Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

Except evolution isn't random. It is the opposite of random. Once again, your misunderstanding of (or more accurately, your choice to ignore) the very basics of the theory cause you to make blatantly ignorant statements.

Sure it is. Evolution in its purest sense believes that life began in a primortal ooze. Its a nice fairy tale. But in order for that life to start, several impossibilities need to take place...ie the random formation of a protein molecule. Then it has to bind with others before the forces that brought it together, rip it apart again.

 

[gary-ramey]

Every child is sinful? Sure, whatever you say boss

Might I remind you that the physical laws you are referring to are man made.
As are any spiritual laws you might be referring to.

Do you have children?

Gravity is man made...wow enlighten me would you?

 

[sheck33]

Ultimately science can never "prove" the random formation of life and can only theorize how it started.

And you base this conclusion on what?

Even the simplest life contains 1000s of protein molecules and, formaldehyde experiments aside, the odds of one protein molecule forming in nature and combining are so small the word impossible comes to mind.

Typical flawed creationist 'arguments'.

'The simplest life is far more complex to have arisen naturally'. Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, simple enough to form via pre biotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin. Any modern life is far more complex than the early beginnings of life.

Creationists always love to talk about the 'odds'. It is obvious you don't know a thing about statistics.

 

[coachpill]

Every child is sinful? Sure, whatever you say boss

Might I remind you that the physical laws you are referring to are man made.
As are any spiritual laws you might be referring to.

According to the Bible, all people, children or adults, are born with sinful natures...they will sin, and cannot achieve salvation on their own.

The Bible does not teach, anywhere, the damnation of babies.

The Bible does teach that those sent to Hell are judged based upon their sins. Babies have no record to speak of, therefore they cannot be damned to Hell...Babies go to heaven.

Thanks!

 

[gary-ramey]

Again, no new genes were introduced...at least not that I could see by reading this study. Since no new genes were formed, no evolution has occurred. This is yet another wonderful example of the power of natural selection on already present genes!! That in and of itself is awesome!

Wouldn't this be an example of adaptation of a species?

 

[sheck33]

Really, has this been published in anything reputable?

Talk about publishing in anything reputable, not something creationists ever seem to manage.

 

[gary-ramey]

According to the Bible, all people, children or adults, are born with sinful natures...they will sin, and cannot achieve salvation on their own.

The Bible does not teach, anywhere, the damnation of babies.

The Bible does teach that those sent to Hell are judged based upon their sins. Babies have no record to speak of, therefore they cannot be damned to Hell...Babies go to heaven.

Thanks!

I'd like to add that the Bible does discuss an age of accountability but doesn't give a specific age. At some point the church adopted the age of 12. I'm unsure of why that was chosen.

 

[gary-ramey]

Talk about publishing in anything reputable, not something creationists ever seem to manage.

I think I addressed the problem we have in competing venues with sources. The internet is the world's largest he-said, she-said reference. Where could Christianity publish that would satisfy the evolutionist as reputable. Answer: no where.

 

[sheck33]

I think evolution leaves huge gaps in understanding origins of life and behavior.

Evolution theory does not cover the origins of life. You have been so brainwashed you don't even know what it is you are bashing.

 

[sheck33]

Interesting that he quotes Gould but nonetheless let me try and put this into perspective. The Theory of Evolution is there to explain the "fact" of evolution. Gee why didn't I think of that. Maybe I should have just stated that the Theory of God is there to explain the fact of God. Did someone mention circular reasoning awhile ago? I think I'll have the Javaman with a side of brontosaurus to go please.

That is exactly it, creationists don't have any facts!