iOwnTheWorld.com

After the Cambrian Explosion, the fossil record is one of death, not evolving lifeforms. As Ps 139:14 says, we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” and the “simple” process of cell reproduction is anything but.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/does-the-cambrian-explosion-disprove-darwinian-evolution/

Just as interesting is how the human body produces electricity.

Negativity is the natural resting state of your cells. It’s related to a slight imbalance between potassium and sodium ions inside and outside the cell, and this imbalance sets the stage for your electrical capacity.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/cells-tissues/human-body-make-electricity.htm

Oh yeah, it just evolved…

+7

The Verb, the LOGOS, CHRIST is not hostile to epistemology…

Otherwise plane would not fly; nor would medecine be effective.

+5

I still think it was the Markovians. They figured out the mathematics of the universe.

+1

Wouldn’t evolution be equivalent to 100 monkeys pounding away on typewriters until one of them comes up with the Gettysburg Address?

+8

Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive…

Parables and epistemology are as parallel as Art and Science…

Theology feedbacks on Science&Art&Philosophy, and vice-versa…

+4

The incredible human body: able to efficiently replicate, renew, refresh, and heal itself despite what external stresses are put upon it. If that’s not Intelligent Design I do not know what is.

+3

The “war between religion and science” was started by moronic “scientists” that just wanted to make a name for themselves because their scientific rigor was woefully lacking. Plus, they were just too stupid to think for themselves. So they got some press by ginning up a fake conflict.

It wasn’t the church that had issues with Darwin. It was the real scientists that laughed at him, starting with the palentologists. As @Maudie said, Darwin theorized that there would be all kinds of fossils from the successive slight modifications of one form to another. But the palentologists laughed because they knew those fossils didn’t exist. Then in true present-day American liberal form, Darwin blamed the palentologists for not doing their job. He said they just need to keep looking. They have, for nearly 150 years. The number of classified animals from fossils has been reduced because some fossils were determined to be from the same animal and just mis-classified earlier.

So, with the number of known animal types from fossils dropping, what does that do to Darwin? According to his apologists, it makes evolution a fact.

When I was younger and used to do something pretty stupid, my Mother would call me a schnook. There is now an entire group of people that believe in this unscientific theory called evolution.

Schnooks.

+5

And don’t forget; this self-replicating molecule had to “just exist” by accident, in a hostile chemical environment, not even inside a cell (which wouldn’t exist yet), before any kind of natural selection could even come into play. ALL of Darwin’s assumptions were wrong. Even common species adaptation, the only aspect of his theory that we can observe, doesn’t happen in the linear way that he assumed.

+5

Exactly how does this video “shred” evolution and somehow prove the existence of either a God or “Intelligent Design”?

Sorry…holy-rollers pull this shit all the time. Take anything…and call it “proof of God’s existence”.

Proof of God’s existence is God appearing and saying “I exist” or, alternately, exposing God and proclaiming with evidence at hand “God exists”. Everything else is faith. It comes from the same reservoir as “hope”.

+2

Truley a miracle, the evolution that gave us Ann’s laser beam eye’s, then.

+6

I’m quite certain I’m about to be excoriated by Ann Barnhardt – whom I have nothing but respect and a healthy red-blooded admiration for – and others who believe that Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive.

What is it about humans that makes us absolutely certain of a position on subjects like this, even in the light of evidence to the contrary? If you instantly took offense at that statement, how do you know whether the evidence I’m referring to was that of religion, or that of science? For some reason we have built-in filters and defenses against any idea that doesn’t fit into our preset belief systems; that’s what makes this next bit so difficult.

Why can’t we simply admit we don’t know everything, and revel in the wonder of it all? Why do we insist on making this an either/or argument? Why can’t there be a duality – not a hypocrisy – of understanding and belief that encompasses both the spiritual and the scientific? [just in case no one's noticed, duality and context are two of my favorite themes;)]

I’ll tell you why: because we’re intellectually lazy and would rather be fed some easily digestible dogma that fits neatly into the little slots our brains use; for some, that’s an exclusive belief in religion and for others, a near-religious devotion to evolution. Few think for themselves, and fewer still attempt to bridge the seeming contradictions between science and religion.

Anti-evolutionists and the strictly secular both do themselves a disservice by attacking the other as a heretics instead of recognizing the complementary and wondrous evidence before them.

So – let the drubbing begin.

+3

@raynman — When you say, “Everything else is faith,” I take it that you mean the religion of evolution too. There is no proof that evolution is true. It is merely a story of how something may have happened.

Personally, I do not object to evolution on religious grounds. I object to it on scientific grounds because it is bad and faulty science. It is, in fact, just another religion, albeit masquerading as science.

If you would like to point out any one thing you know to be true about evolution, I will be happy to consider it. And by evolution, I mean Darwin’s theory of evolution. Not “microevolution” or “macroevolution” or some other BS that tries to make Darwin’s theory of evolution sound more like science than like the faith-based dogma it really is.

+9

For me, the issue of evolution vs creationism is easy. I believe the most trustworthy source, which (for me) is scripture and its author, God.

I’ve watched the self-serving scientific community during the global warming debate. I wouldn’t trust one of those climate alarmists as far as I could throw their corrupt lying asses. There’s no evidence to me that evolutionary biologists are any different from their climate science counterparts.

+4

@mkultra

Please don’t confuse environmentalists masquerading as scientists with actual scientists. I detest what these climate change charlatans have done to the good name of real scientists, and I’ll go so far as to agree with you on the evolutionary biologists. I’ve spent a fair amount of my life following this subject, and the two things I’ve learned are that 1) most of today’s scientists tend to postulate an idea and then go looking for evidence to support it, and 2) they are often wrong, but never in doubt.

+5

I thought I recogized a bit of me in that video. But maybe it was the Dewars. OK I’m in over my head. I’ll shut up and listen.

+4

@Xavier – you are correct, it is not an either/or thing. Quite frankly, creationism and evolutionism are quite compatible. The beauty of God’s creation is that He made it able to change and evolve. The very core is him. The subsequent outer layers are what he made possible.

+6

If Darwinian Evolution were true, we would be tripping over transitional fossils.

+7

A couple of observations-

*Dogma can sometimes replace knowledge, or mask ignorance.
*If an organism cannot adapt, it will not survive. Evolve or die.
*God did not write the Bible. (See Council of Nicea, etc.)
*If God can create life, then I imagine He can also create evolution.
*That video looked like tentacle porn (without the porn.)

It has been many years since I read “The Origin of Species”. As I recall, Darwin made a pretty good case. A prevailing misconception is that man evolved from apes. On the contrary, current thinking suggests that since we share so many characteristics (genotypic and phenotypic) we must be more distantly related. Molecular biology was in it’s infancy during Darwin’s time. His work was an attempt to explain his observations. Nowadays we have better tools to investigate the mechanisms by which these changes occur.

@ Stranded: You might read “the Dinosaur Heresies” by Robt. Bakker for a discussion of these topics.

“Survival of the species is everybody’s business.”

+3

P.S. Obama to God: “You didn’t create that.”

+4

When a monkey writes a symphony I’ll be convinced….

+4

P.P.S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCdB5gfajTw

OT? I don’t think so.

0

@ muddjuice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcSUWP0QNeY
.

+1

Charles Darwin did not espouse evolution; The Origin Of Species did not even use the term until a brief mention in the preface of the third edition. In fact, much of society believed in evolution prior to Charles’ birth, and his grandfather actually wrote a long and nearly unreadable poem on evolution.

I’m certain that Darwin himself would be aghast at the way our culture has labeled his work as “The Theory of Evolution”. It wasn’t until long after his death that the Modern Synthesis attributed his work on natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution. As some here have conjectured about the Founders, it would be quite interesting to speak to Darwin about the ramifications of his work and how he, a clergyman himself, felt about it’s modern interpretation.

P.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

+1

This actually hits pretty close to home for me. I was an ardent atheist ever since I was a teenager.

(Note I said a-theist, not anti-theist. This is a huge distinction that most people, especially most atheists, fail to grasp.)

It wasn’t until my first year of medical school and molecular physiology that I finally realized I was unable to continue to accept the premise of evolution and still remain intellectually honest.

I don’t call myself a Christian, because I’ve never experienced a “moment of revelation”, so to speak, telling me Jesus is the Way. I’m not Jewish, because, well, my mother wasn’t Jewish, and from what I gather that’s kind of mandatory. I guess I don’t really have a religious faith, nor do I claim to know how everything came about, but one thing I am quite sure of: life is far too complex to have simply ‘happened’.

+5

I’ll let the bible speak for itself:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

+2

Evolution IS real…I saw it in a movie, Attack of the Mummies I think it was

0

I’ve never understood the argument launched by scientists and others as to the superiority of science over God. It seems to me like the clay pot arguing against the existence of the potter.

+2

“Not is a billion years or even the 6 billion that is the popular age of the universe these days”. – Noodengr

Actually, the age of the universe is estimated to be around 14 billion years whereas the earth is around 5 billion. (I don’t know if this was what you meant)

That said, the age is irrelevant because even with a universe a 100 billion years, that still would not be enough time for evolution to evolve.

I though the exact same thing as you when I first watch the video, fearfully and wonderfully made.

+1

thought…sorry

0

I am a member of the NRA – Natural Rifle Association. We only use rifles that came into being by way of natural evolution. There are a couple dozen of us but most of us are unarmed. But don’t mess with us because you never know if one of us are carrying a Darwin Sawed-off under our lab coat.

+1

My problem is with the term,”evolution”. I prefer the use of adaptation instead. We have no evidence of things becoming other things. We do have gazzilions of examples of adaptation.

+1

In the beginning there was nothing. And then it exploded.

+2

@ harbqll

Keep searching brother. God will reveal himself to you. There’s nothing wrong with questioning, there’s something very wrong with outright rejection…..

+3

and from the nothingness came rocks and the elements galaxies and planets…..because this happens all by itself when nothing happens.

+3

Things evolve from simple to complex. Look around you. Nothing starts as it ends up. This is evolve- olution. Good luck with inventing the answer until you can understand the process.

0

Evolution postulates movement from simple to complex. However, observable science (backed up by Newton’s 2nd law) shows that movement is always from order to chaos.

Impasse.

+2

@ pqcoin

I’m confused. Are you talking about a seed becoming a tree or any other process that starts with something simple changing into something complex?

This is not evolution.

I think if we can’t prove it with the thousands of years of recorded history, then it’s a pretty poor theory…..

+1

I think pqcoin is referencing the great society or socialism.

Started out simple and evolved into this huge money sucking complex bureaucracy

+2

In the beginning there was nothing. And then it exploded

If God read this post I’ll bet he’s still laughing might even get the poster a reprieve for doing something bad in life. I’m laughing so hard on this one I cried, this is funny as hell.

0