Closed Evolution theory and supposed bible contradiction?
- Status
Your statements are already contradicting and not making any sense. Not to mention how you highlighted that evolution failed to explain how horse produces horse and so on. That is just actually the same thing as how birds branched out from dinosaurs. Evolution didn't fail to expound that.
Is that so? Since you have the tenacity to open up a thread showing a strong conviction to highlight the failures of evolution, that simply means you are enlightened and fully equipped enough to rectify or answer queries brought about by the topic you presented. Right? You know better about the God's word so why not lay everything yourself and make your thread an instrument for a good cause. Right? Are you simply implying that you don't know much about the ideas you emphasized by telling me to consult another person? Right?
- TS TS
- #51
In continuation...
1. The Bible said the earth is round and is suspended in space:
The earth is round!
You may be surprised to learn that the Bible revealed that the earth is round. Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6. Today, we chuckle at the people of the fifteenth century who feared sailing because they thought they would fall over the edge of the flat earth. Yet the Bible revealed the truth in 1000 B.C. 2500 years before man discovered it for himself!
In various verses, the Bible says the earth is round and hangs in space. It took a long time for science to catch up and reach the same conclusions. Copernicus made the discovery in 1475. But the Bible always knew. Here are two related Bible verses that were written more than 2500 years ago, and more than 1000 years before Copernicus:
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).
"Paths of the sea" Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He was bed-ridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went looking for these paths. We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents.
His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities. Maury used the Bible as a
2. The Bible described the Hydrologic Cycle:
Revealed in the Bible: Job 36:27-28 The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late!
In various passages, the Bible describes a hydrologic cycle, the process by which clouds are formed, rain is produced and ground water is replenished. Science made the same discovery in the 1600s, long after the Bible passages were written. Here are the related Bible verses:
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8, NIV).
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
3. The Bible stated that the stars cannot be counted: For centuries, scientists and astronomers thought they could count the precise number of stars in the universe. Brahe, for example, said there were 777. Kepler claimed the total was 1,005. Hipparchus said there were 1,022 stars. Ptolemy raised the number to 1,056. Eventually, scientists, including the great Galileo, concluded that the stars could not be numbered, just as the Bible had always claimed:
"I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore" (Jeremiah 33:22, NIV).
He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." (Genesis 15:5, NIV).
4. The Bible stated the existence of valleys and springs in the seas: Only until the past few hundred years did people have the technology to discover that there are deep valleys and fresh water springs in the oceans. But the Bible always knew:
"The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the Lord. . . " (2 Samuel 22:16, NIV).
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. " (Genesis 7:11, NIV).
5. The Bible stated that kind words and laughter are good for one's health: In recent years, American newspapers have published various reports that laughter releases chemicals within a person's body that can contribute to one's health. And, that depression and stress can weaken the immune system and contribute to various health problems. But, the Bible knew of the health virtues of laughter roughly 3000 years ago when the Bible's book of Proverbs was recorded:
"Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones." (Proverbs 16:24, NIV).
"A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones." (Proverbs 17:22, NIV).
6. The Bible stated that stars differ from one another centuries before scientists reached the same conclusion: Today we know that the stars in the skies are very different from one another, that they are made up of differing concentrations of different elements, and that they vary in their sizes, their ages and in their proximity to the earth. But the ancient people had no way to prove this. Even so, Paul, who received many insights from Jesus, wrote a passage about 2000 years ago in the Bible's book of 1 Corinthians that said that the stars in the heavens did indeed differ from one another:
"The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." (1 Corinthians 15:41). God used "anesthesia" before it was even discovered:
gen. 2:21, "so the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep ; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs..."
God commanded the hebrews to cleanse themselves with fresh water even before the discovery of bacteria(God is in the tomorrow already!)
lev. 15:13, "...he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean."
I am a nurse, and if we have patients with contagious disease or condition we isolate them. but God commanded this a long time ago:
lev. 13:46, "as long as he has the infection, he remains unclean. he must live alone . he must live outside the camp.
why do health officials quarantine infectious individuals? so they won't spread infection. God knew it even before they did!
The bible describes the precision of movement in the universe:
jer. 31:35, "thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea and its waves roar..."
The bible describes the circulation of atmosphere:
ecc. 1:6, "the wind goes toward the south and turns around to the north, the wind whirls about continually and comes again on its circuit."
The bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics:
job 28:25, "to establish the weight for a wind and apportion the waters by measure."
lev.17:11 describes the value of blood, "for the life of the flesh is in the blood..."
The bible describes something like a television, probably a satellite TV that will allow everyone to see a single event:
rev. 11:19, "...then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues and nations will see their dead bodies for three and one half days..."
6 DAY CREATION...
GOD WAS TAKING HIS TIME If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the change takes 40 million years, we call it evolution. We often hear that science has proved evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. You see, people often confuse scientific fact with scientific theory. Current scientific theory does conflict with creation. But the facts of science do not! There are many scientists who fully accept Biblical creation. Surprised?
The theory of evolution says that over millions of years simple life forms (one celled creatures) slowly evolved into complex life forms (fish), and that one kind of animal evolved into another kind (ape to man). Genesis, on the other hand, says that all life forms were created in six, 24 hour days. Genesis chapter one states 10 times that life forms can only reproduce after their own kind (ape to ape, man to man).
All the observable facts of science strongly support the Bible's claim that it is impossible for one kind to reproduce a different kind. The truth is, there is absolutely no tangible evidence to support evolution from any area of science, just theory and a wild imagination!
But if the Bible is wrong and man actually did evolve in small graduations over a long period of time, we should find ample fossil evidence of links in intermediate stages of transition. For decades, evolutionists have searched for fossils of these links to prove biblical creation wrong. Although millions of fossils have been unearthed, not even one missing link has ever been found. Has it ever occurred to you that this is the reason why scientists refer to them as missing links?
Even Charles Darwin realized the difficulty missing links gave his theory. Darwin wrote in his book, Origin Of The Species, "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" The reason we have never found any missing links is quite simple. Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong!
Experts tricked for 40 years! In 1912, Arthur Woodward announced to the world that he had found the missing link between ape and man. Piltdown Man, as he called it, consisted of a jaw bone and a piece of skull which he estimated to be over 500,000 years old! However, in 1953, when the new fluoride dating process was applied to the bones, scientists were shocked to learn that the jaw bone was less than 50 years old.
Only then did they notice that the bones and teeth had been treated with salts and filed to make them appear old and primitive. In other words, Piltdown Man was a complete fraud. Take note Bible student! The world's foremost scientific experts had been fooled for over 40 years! (Read 1 Corinthians 3:18-20.) For almost a half century, evolutionists pushed Piltdown Man in the faces of Bible believers as scientific proof we evolved from apes! Some proof!
In spite of over 100 years of intensive searching, the only place you will find a missing link today is in the colourful imagination of an evolutionist. Museums certainly don't have any! "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1) Have you ever considered that when God created the universe in six short 24 hour days, He may have been taking His time?
Although the Bible is not primarily a book of science, it does contain numerous scientific facts. We laugh at the scientific knowledge of just a hundred years ago. If man alone were the author of the Bible, we would expect to find many such humorous errors contained in it. However, if we examine the scientific data of the Bible and find it to be accurate to present-day knowledge, then we have powerful evidence for divine authorship.
The scientific facts we are about to examine are not only accurate, but were revealed thousands of years before man discovered them for himself. The Bible does not contain any errors typical of the time in which it was written. Would we expect anything less from a book written by God?
The Bible is a reliable book of genuine divine prophecy. You can trust it! The evidence presented here is just a tiny portion of the proofs available to establish the divine origin of the Bible. Yet, they are more than sufficient to prove the inspiration of the Bible. There will always be men who scoff at the Bible. You, however, can be confident when you read your Bible that God is the author, for it is written:
"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
The Bible is the world's all-time best selling book. About 2.5 billion copies have been printed which are available in over 700 languages. Although the Bible has enjoyed such vast distribution and attention, it is read relatively little. Perhaps part of the reason the Bible is so neglected is the many doubts people have about this unique book. If the Bible came from the mouth of God, then the scriptures are believable when they speak of Jesus Christ and accurate when they touch the realm of science.
All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in the original Greek language literally means "God-breathed". When the Bible claims to be inspired, we understand therefore, that it came from the mouth of God. It is God-breathed, inspired.
But a skeptic will say, "Everyone knows the Bible was written by men! The book of 1 Corinthians, for example, was written by a man named Paul. After all, the very first verse bears his name as the "author." In reply to this we answer: "Yes, 1 Corinthians was written by Paul. Notice however, what Paul said in chapter 14, verse 37: "the things I write to you are the Lord's commandment."
Paul knew the source of his writings and understood that he was like a pen in the hand of Almighty God. We must not view the Bible as the word of Paul, Peter, or Jeremiah, but rather, as the message God revealed through these men just as it is written in Jeremiah 1:9,
Then the Lord stretched out his hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me, 'behold, I have put my words in your mouth'.
The Bible writers were not like news reporters giving their personal interpretation of events they eye-witnessed, but were divinely guided as 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,
Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
God and man worked together in writing the scriptures. However, in this work, God is the author who dictated the message, and man is the writing instrument. Men were guided or inspired to write the exact message God wanted recorded in the Bible. Now that we have a fundamental understanding of inspiration and the origin of the Bible, let us look at some evidence of inspiration.
"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
1. The Bible said the earth is round and is suspended in space:
The earth is round!
You may be surprised to learn that the Bible revealed that the earth is round. Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6. Today, we chuckle at the people of the fifteenth century who feared sailing because they thought they would fall over the edge of the flat earth. Yet the Bible revealed the truth in 1000 B.C. 2500 years before man discovered it for himself!
In various verses, the Bible says the earth is round and hangs in space. It took a long time for science to catch up and reach the same conclusions. Copernicus made the discovery in 1475. But the Bible always knew. Here are two related Bible verses that were written more than 2500 years ago, and more than 1000 years before Copernicus:
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).
"Paths of the sea" Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He was bed-ridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went looking for these paths. We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents.
His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities. Maury used the Bible as a
2. The Bible described the Hydrologic Cycle:
Revealed in the Bible: Job 36:27-28 The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late!
In various passages, the Bible describes a hydrologic cycle, the process by which clouds are formed, rain is produced and ground water is replenished. Science made the same discovery in the 1600s, long after the Bible passages were written. Here are the related Bible verses:
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8, NIV).
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
3. The Bible stated that the stars cannot be counted: For centuries, scientists and astronomers thought they could count the precise number of stars in the universe. Brahe, for example, said there were 777. Kepler claimed the total was 1,005. Hipparchus said there were 1,022 stars. Ptolemy raised the number to 1,056. Eventually, scientists, including the great Galileo, concluded that the stars could not be numbered, just as the Bible had always claimed:
"I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore" (Jeremiah 33:22, NIV).
He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." (Genesis 15:5, NIV).
4. The Bible stated the existence of valleys and springs in the seas: Only until the past few hundred years did people have the technology to discover that there are deep valleys and fresh water springs in the oceans. But the Bible always knew:
"The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the Lord. . . " (2 Samuel 22:16, NIV).
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. " (Genesis 7:11, NIV).
5. The Bible stated that kind words and laughter are good for one's health: In recent years, American newspapers have published various reports that laughter releases chemicals within a person's body that can contribute to one's health. And, that depression and stress can weaken the immune system and contribute to various health problems. But, the Bible knew of the health virtues of laughter roughly 3000 years ago when the Bible's book of Proverbs was recorded:
"Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones." (Proverbs 16:24, NIV).
"A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones." (Proverbs 17:22, NIV).
6. The Bible stated that stars differ from one another centuries before scientists reached the same conclusion: Today we know that the stars in the skies are very different from one another, that they are made up of differing concentrations of different elements, and that they vary in their sizes, their ages and in their proximity to the earth. But the ancient people had no way to prove this. Even so, Paul, who received many insights from Jesus, wrote a passage about 2000 years ago in the Bible's book of 1 Corinthians that said that the stars in the heavens did indeed differ from one another:
"The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." (1 Corinthians 15:41). God used "anesthesia" before it was even discovered:
gen. 2:21, "so the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep ; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs..."
God commanded the hebrews to cleanse themselves with fresh water even before the discovery of bacteria(God is in the tomorrow already!)
lev. 15:13, "...he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean."
I am a nurse, and if we have patients with contagious disease or condition we isolate them. but God commanded this a long time ago:
lev. 13:46, "as long as he has the infection, he remains unclean. he must live alone . he must live outside the camp.
why do health officials quarantine infectious individuals? so they won't spread infection. God knew it even before they did!
The bible describes the precision of movement in the universe:
jer. 31:35, "thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea and its waves roar..."
The bible describes the circulation of atmosphere:
ecc. 1:6, "the wind goes toward the south and turns around to the north, the wind whirls about continually and comes again on its circuit."
The bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics:
job 28:25, "to establish the weight for a wind and apportion the waters by measure."
lev.17:11 describes the value of blood, "for the life of the flesh is in the blood..."
The bible describes something like a television, probably a satellite TV that will allow everyone to see a single event:
rev. 11:19, "...then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues and nations will see their dead bodies for three and one half days..."
6 DAY CREATION...
GOD WAS TAKING HIS TIME If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the change takes 40 million years, we call it evolution. We often hear that science has proved evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. You see, people often confuse scientific fact with scientific theory. Current scientific theory does conflict with creation. But the facts of science do not! There are many scientists who fully accept Biblical creation. Surprised?
The theory of evolution says that over millions of years simple life forms (one celled creatures) slowly evolved into complex life forms (fish), and that one kind of animal evolved into another kind (ape to man). Genesis, on the other hand, says that all life forms were created in six, 24 hour days. Genesis chapter one states 10 times that life forms can only reproduce after their own kind (ape to ape, man to man).
All the observable facts of science strongly support the Bible's claim that it is impossible for one kind to reproduce a different kind. The truth is, there is absolutely no tangible evidence to support evolution from any area of science, just theory and a wild imagination!
But if the Bible is wrong and man actually did evolve in small graduations over a long period of time, we should find ample fossil evidence of links in intermediate stages of transition. For decades, evolutionists have searched for fossils of these links to prove biblical creation wrong. Although millions of fossils have been unearthed, not even one missing link has ever been found. Has it ever occurred to you that this is the reason why scientists refer to them as missing links?
Even Charles Darwin realized the difficulty missing links gave his theory. Darwin wrote in his book, Origin Of The Species, "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" The reason we have never found any missing links is quite simple. Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong!
Experts tricked for 40 years! In 1912, Arthur Woodward announced to the world that he had found the missing link between ape and man. Piltdown Man, as he called it, consisted of a jaw bone and a piece of skull which he estimated to be over 500,000 years old! However, in 1953, when the new fluoride dating process was applied to the bones, scientists were shocked to learn that the jaw bone was less than 50 years old.
Only then did they notice that the bones and teeth had been treated with salts and filed to make them appear old and primitive. In other words, Piltdown Man was a complete fraud. Take note Bible student! The world's foremost scientific experts had been fooled for over 40 years! (Read 1 Corinthians 3:18-20.) For almost a half century, evolutionists pushed Piltdown Man in the faces of Bible believers as scientific proof we evolved from apes! Some proof!
In spite of over 100 years of intensive searching, the only place you will find a missing link today is in the colourful imagination of an evolutionist. Museums certainly don't have any! "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1) Have you ever considered that when God created the universe in six short 24 hour days, He may have been taking His time?
Although the Bible is not primarily a book of science, it does contain numerous scientific facts. We laugh at the scientific knowledge of just a hundred years ago. If man alone were the author of the Bible, we would expect to find many such humorous errors contained in it. However, if we examine the scientific data of the Bible and find it to be accurate to present-day knowledge, then we have powerful evidence for divine authorship.
The scientific facts we are about to examine are not only accurate, but were revealed thousands of years before man discovered them for himself. The Bible does not contain any errors typical of the time in which it was written. Would we expect anything less from a book written by God?
The Bible is a reliable book of genuine divine prophecy. You can trust it! The evidence presented here is just a tiny portion of the proofs available to establish the divine origin of the Bible. Yet, they are more than sufficient to prove the inspiration of the Bible. There will always be men who scoff at the Bible. You, however, can be confident when you read your Bible that God is the author, for it is written:
"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
The Bible is the world's all-time best selling book. About 2.5 billion copies have been printed which are available in over 700 languages. Although the Bible has enjoyed such vast distribution and attention, it is read relatively little. Perhaps part of the reason the Bible is so neglected is the many doubts people have about this unique book. If the Bible came from the mouth of God, then the scriptures are believable when they speak of Jesus Christ and accurate when they touch the realm of science.
All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in the original Greek language literally means "God-breathed". When the Bible claims to be inspired, we understand therefore, that it came from the mouth of God. It is God-breathed, inspired.
But a skeptic will say, "Everyone knows the Bible was written by men! The book of 1 Corinthians, for example, was written by a man named Paul. After all, the very first verse bears his name as the "author." In reply to this we answer: "Yes, 1 Corinthians was written by Paul. Notice however, what Paul said in chapter 14, verse 37: "the things I write to you are the Lord's commandment."
Paul knew the source of his writings and understood that he was like a pen in the hand of Almighty God. We must not view the Bible as the word of Paul, Peter, or Jeremiah, but rather, as the message God revealed through these men just as it is written in Jeremiah 1:9,
Then the Lord stretched out his hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me, 'behold, I have put my words in your mouth'.
The Bible writers were not like news reporters giving their personal interpretation of events they eye-witnessed, but were divinely guided as 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,
Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
God and man worked together in writing the scriptures. However, in this work, God is the author who dictated the message, and man is the writing instrument. Men were guided or inspired to write the exact message God wanted recorded in the Bible. Now that we have a fundamental understanding of inspiration and the origin of the Bible, let us look at some evidence of inspiration.
"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Haha funny. The confidence and the tenacity suddenly rekindled. Why? My taunting was effective? Or is it because you mistakenly thought I am lost of explanation? I am deeply sorry to tell you that you just fell to your own misinterpretation (again) and it is just utterly ridiculous hahahah. Deep web enigma? Don't get me started about you and you might not able to get back your pseudoconfidence again. Simply put, I have not yet started my point so cut me some slack and give me a break from that smug in you face. So no referring me to a Christian scientist now? Right? No excuses of being busy now? Right? Haha very well. Let me start.
- TS TS
- #58
"What are some flaws in the theory of evolution?"
Answer: Christians and non-Christians alike often question whether the theory of evolution is accurate. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labeled “unscientific” or “backwards” by some in the pro-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide reasons to be skeptical. Granted, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled.
There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way.
Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.
First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.
Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The fossil record might seem to support You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.
While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.
Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.
The second flaw is the problem of extending You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.
Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.
Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.
Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.
Recommended Resource: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Answer: Christians and non-Christians alike often question whether the theory of evolution is accurate. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labeled “unscientific” or “backwards” by some in the pro-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide reasons to be skeptical. Granted, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled.
There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way.
Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.
First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.
Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The fossil record might seem to support You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.
While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.
Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.
The second flaw is the problem of extending You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.
Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.
Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.
Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.
Recommended Resource: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
- TS TS
- #59
There Is Theistic Evolution...
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
- Status
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
Trivia Richard Dawkins vs. Francis Bacon (Something to think about)
- Started by GildartsTale
- Replies: 0
-
Trivia Why Belief in God is not Central to Bhuddists?
- Started by Kaplok Kaplok
- Replies: 0
Popular Tags
about
all
amen
ang
april
as
atheist
beliefs
bible
bible verse
bible verses
christian
christianity
daily
day
diyos
faith
father
god
grimlifehacks
heaven
heavenly father
in
january
jesus
life
love
march
mass
only
people
personal
philippine folklore
prayer
psalms
reading
readings
religion
sagot ng bibliya
savior
that
the bible
trivia
verse
verses
way
what
why
you
your