Theory of Evolution

[White Knight]

If I remember correctly when I saw the commerical for "Ape to Man" one of the topics thye discussed were forgeries.


Evolution has admited in the past to forge fossils.

[Mikhail]

I didn't read this whole thread so I don't know what's been brought up. However, it can be proved scientificly that the earth isn't more than 10,000 years old and it's really quite simple. It's merely covered up whenever such evidence is discovered.

If anyone reads stories about the moon from prior to the 1960s, one will hear frequently about moon dust. Even in Children's books they talk constantly of the mountains of moondust on the moon. If you look at the moon lander it had huge pads on the bottom to keep it from sinking in the moondust. Neil Armstrong's "small step" was more like a leap off the ladder because they were expecting it to sink in the dust. However, when the measured it, instead of millions of years of space dust, there was only about 6,000 years worth. Odd, huh? Interestly enough, moondust was never mentioned by evolutionists again.

The largest Corral Reef in the world is around 4,400 years old, as is the largest desert. At their present rate of decline, the mountains would have had to be billions of feet high to still exist today, even just from the last ice age. The earth is slowing down at a rate of around 1 second every three years. At that rate, the earth would have been spinning so fast that anything on the surface would have been flung far out to space only a couple million years ago.

Evolutionists bring up micro-evolution and use them to prove macro-evolution. Anyone with any logic knows that it's impossible to do so. Also, natural selection doesn't account for so much change. The "missing links" are huge. If you were to draw a picture of the evolutionary chain, and only place in the facts, the holes would be so big that to even call it a scientific theory is crazy.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='reelguy227' date='Aug 11 2005, 04:32 PM']Evolution hasnt ever been proven ,thats why its a theory.

They dont call it the Theory of Evolution for nothing.
[right][snapback]682293[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


There is no such thing as [b]complete fact[/b] in science. Even the laws of physics are considered a well-established [b]theory[/b], because future research and evidence may prove otherwise.


[b]EDIT:[/b] I really don't have a scientific stance, unfortunately. Too much politics and confusion between Creationism and Evolution.

[White Knight]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Sep 1 2005, 11:11 PM']There is no such thing as [b]complete fact[/b] in science.  Even the laws of physics are considered a well-established [b]theory[/b], because future research and evidence may prove otherwise.
[b]EDIT:[/b] I really don't have a scientific stance, unfortunately.  Too much politics and confusion between Creationism and Evolution.
[right][snapback]708408[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Now I see said the the blind man who couldn't see.

[track2004]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Sep 1 2005, 07:32 PM']I didn't read this whole thread so I don't know what's been brought up. However, it can be proved scientificly that the earth isn't more than 10,000 years old and it's really quite simple. It's merely covered up whenever such evidence is discovered.

If anyone reads stories about the moon from prior to the 1960s, one will hear frequently about moon dust. Even in Children's books they talk constantly of the mountains of moondust on the moon. If you look at the moon lander it had huge pads on the bottom to keep it from sinking in the moondust. Neil Armstrong's "small step" was more like a leap off the ladder because they were expecting it to sink in the dust. However, when the measured it, instead of millions of years of space dust, there was only about 6,000 years worth. Odd, huh? Interestly enough, moondust was never mentioned by evolutionists again.

The largest Corral Reef in the world is around 4,400 years old, as is the largest desert. At their present rate of decline, the mountains would have had to be billions of feet high to still exist today, even just from the last ice age. The earth is slowing down at a rate of around 1 second every three years. At that rate, the earth would have been spinning so fast that anything on the surface would have been flung far out to space only a couple million years ago.

Evolutionists bring up micro-evolution and use them to prove macro-evolution. Anyone with any logic knows that it's impossible to do so. Also, natural selection doesn't account for so much change. The "missing links" are huge. If you were to draw a picture of the evolutionary chain, and only place in the facts, the holes would be so big that to even call it a scientific theory is crazy.
[right][snapback]708027[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Um in response to a few of your claims. There is no real evidence the moon has always and forever been one of our satilites. In fact, many people claim it is a chunk of earth that was blown off, presumably by an asteriod. This would account for the moondust problem. Also, about the deserts and corral reefs, things change all the time. The mid-west used to be a massive lake, the Berring Straight (sp? the land between Alaska and Russia) used to be passible on foot. It is possible that the desert or corral reef are only 4000+ years old. And finally, about the spinning earth flying into space thing, I would think gravity would hold stuff on the earth pretty well. Right now we're flying through space at 67, 000 miles/ hr and it is really really really hard to get our astronauts into orbit.

[track2004]

White Knight I don't really know what you mean by that commment...

Science doesn't claim it is perfect, it just claims to look for answers. Just as we will never fully understand God, we look for answers, or half answers, or allusions to answers. Science will never fully understand nature, but they look for answers or half answers or guesses. Call evolution what you want, but no one is actually claiming that this is exactly how it happend.

Edited September 2, 2005 by track2004

[White Knight]

[quote name='track2004' date='Sep 1 2005, 11:53 PM']White Knight I don't really know what you mean by that commment...

Science doesn't claim it is perfect, it just claims to look for answers.  Just as we will never fully understand God, we look for answers, or half answers, or allusions to answers.  Science will never fully understand nature, but they look for answers or half answers or guesses.  Call evolution what you want, but no one is actually claiming that this is exactly how it happend.
[right][snapback]708452[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Science sees itself in a arrogant way. and trys to go to far and explain everything and everything. thats when science gets to be Intolerable.

[Brother Adam]

Aye. I just decided to let the whole thing go for now with the new semester here. It's comforting to know that creationists will always be teaching the same thing the same way. What was true, is true, and always will be true. evolutionists will have entirely new theories gives or take 100 years based on 'new knowledge' and forget that they ever believed any differently

[track2004]

So every semester of my science classes we discuss pervious theories. This is espically true of my pscychology classes, but I'm a psych major so I tend to have lots of those classes. Science does look at previous theories when evaluating new ones, it's why we don't make the same mistakes twice. More than 2000 years ago we were convinced that demons made you crazy, or that you'd pissed off God and He made you crazy. So there were solutions to this, namely things like drilling a hole in a guys head to give the demon a way to escape, exorcism, torture (in hopes the demon would leave because the guy he picked was always hurting) and religious rituals for forgiveness. The interesting thing is demonology was kind of right. Demons, invisible autonomous things got into your body and affected your health. Okay now compare that to viruses, invisible autonomous things that get into your body and affect your health.... Just now we know drilling holes into people won't get rid of a virus. Science doesn't actually claim to be the whole truth. Science is our best guess to how stuff happens, which is why things are called Theories instead of Laws. Yes, some people, espically academians, talk like evolution is a law, but really it's not, and we all know that. Creationists will teach the same things the same way, but what would happen if the Flat Earth Society was incharge or if the Geocentrics were? Science isn't actively trying to destory God, we just want to explain things in the natural world, the world God gave us to use.

Good luck with school, Bro.

[Brother Adam]

[quote]Science isn't actively trying to destory God[/quote]

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remain of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."-- atheist, Richard Bozarth

[Oik]

The Church has said that one may believe in an theory of evolution that does not contradict Christianity or attempt as it's premise to discount either Christianity and/or God.

That being said, that my view of Evolution.

In my opinon, I agree with Adam. I think that Evolution is totally incompatible with Christianity.

I furthermore think that even if one follows Theistic evolution (in reguards to humanity) to it's logical progression in reguards to a scientific explanation, it not only downplays the Significance of God in realtion to Creation, it also undermines Christianity and the Church's teachings.


I, however, am not a creationist or an evolutionist. I believe that evoluion could have occured for things other than humans.


Why not human beings?

Theistic evolution proports that the body of man, his flesh, comes about by the process of Evolution. This means that God only indirectly makes man's body.

The common response of Theistic evolutionists is that the Bible says that God formed man out of the clay or the Earth, or the soil.

Why is this problematic? Simply, we are made in God's Image and Likeness. God, the Father, however, does not have a body (I understand that Jesus has a Body and that Jesus is God, ect, ect). If we say that man's body is created through evolution, we in some way take a way or lessen the Theology of the Body. The body becomes a product of the Earth, an indirect product of God.

The Theistic Evolutionist then of course proports that the soul is created directly by God.


Why is this then problematic?

Because as human beings we are both body and soul unions. The Body and the soul are important. St. Thomas even says that although the body and soul are separated at death, the soul is a little less without the body.

So, if Theistic evolution is right. the body of man came before the human being. Why? Homo Sapiens, Homo Erectus, ect. If we go back into the "descent of man" we will find that Evolution claims that modern man descends for that humanid that proceeded him.

Why is this all problematic? The simple reason is that if evolution is right, rational man descends from unrational man.

This is problematic, for if man wasn't a rational creature, he would never become a rational creature.

In fact, man was created from the beginning as a rational creature.

So, either man was created rational and all the humanoid before are not his descendants, but merely genetically similar animals (in which case evolution is wrong) or Evolution for man is not a reality.

[hierochloe]

Evolution cannot be used to disprove God. It's quite amusing to see the attempt.

I think evolution/big-bang/billions of years old universe theory holds enough water for me to find it credible to some degree. Perhaps Creationism (or whatever you want to call it, since evolution and such in my mind falls into that category) has put together enough details about itself at this point that I might take it up. When I was in college earning a degree in natural resources, I had numerous discussions with good friends who subscribed to theories of creation that were more literrally compatible with biblical stories of creation. They were not convincing. In fact, most of their tenets appeared to me to be focused almost entirely on disproving evolution. Would be nice to hear about one that just presents a comprehensive theory that can be used in real world application the way a lot of other theories can.

Luckily, my salvation is not contingent upon exactly how God made me.

Looking forward to checking out this new website, Bro.

[White Knight]

You can't Evolve anything out of nothing, there has to be something. The real flaw in Evolution is when people say the Big Bang occured without a designer, thats a major flaw, in which Evolution has and believes in, that we came out of nothing for no reason. Impossible. period.

[hierochloe]

I've never heard any account of evolution or big bang theory that attempted to refute the existence of a designer or support the tenet of no reason behind existence itself. You'll hear some anti-religious/athists frequently try to do this, but it's not what these theories were developed to explain in the least. They attempt to answer "how", not "why".

[White Knight]

With Evolution and its arrogance you always have trying to prove everything. Evolution mentions no designer, No form of reason for existance, they so absolutely no interest in trying to explain a Intelligent Designer, yet, with their lack of doing this, this sends a statement, that they denounce any of that. Evolution says we came out of nothing for no reason, it is also the basis of no hope, no reason, no nada.



Evolution has no form whatsoever that announces or even trys to prove a Intelligent Designer (God); in any shape or form period. this gives us people the impression that Evolution denines God entirally and does not include Him in any part of existance.


Therefore this is one of the Main reasons why Evolution is a lie. Science & Evolution like to prove everything from a logical standpoint, when you can't always do that, some things take faith.

Edited September 4, 2005 by White Knight