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

Nor did I say they were ...

But you can't start the hypothesis in mid stream. How do life forms come into being at the precise time with all the other universal anthropic principles already in place by purely materialistic processes and with no intelligent design? That is the question?

Answer: We don't know (yet). We may (or may not) find out. One thing certain, though, is that it did not happen 7,000 years ago and did not happen in the way described by Genesis.

It's feeble because it's just words. Nothing is known about a 'Supreme Being,' or what such a thing could even be. It's nothing more than speculation asserted as fact.

I appreciate the candor.

[/b]

Originally Posted by Thunderstick

Originally Posted by DBT

Originally Posted by Thundrerstruck

Another bad argument because I did not say that God created evil out of His infinite goodness.

I said it. It's just basic logic.

Quote

God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.

You completely ignore both what the bible says about God in relation to creating evil, verses that have been quoted, and the logical implications of omniscience and omnipotence in relation to a created world, while repeating objection that are not related to these issues.

You won't find one verse in the Bible that teaches that God is author of moral evil. You have shown that your ability to interpret the Bible is significantly compromised by your agenda. However this is off topic to the header of this thread anyway.

Is it moral to order the slaughter of women and children? Is it moral to have someone stoned to death for a minor infringement, gathering sticks on a Sabbath?

I think that your idea of morality may be a little skewed.

The bible tells us that God is responsible for pretty much everything:

''shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)


"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11


"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13


"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)



''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory'' - Romans 9:21-23


"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4

Despite the protests of theists like yourself to the contrary, evolution is a proven reality. Only the means and mechanisms of evolution are subject to testing and revision.

I mentioned holy books because their claims of knowledge in relation to the supernatural are not proven. Worse they contradict each other on the nature of their God or gods and how the world was created.

That's so wrong that it's funny.

The church once taught that the world was the centre of the universe...now, thanks to science, we know that the world is a speck of dust in an incomprehensibly vast universe.

This is outside the scope of this thread ... but none of those verses remotely suggest that God is the author of moral evil only that He uses calamity (sometimes called evil or bad things) and wicked men or demons to accomplish His purposes.

There are plenty of verses which declare that God is perfectly holy and cannot sin.

We would expect other holy books to contradict the Bible the same as we would expect from evolutionary theory. And another poster says that atheism and evolution are not to be conflated lol.

Dude seriously--that was the general understanding of many people of different beliefs before the discoveries of science. But yet today the church embraces this scientific concept because it is true science.

It's actually dead right. Look at how Darwinians defend their case: by employing fallacy after fallacy, including heavy appeals to authority. In fact "Origins" by Darwin begins with an obvious fallacy on its title page (the tautology that the fittest survive and the fittest are those who leave the most off-spring!) We've been told repeatedly in this thread that evolution must be true because the majority of scientists say it is. This is an elementary logical fallacy, but it's exactly the same fallacy employed time and again in defense of AGW. That is a fact, however much DBT wants to wish it away. Obama's quote on the science of AGW is something defenders of Neo-Darwinism do all the time. We've heard it time and again "the science is settled" and 97% of scientists believe in man-made, catastrophic global warming. Defenders of Neo-Darwinism constantly employ the exact same fallacy. Yet as every logician (or philosopher of science) with an IQ higher than an ant understands, truth is not determined by consensus. It has been said that you don't need to know much about neo-darwinism to know it probably isn't true---just look at how its defenders argue their case! When you are forced to resort to ad hominem marginalization, appeals to authority (which DBT and other defenders of Neo-Darwinism have done repeatedly in this thread---just as defenders of AGW constantly do) when these tools are employed by the proponent of an argument it's practically a confession that the argument the person is defending is not defensible.

The very fact that defenders of Neo-Darwinism resort to attacking the Bible or religion generally is proof positive that the underlying and all important issue is metaphysics, not science. Neo-darwinists desperately need their theory to be true so they can be (in the words of Richard Dawkins) "intellectually fulfilled atheists" and when they can't defend their theory, their fall-back position is "well, look at the Bible and religion they can't possibly be true either". Pathetic and amusing!

I'm going to mention something that often gets lost in the debate over the Genesis record...



God is before all things ... but notice that there was an unordered chaotic mass of darkness, earth and water that pre-existed before day 1 of creation which brought forth light. As Bible believers we have no idea how long this pre-existing era was before day 1 of creation began. There is no reason for us not to think that there would be geological evidence that pre-dates the literal 6 day creation event which in no case would contradict the subsequent event. Moving forward in the days of creation there is the separation of land and water to bring order from the pre-existing elements.

Again I am simply pointing this out because there is clear Genesis evidence that geology existed before the 6 day creation of order and the creation of biological life. I am not expecting you to accept the Genesis record as you have already made yourself clear on that point, but I am pointing out an often overlooked aspect of the Genesis record.

This is actually funny. Look at what the anti-evolutionists have been doing this entire thread, and you have pretty much nailed it perfectly.

First, I believe evolution explains the changes in life forms on Earth over the last 350 million years, not because a bunch of scientists have told me to believe it. But because I can see the fossils for myself, and I can see the methodology used to date those fossils.


Unlike global warming science where it is impossible to prove man has had any impact on Earths climate. Absolutely, climate change is real. The Earth has been so warm at times that Antarctica was a tropical paradise. And it has been so cold at times that Utah and Colorado were buried under the polar ice cap. And not all that long ago.

Lots of folks claim that evolution is not possible, yet not a one has addressed the constant change in life forms through millennia of fossil records.

No one has addressed the origins of several species of archaic humans. The genus Homo has many members besides Sapiens. Some of which roamed the Earth as recently as 12,000 BC.

As to the issue of things which look similar always have similar DNA. That is not as true as one might guess. Parallel evolution does occur where species of different families can evolve very similar traits to take advantage of similar ecological niches in geographically separated regions.

Obviously the fittest have the best odds to survive and therefore leave the fittest offspring.

Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human ...
humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
“Evidence of Evolution-Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human , and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.”

So we do believe in changes resulting in species from adaptation to the local and changing environment therefore we do believe in what could be termed as evolution within a species. We object to evolution as the genesis of the species and the macro evolution of one species into a completely different species. Because the whole package is typically billed as one unit, we object to that package of evolution. Can you provide us an example of a particular transitional life form that you would like to discuss which you believe has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt?

by transitional I mean from one species into a completely different species.