Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

No one's asserting a fully formed protein popped into existence all at once. that's not how evolution works. Nice red herring.

How the Origin of Life Points to the Existence of God


Ex-Atheist Explains

" Evolution is a scientific theory. To be fact, it has to be something you can recreate. Therefore, it falls under the heading of science theory, such as other science theories:"

Any familiarity with breeding dogs? Like color phases of Labradors?

VERY different thing. That is something that is artificially selective.

No. It is recreated selection.

There are two parts to a scientific theory: the evidence, then the narrative used to tie together and explain the evidence: the theory.


The evidence for the reality of evolution is overwhelming, the theory seeks to build a picture of how it happens.

Rather than a question of if it happens, it's a question of how it happens.

And as evidence that the theory is correct, is how it became predictive; and we SEE those predictions over and over and over. If this were religion, Darwin would be considered a prophet.

It takes no faith. We have evidence. Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence.

Here's an example of the danger of dogma.

If we held to western Christian dogma, then the earth is 6,000 years old. But let's remember, God wiped out all living things 2,000 years with a flood. So that would mean that the vast majority of all living land creatures had to come from the animals on the Ark. The Bible says there were 7,000 kinds of animals (not to mention there's no way to get that many animals on that boat). One of the more conservative estimates of the number of land animals today is 16 million.

So from 4,000 years ago, to today; somehow another 16 million creatures have popped up.


If you do the math, that means over the past 4k years, mankind should have observed 11 new species per day.

So here we have some (admittedly a bit anecdotal and goofy in my opinion) math that REALLY doesn't work out. Combine that with the FACT that Epic of Gilgamesh which was written long before The Bible was written.

This is VERY strong evidence that there is an error in the Bible in regards to this story. Yet because of dogma, the "true believer" is not allowed to accept reason over faith.

Astrochimps like Albert don't get the credit they deserve ..

neither do those 'ungodly' post-war Nazis like Von Braun and team with their V-2 Blossom rocket development
that made it possible.



..and where would they store all the appropriate amount of food stock for all the creatures for
the length of time on the ark?

To borrow from Richard Dawkins, it's as if a teacher of Latin was constantly confronted with the objection that ancient Roman civilization never actually existed, that the entire universe is only about a hundred years old, and that all the Romance languages sprang into existence, fully formed, and independently, having no relationship to one another. So he's always wasting his time refuting these errors rather than getting on with the business of actually teaching Latin.

It works like dog breeding.

Every wolf pup is just ever so slightly different along various dimensions from his litter mates. If you are in the practice of keeping wolves (dogs, per se, not yet existing), you would likely disadvantage the reproduction of those wolves that tended to bite you or your family members by culling them early. You might also cull the wolves who prove not interested in defending your family, and run off at the first sign of danger. Conversely, those wolves who seem particularly interested in helping you on the hunt would be prized, and you'd likely make sure they mated often, were particularly well cared for, and produced pups with your other wolves that are good at that. The result is that you will tend, in time, to have wolf pups who don't bite you or your family members, who consider themselves members of your pack, and will thus stand and defend you and your family against danger. You will also tend to have wolves who are good at assisting in the hunt. Keep doing that sort of thing long enough, and you will end up with hundreds of very distinct breeds of wolf (as we have today, although we call them dogs), of very different sizes, physical characteristics, and behavioral traits.

That's just man acting on the natural, DNA-driven, variability of the wolf over a relatively short period of time. Imagine what nature can do, acting over immensely longer periods of time.

But they are all wolves and a Chihuahua could breed with a Dire Wolf, there were any left, and produce viable offspring.

Certainly, because there hasn't been sufficient isolation over time so that enough genetic drift and disparate adaptation could occur to make reproduction unlikely or impossible.

Don't miss the point of my example, though. It was illustrative of the mechanism by which nature can select for change.

Nature was the "breeder" of Equidae, the species from which it eventually produced three distinct "breeds," (an analogy for species, here) the horse, the zebra, and the donkey (actually members of the family Equidae). These three, unlike our dog example, did have enough time in isolation from one another for sufficient genetic drift and disparate adaptation to prevent them from once again becoming the same species. They can produce offspring (demonstrating how recently in time their split occurred), but not fertile offspring.

Pandas and Grizzlies (both belonging to the family Ursidae) can't even do that, because they've drifted too far apart, genetically, due to a longer period of genetic isolation and disparate adaptation.

So you want to apply your limited intelligence of logic to creation and accept a bird evolving with feathers and wings with no connection to creeping and crawling things as they advanced from gills and fins to foxes and buffalo.

And still you deny faith?

Listen to the song that illustrates this thread

Materialistic evolution — the process of chance perturbations (and then mutations, almost off of which are fatal) over billions of years leading to all life from a common ancestor — is a philosophy, not hard science. A world view whose attitude of human arrogance emanating from the enlightenment and then the father of geology, Charles Lyle, in the1700’s and early 1800’s, wanting to describe a geology countering “the Moses account” needing billions of years of slow processes called Uniformitarianism.

He set the stage for the acceptance of billions of years which in 1859 Charles Darwin (also a non-believer) built on with his ”Origens.” This gave a ”possible” worldview many found easier to believe than a sovereign God they were accountable to. Darwin’s Science was at an elementary level and the rest conjecture.

Where did any original material come from in the first place?
There are no transitional fossils in the record nor living ones?
There is more than a whole set of encyclopedia Britannica’s information in one simple cell. Where does information directing the cell come from? Where does New information come from in the presumed increasing complexity of creatures? (The electron microscope was not even around until the early 20th century. Darwin had no idea of the complexity of the cell.). Crick of DNA fame and an atheist, has realized the total lack of credibility in evolution and has decided on transpermia — that “we” were “seeded” from someplace in outer space!!!
There are arguably fifty or so physical constants that off one place behind the decimal point would make this globe uninhabitable — you might say it was custom-fitted for human habitation.
You can direct genetic traffic within a species to make different varieties but each time there is a loss of genetic information. There is never a gain in genetic information — you cannot go from the Pomeranian back to the wolf.
C14- and radioisotope dating that everyone hangs their hat on are rife with interpretation problems and bias.

I don’t have the time to go on but a question: why do you think the ID (Intelligent Design) movement got started in the ‘90’s? Because there is too much genetic information and complexity, and the scientific knowledge (true hard science) that has been gained shows pure materialistic evolution to a dream’s fantasy. It’s so deeply imbedded in academia and the sciences and culture as dogma that it will die a slow death but it is dying in your life time.

The blithely made statements made out of complete ignorance here are always amazing. I.e., there wasn’t room on the ark for all the animals? Perhaps, say, 80% of the animals were insects and small creatures and the behemoth kind were very young or juveniles. Also these “kinds” were not species but a higher category of immense genetic information from which species and varieties could be later generated.

Fearing God is the beginning of wisdom.

The Book was written wayyyy before we know what we know now. Evolution does not preclude faith, it does seem to preclude litteral interpretation of ancient texts. I will openly admit I have never understood why a litteral interpretation is held. Frankly, I was shocked to learn that in my teens. To this day, I can't fathom one particular thing that has been mentioned in these threads. That is why, or even, how, a litteral reading of Noah's story would be held by modern men. I also don't understand why such a story is necessarily for the faith knowing well that it's an utter impossibility? It's cool, God Created everything, it's just needs to include modern understanding of the universe. Thankfully, we're free to believe and discuss, others have not been so fortunate.

Religious folks: "It's in the BIBLE! It must be true! It's all I've ever been taught. Evolution cannot be proven."

Everyone else: "Your bible was written by men (fallible humans) 300-400 years after the person alleged to be Jesus died. This bible underwent so many translations from one language to another. You cannot hide behind your bible and claim "God! The end." You must offer scientific evidence for your claim. You can't sit there and say "Look how complicated it is! It must be the work of God." You must explain, again in scientific terms, with valid evidence, why God would have made the world so complicated when Genesis says it is so simple. You claim evolution cannot be proven. OK. Scientifically prove the dinosaurs are less than 10,000 years old. And prove that birds are not descended from/related to dinosaurs. Oh, and use the scientific method."

We all understand that a man and woman simply "knowing" one another cannot literally result in begetting. That's just shorthand for getting it on, and all the reproductive biology that that entails. No one will criticize you for understanding that when the Bible says a man and a woman came to know one another, and thus begot this or that child, that there was more to it than mere knowing. Yet if you understand that God forming Adam from the dust of the earth means more than what's literally stated, i.e., that he established the physical laws and caused matter to come into existence is such a way as to produce Adam (man), and imbued him with a soul, you are said (by the Biblical literalist) to be contradicting revelation.

It's like arguing that when I hurl a bowling ball down the lane in such a way as to anticipate a strike, and I make a strike, that I didn't cause the strike, because the ball coming into contact with the pins did it. What set the ball in motion with the intent to make the strike? With God, there was no guesswork involved, however, since when he determines to make a strike, a strike is made, and a long chain of events will turn out just the way he wishes them to, even though there were also intermediate causes, such as the motion of the ball, and its eventual contact with the pins, and the laws of physics that determine the forces of momentum and transference of force from one pin to the next, etc..

The bowler doesn't micromanage these forces along the way, once he releases the ball, but he generally knows (if he's good) that he let the ball go in just the right way so that a long chain of events, interacting with known physical laws, will result in his objective coming to fruition, a strike. Likewise, God didn't micromanage the bringing forth of Adam, but he caused it still the same, knowing full well, once he released the ball, that he would be the eventual consequence.