Here's the thing though. There are other things besides it denying Christianity. I hate that aspect of it, I despise it. But there are some parts of evolution that I believe are true. Not spontaneous generation, animals evolving, natural selection. These are just examples are things that I believe aren't true. But as far as some aspects of it. You can combine the belief of both, just depends on how you look at it.
Evolution vs. Creation Topic
- Thread starter Saved By Grace
- Start date
I think that I have not heard it quite like that before, but I think that is correct.
Thermodynamics ---
I did learn something about it physics last year. We are only half way through the year, but I doubt we will talk about it this year. We might talk about how some species need more energy than other species. I don't know if that is thermodynamic.
Have you ever considered how incredibly complex the human body is. There are hundreds of intricate systems utilizing complex molecules.
Yes, some of the building blocks look complicated, but organisms are simple in some ways. Almost all use the Krebs cycle, ATP, glucose, carbon, DNA, and RNA. There are only about 20 amino acids and only two genetic codes.
And evolution wants us to believe this came to be through a process of very small changes (99.999 % of which are actually a step backwards) over an incredible period of time. The number of changes necessary for any one of these systems is beyond the scope of evolution. Each complex system would require dozens or more mutations (again 99.999 % of which are steps backwards) happening at the same time.
I know that biologists use words like forward/back and higher/lower, but when they want to be formal, there is no higher/lower or forward/back. There is only fit into the niche or not fit into the niche.
Sorry, evolution requires more faith than I have.
That is an interesting idea. Religion, at least Western Religions, require faith.
Sometimes scientists act like science requires faith. Einstein’s professors are famous for being annoyed when he challenged the dogma of the moment. Later he had trouble finding employment because at least one professor gave him a negative recommendation.
Science has some basic assumptions, which could be called faith: ideas like observations are possible and repeatable, the rules don’t change with space or time. Things like that. My Buddhist cousins delight in reminding me that repetition is impossible, and of course no observations are identical.
However, scientists delight in changing theories. Max Plunk must have had a cowbunga moment when he read Einstein’s Special Relativity and how it modified Newton's Laws
HisManySongs
Passed on, February 28, 2022
Darwinian Evolution is the ridiculous notion that Humans came from apes.
Has the thought ever occurred to you that you just might be being deceived by your worldly secular professors? Just Curious?
So you know- I didn't 'grow up Christian'. My "formal eduction" is all in the secular world-I am not ignorant of the concept of Darwin's evolution and all the other theories that it has spawned. You need to understand that Darwin and those like him support eugenics, population control, elitism and all the other ingredients of power and control Satan uses to manipulate God's creation to sway humans away from the truth. Hitler and folks like him used these ideas to justify things like the Holocaust (which in some circles is being taught it never happened), genocide, ethnic cleansing, abortion, etc....If there is an anti-life movement; you will find these same ideologies behind them.
According to the Bible -the earth (and it's people plants and animals) is not 'evolving' but dissolving. You live in an age where you are used to having modern technology to compensate and camouflage our broken earth.
The HOPE-is Jesus Christ and the Resurrection of God's People and the Renewing/ Regeneration of the Earth. When we substitute the hope of Christ with man-made theories; we take away from the Glory of God.
Well, I don't see any contradiction between science and religion.
I understand that people use science, just like they use Christianity and kitchen knives for evil. In my chosen profession where 11 + 2 = 1, I will try try catch the sinners before they sin.
I am going into the world. Biology is part of that world. I will try to the best of my ability not to be of that world.
I have no problem with science either: what I have a problem with is 'theory' being taught as fact (an absolute). I have no problem with theory either-it brings about true science; but I have a a problem with true science-the quest for knowledge- being forcible filtered through man's ideology and if it doesn't fit; it gets thrown out. True Christians have no problem with 'science and faith' since God created it all anyway.
Example: what do you need to know about 'evolution theory' to study anatomy? The answer is NOTHING! Because true science is what we can observe, collect data, test, duplicate, and draw conclusions. The problem is the 'conclusions' tend to be biased towards an unprovable hypothesis. (because if you don't you aren't a REAL scientist) Why do we say the eye 'evolved'? Maybe the eye is exactly the same as it was when God made it? How many different human eye structures are there? (not talking genes/ traits/ DNA that create variations-which are fast changing and observable) There is just one-unless you 'theorize' some missing link to try and connect change from one species to another.
Again this is the bait and switch: God made everything (designed it all) using a recognizable pattern from the same materials (elements) of the earth to create life. It is man's imagination -and faith in that vain imagination that creates the fairytale of changes in species to another. It is that simple.
You can take the human eye, from all the races around the globe: compare them-and they are all essentially the same format. (Right PhD's?) No need for a theory. That is science. Human anatomy is an absolute. When you add 'evolution theory' it becomes subject to everyone's opinion.
It like 'True Religion': it is of God; worshiping God in Spirit as He desires to be. But then man comes along with customs, traditions, statutes, ordinances, 'laws" and taints God's perfect will with man's sinful nature. Isn't that the reason Jesus Came- to 'finish the work'; to 'set us free'? Not from God-but from our own doings-our sin nature.
The same is applied to 'True Science': God who is the author of it; the Great Physician and Creator (Master Builder / Engineer). Man has no business changing the way knowledge is used-but yet we do it with our theories- instead of having faith in what God has done.
I don't believe that God wants us to be dumb: the problem is (and God knows this) is the more knowledge mankind acquires and society thinks higher of itself; the less they come to God and give Him the glory He is due. It has happened at least four times before in the Bible and God took extreme action: #1 The Garden of Eden-'Original Sin', #2 The flood (which was global and real and very important to 'science'), #3 the Tower of Babel, #4 the Crucifixion of Christ.
And the final judgement from God will be when Christ Returns: No theory will save souls from Hell then....
The same is applied to 'True Science': God who is the author of it; the Great Physician and Creator (Master Builder / Engineer). Man has no business changing the way knowledge is used-but yet we do it with our theories- instead of having faith in what God has done.
I don't believe that God wants us to be dumb: the problem is (and God knows this) is the more knowledge mankind acquires and society thinks higher of itself; the less they come to God and give Him the glory He is due. It has happened at least four times before in the Bible and God took extreme action: #1 The Garden of Eden-'Original Sin', #2 The flood (which was global and real and very important to 'science'), #3 the Tower of Babel, #4 the Crucifixion of Christ.
And the final judgement from God will be when Christ Returns: No theory will save souls from Hell then....
That is sort of true. The standard story is that apes and hominids come from something else.
When I vetch like this to my mother, she says, "Let's start over, and take one thing at a time."
Let me try to explain this a bit better. My last reply I made myself sound like an atheist... If you look up the definition of evolution, that is what I completely disagree with. Darwinian evolution and all that is just completely wrong. But there are some things about evolution that were taken from Christianity. I don't agree with the evolving of animals and I don't believe we were apes, or the Big Bang Theory (which stemmed from evolution). What I'm saying is, is that the theory itself is wrong but as far as different branches of evolution that focus on survival of the fittest, I believe in that.
You mean natural selection?
To be fair, that wasn't what Darwin proposed.
I hope I not beating a dead horse. I think that Mr Shapiro is correct. Darwin said common ancestor, not ape.
Haa oooh ever
, Australopithecines do look a little like apes. They have human feet and ape heads, sort of, or so it seems to me.Common ancestor or not, we did not come from any other type of organism. There is no "Tree of Life" as they like to call it. God created all animals different from one another, and he set man over them all.
Evolution #6 Lavoisier
Twentieth century Scientists combined the ideas of Darwin, Hutton, Lamarck and several others to form the modern theory of Natural Selection. One of the ideas came from Lavoisier (26 August 1743 – 8 May 1794).
Lavoisier made gun powder for France. He improved the supply and purity of the ingredients, charcoal, saltpeter, and sulfur. In his laboratory he studied 33 substances, which he called elements—by his definition, substances that chemical analyses had failed to break down into simpler substances. He proved that sulfur is an element, not a compound. He discovered that chemicals react to form new chemicals and will dissociate to form the original chemicals. He burned oxygen and hydrogen to form water, and he decomposed the water to form hydrogen and oxygen. He wrote a cool book, The Elements of Chemistry. I found it in my great grandmother's storage locker. I manged to read som of it before my grandfather carted it off to charity.
Lavoisier discovered the basic rules of chemistry, the ideas that chemicals react in constant ratios of mass and that matter may change its form or shape, but its mass remains the same.
Genes are very large molecules, and the rules for them are the rules that Lavoisier discovered.
Twentieth century Scientists combined the ideas of Darwin, Hutton, Lamarck and several others to form the modern theory of Natural Selection. One of the ideas came from Lavoisier (26 August 1743 – 8 May 1794).
Lavoisier made gun powder for France. He improved the supply and purity of the ingredients, charcoal, saltpeter, and sulfur. In his laboratory he studied 33 substances, which he called elements—by his definition, substances that chemical analyses had failed to break down into simpler substances. He proved that sulfur is an element, not a compound. He discovered that chemicals react to form new chemicals and will dissociate to form the original chemicals. He burned oxygen and hydrogen to form water, and he decomposed the water to form hydrogen and oxygen. He wrote a cool book, The Elements of Chemistry. I found it in my great grandmother's storage locker. I manged to read som of it before my grandfather carted it off to charity.
Lavoisier discovered the basic rules of chemistry, the ideas that chemicals react in constant ratios of mass and that matter may change its form or shape, but its mass remains the same.
Genes are very large molecules, and the rules for them are the rules that Lavoisier discovered.
HisManySongs
Passed on, February 28, 2022
Scientists are looking at partial samples. Most fossils are bits and pieces of the original. And the number of fossils is hardly a representative sample.I hope I not beating a dead horse. I think that Mr Shapiro is correct. Darwin said common ancestor, not ape.
Haa oooh ever
They speculate on what they're looking at and their preconceived notion clouds their thinking.
They see an ape-like fossil and, because they believe it to be extremely old, they believe they are looking at our 'ancestor.' They can't look at it without evolution affecting how they see it.
What they really have is a possibly non-representative sample of the apes living in that area thousands of years ago (antediluvian).