- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:21pm
Thread Topic: Evolution....
Any christians here believe in it? (I'm in a science mood.)
the pope has actually accepted evolution as factual evidence. I found that out recently and it just made my day.
AllHailLelouch JuniorEvolution is part of life so yah.
Appayipyip42 AdvancedI believe in it, but I am not sure if I count as Christian. I believe in a God, or at least a god-like entity, though.
Heh, thanks guys! My curiousity is sated......
Some people believe in God and evolution. Its called Theistic evolution. They believe God began the evolution process. But what thy don't tell you in your schools is all of evolutions many anomalies. They'd be afraid to tell you the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere on earth. They call Christianity and creation a faith, and a weak one at tht, because we never witnessed it happening. But really? Evolutionist never witnessed evolution either. Its a faith, guys. Admit it. Its an excuse for there to be no God because you dont WANT there to be a God, because if you admit there's a God, then your accountable and responsible to Him. We are naturally selfish and rebellious beings and we need to go to God for guidance.
Hunteriscool ExperiencedEvolution has been observed in process.
Darwin's birds for example.
Insects every year require new pesticides to be administered to crops because the bugs build up immunities to the poison. This is a genetic mutation. This is evolution.
Human beings have to be administered the flu vaccine every year because the virus evolves to survive the old vaccine. This is a genetic mutation. This is evolution.
People are getting taller every year. 500 years ago the average height for a male was 5'6". This is a genetic mutation. This is evolution.
"We are naturally selfish", so your solution is to do nothing but say you're sorry and be rewarded with an eternity of paradise? And WE'RE THE SELFISH ONES?
Also, if we don't "want" there to be a god because we'd be responsible to him, then I guess that means that YOU don't want there to be a ALLAH for the same reason. After all, it's obvious that the only reason you don't believe in ALLAH is because you don't want to be responsible to him.
(do you see how stupid you're sounding?)
But where are all these vital-to-evolution transitional forms??
in the genetic coding. You seem to not understand very much about evolution. There wont always be a step by step process. In fact, most short term evolution requires random mutations in the genomes that make survival easier. That's your "proof that we can see"
And if you want long term evolution proof, you're going to need to start actually researching. Genetic variations between cousin species are very minute. We as humans only have a 2 Genome difference from chimpanzees. In fact, we probably share an ancient ancestor.
maybe i do not know so much about evolution because i am luckliy not stuffed with it! But i do know that things cannot mutate to be better and better. Second law of thermodynamics states that everyhing tends towards lesser disorder. Entropy, my dear friend. And evolution can't magically contradict that.
Mutations in body cells do not result in new, useful organs; they result in cellular death, impaired cell function, or runaway cell growth (cancer.) Mutations in repriductive cells do not result in new, more capable organisms; they result in less capable organisms.
that was from Mutations and Evolution p. 189 og Science of the Physical Creation. It also says, "Evolutionists still cling to the idea that mutations were responsible for the rise of complex multi celled organisms from 'simple' single celled organisms, but they have yet to find the evidence to support such a claim... as one evolutionist admitted, expecting mutations to improve an organism is like expecting to improve a fine watch by dropping it from a tall building onto the sidewalk. "
(you have no idea how hard you just made me face-palm. I honestly think I gave myself a mild concussion.)
Being stuffed with PROVABLE insight is not in anyway a bad thing unless you're willfully ignorant.
Also, you're thesis on evolution violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations. For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
This thread is locked. You may not post.