - Their "proof" is simply their own hypothesis which states, "The changes during the Cambrian Era did not occur over decades, centuries, or even thousands of years; they occurred over millions of years—plenty of time for evolutionary change."

Nowhere have they proven their "plenty of time" hypothesis. This is simply a "Let's raise a flag and see if someone salutes it" type of "proof". Or it's sort of the "Emperor's New Clothes" scenario, in which anyone who questions their hypothesis is simply labeled a fool. By they are the fools for claiming such presumptions to be "scientific". 

From what I've found, scientists are generally poor philosophers, invoking logical fallacies to "prove" their philosophical point, like falsely appealing to "authority" in areas of which the "authority", namely themselves, is not really an authority, such as you see above with the claim "plenty of time", of which they haven't verified.

In fact more evolution took place in those 20 million years than in the past 500 million years. If "plenty of time" is based on the rate of evolution over the past 500 million years, then in fact there was not "plenty of time" for the Cambrian Explosion to have occurred.

The proposition that life is purely a product of stochastic events is not science. Rather it's a statement of faith. It's the religion of the atheistic naturalist.
 

ABIOGENSIS

 

Abiogenesis deals with the creation of the first cell. It's not technically evolution as this is prior to there being a self-replicating system, namely the cell, which is the basis for the propositions of evolution. 

The cell is far more complex than anything it produces. It contains a coding mechanism written in a language with an alphabet of four letters and one which not only replicates its own code, but also the replicates the entire cell. It's a factory with a computer programmed to replicate not its own code, and not only the computer, but instructions as to how to replicate the entire factory.

But if you think that's unlikely to come about by chance, consider this. Natural processes produce racemic mixtures.  That's is it produces equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed molecules, optical isomers of one another. But thing about DNA, which is billions of letters long, is that all its letters are left-handed, while all the letters of the RNA are all right-handed. 

Consider a jar of a billion letters of A,T,C,G, half being white and half  black. Now shake the bottle. What are the odds that all the white end up on the bottom and blacks on the top? Not only that, but all the letters must form a self-replicating code. Much as the atheistic naturalists would like to invoke the idea that "given enough time anything is possible", the fact is, "As soon as the environment settled down to be relatively habitable, life appeared. Just half a billion years beyond the formation of the Earth." This is a statement of what scientists  have observed. And they're not saying that abiogenesis had half a billion years to work, but rather it took half a billion years before environmental conditions would allow a cell to survive. And then, suddenly, in some short unspecified time period, life appeared!

It is presently a mystery to scientists as to how the first cell came into being. Here's the question, at what point should we invoke divine intervention as the explanation for a phenomenon? No evidence is ever sufficient for the atheistic naturalist. Their faith is that God doesn't exist and as such there must be a non-divine intervention explanation for all things, but that it's just that we haven't found one yet. 

The atheist is like a man on an island who insists he is the first one there and denies any evidence to the contrary. He sees footprints that are not his and reasons that as the island must be millions of years old that's enough time for erosion to randomly create what appears as footprints. He sees a tree where it appears someone has carved letters into it in a language form which tells of the history of a person who had lived on the island, but the man rejects it again as just a produce of natural chance events which have yet to be explained. Yet in fact there is writing in every cell of every tree in existence, the DNA code. Rejected out of hand by atheists as evidence of the divine but embrace by reasonable people as evidence of God's existence. 
 

The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources

Atheist evolutionists amaze me

1.  The universe was created through a creative event, the big bang

2.  Galaxies exist in billions of versions

3.  Our planet can exist only in a universe so precise it must be created

4.  Our solar system is so stable, there must be vast events to set up that are no longer present

 

The only explanation for this is creative special events, yet it cannot be God.

 

Origins of life

1.  Life to exist must exist with 500,000 base pairs of DNA, which program it all.  It is impossible to come into existence without creation.

2.  With all our knowledge no stable isolated place has ever been found or reproduced to create life.

3.  Once life is established, it has the mechanisms to adapt and adjust so life continues.  The creative system works once created.

4.  Life is so unbelievably fragile it only exists on our planet, everywhere else is sterile, as far as we know or understand.

5.  The universe is unbelievably hostile, where for us to even spend a week in space damages our health, and will kill us if left exposed.

 

I love the connectedness of life, based solely on DNA and the way to reproduce coding.  One massive creative design, provides all this

massive variation, and ability.  If one wants to get a picture of life and its beauty and fragility, consider coral reefs.  They survive within a

4 degrees C temperature window.  Go outside this, they die.  Everything we see today is bounded by such tight variations.  But go just

100 miles up into the sky and we are dead, everything literally freezes or fries, cooked and destroyed by cosmic radiation.

What a creator who blesses us so?  And one meteor just a mile across hitting earth, the end.

 

Man is so stubborn, to bend the knee and submit to love and walking in harmony with others is so wrong to them, any excuse, no matter

how remote is better than just repenting and loving their Lord and their fellow man.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...