Errors of the evolution theory

[PetriFB]

From the book of Charles Darwinin "The origin of Species" became principal work of evolution theory. Nowadays, scientific world view is mainly based on evolution theory. Majority of natural science researchers believes that the Bible is not word of God, and the creation story of the Bible is untrue.

People who believe to scientific world view hold on the Bible as a fairytale, which conflicts with natural science. The criticism of science world crumbles before the truth of the Bible.

The whole article is here: http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/evolutiontheoryerror.html

[Victor08]

From the book of Charles Darwinin "The origin of Species" became principal work of evolution theory. Nowadays, scientific world view is mainly based on evolution theory. Majority of natural science researchers believes that the Bible is not word of God, and the creation story of the Bible is untrue.

People who believe to scientific world view hold on the Bible as a fairytale, which conflicts with natural science. The criticism of science world crumbles before the truth of the Bible.

The whole article is here: http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/evolutiontheoryerror.html

Bunk, terrible translation.

[p.rehbein]

 

[Victor08]

I have struggled with this issue for a long time, as I am sure almost everyone else has who has given it any thought.

What are we to believe?

The Bible and Creationists tell us God created us.

Scientists tell us we evolved from “lower

[comfy]

Hi, Victor (c: You might not consider me to be God; neither do I; but . . .

The Bible says God made everything.

Also, in science there is the scientific method. This method requires that before you say something is a rightful scientific theory, you need to have your hypothesis . . . your "educated guess" . . . and plan experiments which can clearly prove or disprove your idea.

So, I offer > there has not been one experiment that clearly proves or disproves evolution. So, it can not possibly be even a basic hypothesis, never mind a theory which is an idea plainly proven by repeated experiments by independent scientists.

As far as logic goes, I offer this > if indeed all in existence is only material like atheists say . . . then we humans, for one thing, are made only of atoms and molecules, and so our personalities and emotions etc. are only physical. And this should mean all there is about us is based totally in scientific principles of how things work. Yet, scientists are having "trouble" finding out how the human mind and personality work in ways they can predict and control by physical means.

I offer we have a Biblical reason for why doctors can't figure out the body, and weather people can't know what the weather will be, often enough, even now with all the computer and other stuff people have > God's ways are "past finding out," we have in Romans 11:33. So, you aren't even going to figure out physical things, like how the human body works, and the weather works . . . since our Creator's ways past finding out are acting in our bodies and the weather, etc.

And I will simply offer that our personalities are not only the product of physical scientific principles. We are deeper beings, including our spiritual personalities with emotions spiritual and not only controlled by biochemical activities in our brains. Chemical things of personality, I consider, often are effected by our deeper spiritual selves. So, trying to understand the mind only by means of physical research is going to be "interesting" . . . not ever going to work, not to mention the atheistic people have never scientifically disproven this, though they insist on having "scientific" "evidence".

Another thing of my personal logic > if all is only physical, then all is decided only by physical scientific principles which would always act the same way and therefore be predictable. So, how come these principles waited for all past eternity before all of a sudden big-banging, then evolving living forms? Why did they wait until when ones claim they did the big bang, instead of doing their predictable scientific thing before or after then?

Because physical things don't decide everything, but ones depending on physical circumstances, instead of depending on God's leading and care, can think the physical decides so much since they so depend on the physical. They believe according to how they are, not really because of what is true.

Evolution includes the ideas of survival of the fittest with its competition which can include killing; and there is "natural selection" which involved one getting an advantage because of being better than someone else. Well, ones of this world are into competing and wanting to be better than each other; so they because of their character are fine with accepting an idea which justifies their ways of competing to be better than each other, instead of how Jesus has us humbling ourselves and caring about others as much as ourselves In psychology, to my knowledge, it has been common knowledge for some time, now, that people have a way of seeing things according to how they are and want things to be, not necessarily according to what is really true. Among other things, just look at how people dictate things are, in order to fool themselves into marrying the people they do, if you think humans of this world have been so honest and objective.

So, psychology, I'd say, also supports that evolution is bogus, the brainchild of ones who want such to be true.

So, this shows me I need to check what I really believe, because this is likely because of how I really am as a person!!!

[Victor08]

Hi comfy, I guess we can agree on one thing – you are not God.

[comfy]

And, therefore, Victor, can we agree that we have the ability to fool our own selves and not know it?

And therefore we need God.

And using this little side discussion to answer the question about evolution. Do you really think DNA molecules were able to produce us with our ability to talk and think about things like this? Have you considered how many mutations would be needed to produce the behavior of thinking up the idea of God and writing all the different things in the Bible?



I would say there is a "little" more to us than what physical molecules could produce.

[Victor08]

Have you considered how many mutations would be needed to produce the behavior of thinking up the idea of God and writing all the different things in the Bible?

I would guess billions of mutations over billions of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Beneficial mutations

Although mutations that change in protein sequences can be harmful to an organism; on occasions, the effect may be positive in a given environment. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[62] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[63] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[64]

Another example is Sickle cell disease, a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene,[65] because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait).[66] Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.

[ObeyTheGospel]

It doesn't take faith to believe in creation. Would any intelligent person make the claim that a garden does not have a gardener. And look at how many fossil frauds have been exposed in the Evolution theory. There is no hard evidence to support Evolution. It is a myth.

[comfy]

Hi, Victor . . . I asked,

Have you considered how many mutations would be needed to produce the behavior of thinking up the idea of God and writing all the different things in the Bible?

And you answered

I would guess billions of mutations over billions of years.

But how long does it take, according to evolutionary ideas, for just one good mutation to come along? I remember being told it could take thousands of years. And all those mutations would need to come at the right time in relation to each other, plus have selective survival influences to get humans to develop the idea of God and imagine all that is in the Bible.

But, then, one could argue that if there would be not enough circumstantial forces to favor God and Bible genes, one could argue that God and Bible ideas are not practical Oh-oh, so what am I getting myself into, here

Well . . . if God and Bible are not biologically practical, then how come such major complexity of function has evolved for there being the God and Bible thing I'd offer it didn't evolve, not to mention how humans so highly developed are in fact destroying themselves . . . not what physical principles alone would have us doing, I would offer. But sin is the problem. Humans are more stupid than evolution would have people being, I consider The weather is outsmarting humans, all the time, among other things And God and the Bible are not the product of selfish people, though selfish people try to use God and the Bible for their own end, which they are bringing on themselves, reaping what they sow.

Plus, I didn't say God and the Bible are not relevant . . . just that causes of natural selection and statistical chance would not be enough to produce all the good mutations necessary. Plus, how, ever, would selfish competitive people evolve and favor God who "is love" (1 John 4:8&16) and all the love commands in the Bible? The Bible standard is way higher than where the minds of selfish people are; yet, it does not go away

But, of course, with God supernatural . . . He can do much more complicated stuff and in the right timing and coordination.

[p.rehbein]

still............... 

 

[Victor08]

still............... 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/attention-governor-perry-evolution-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html

Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact

Q. Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is

[wayseer]

Those who use the Bible to align their scientific compass will be lead off course - as is this thread.

[Carey]

Those who determine that all answers lie in natural occurrence,  will never discover answers that lie beyond.



 

[Carey]

Is it not odd that given our technological/intellectual abilities we are unable to create something that arose by mere chance?