Evolution is a fact only at a very small scale. It is fantasy when it is used to explain how plants and animals came into existence or how human beings supposedly evolved from apelike ancestors. We might summarize the fantasy by saying that, where the theory of evolution is true, it is not very interesting, and where it is most interesting, it is not true.
If “evolution” merely refers to a process of cyclical (back and forth) variation in response to changing environmental conditions, then evolution is a fact that can be observed both in nature and in laboratory experiments.
For example, when a population of insects is sprayed with a deadly chemical like DDT, the most susceptible insects die but the individuals most resistant to the poison survive to breed and leave offspring, which inherit the genes that provide resistance. After many generations of insects have been sprayed, the entire surviving population may be comprised of the DDT-resistant variety, and some new form of insect control will have to be applied. Such changes are not permanent, however, because the resistant mosquitoes are more fit than the others only for as long as the insecticide is applied. When the environment becomes free of the toxic chemical, the insect population tends to revert to what it was before.
A similar effect explains how disease-causing bacteria become resistant to antibiotic drugs like penicillin, which then are no longer as effective in controlling the disease as they formerly were.
Almost all illustrations of “evolution in action” in textbooks or museum exhibits are similar to these examples. They involve no increase in complexity or appearance of new body parts or even permanent change of any kind. Small-scale, reversible population variations of this sort are usually called microevolution, although “adaptive variation” would be a better term.
It is misleading to describe adaptive variation as “evolution,” because the latter term commonly refers also to macroevolution. Macroevolution is the grand story of how life supposedly evolved by purely natural processes from very simple beginnings to become complex, multicelled plants and animals, and eventually human beings, without God’s participation being needed at any step along the way.
Charles Darwin assumed that macroevolution was merely microevolution extended over very long periods of time. Biology textbooks, museums, and television programs still teach people to make the same assumption, so that examples of microevolution are used as proof that complex animals and even human beings evolved from simpler organisms by a similar process.
The primary flaw in the story of macroevolution is that all plants and animals are packed with information—the complicated instructions that coordinate the many processes enabling the body and brain to function. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous living advocate of Darwin’s theory, admits that every cell in a human body contains more information than all the volumes of an encyclopedia, and every one of us has trillions of cells in his or her body, which have to work together in marvelous harmony.
The greatest weakness of the theory of evolution is that science has not discovered a process that can create all the necessary information, which can be likened to the software that directs a computer. Without such a demonstrated creative process, evolution is merely a story, because [b]its supposed mechanism can neither be duplicated in a laboratory nor observed in nature.[/b]
It is true that there are patterns of similarity among living creatures. For example, humans, apes, mice, worms, and even plants have many similar genes. The important question is not whether there are similarities among all living things but whether those similarities came about through a natural process akin to the observable examples of adaptive variation that we find in textbooks and museum exhibits.
One mistake Christians often make in debating evolution is to take on too many issues at once, rather than starting with the most important problem and solving it first. For example, evolution requires a time scale of many millions of years, while many people understand the Bible to allow for an earth history of only a few thousand years. The evolutionary time scale is debatable, but debating it involves several complex scientific disciplines and distracts attention from the most important defect of the theory of evolution. The only mechanism the evolutionists have is a combination of random variation and natural selection, illustrated by the survival of the insects that happened to be resistant to an insecticide. [b]This Darwinistic mechanism has never been shown to be capable of creating new genetic information[/b] or new complex body parts such as wings, eyes, or brains. Without a mechanism that can be demonstrated to be capable of the necessary creation, the theory of evolution is just a fantasy with no real scientific basis.
The Bible teaches, “In the beginning God created” and “In the beginning was the Word.” A simple way of explaining this basic principle is to say that a divine intelligence existed before anything else and that intelligence was responsible for the origin of life and for the existence of all living things, including human beings. [b]No matter how much time we might allow for evolution to do the necessary creating, the evidence shows that the process would never get started[/b] because all evolution can do is to further minor variations in organisms that are already living, without any change in their basic classification. When the Bible says, “In the beginning God created” (Gen 1:1), it is presenting us with a fact, which we need to know to understand everything else, including what we were created for and how God wants us to live.
The Bible also says that God created men and women in His own image. That, too, is a fact. If it were not true, there would be no science, because [b]no theory of evolution can demonstrate how intelligence came into existence[/b], including the intelligence of misguided people who misuse science to try to explain creation without allowing any role to God.
“In the beginning was the Word.” The Bible says it and, properly understood, the evidence of science confirms it. Anyone who says otherwise is peddling fantasy, not fact.
-
Edited by Doc: 7/13/2015 7:49:05 PMYou look fine today
-
Wasn't expecting Scientific Proof of the existence of God. Wasn't dissapointed. The difference between your theory (creation) and my theory (evolution) is that your theory relies on a magical space being with infinite power to fill the gaps. But there is also some logical problems with your perfect god that I'm going to explain. Bad things happen in the world. Terrible things occur. We can all agree. Hurricane Katrina, the Cherynoble Disaster, the Holocaust. This things are undeniably bad for the human population as a whole. The God of your Bible is described as All-Knowing, All-Powerful, and a good God. He is the "light side of the force so to speak. So why did he let things like the Holocaust happen? There are 2 possible answeres. 1. He was not powerful enough to stop in (In which case, he is not all-powerful) 2. He did not want to stop it (Inc which cade, he is not benevolent)
-
Too long; didn't read
-
Evolution is s theory
-
You look cute today.
-
The amount of science I was expecting was not there.
-
You complete me ♥
-
Some well argued points here, even though I don't agree completely since I do believe in evolution the arguments you've said are well stated, Bravo dude Aha
-
Edited by triggs1413: 7/12/2015 3:10:14 AMThanks, I enjoyed reading this! *tips hat
-
Edited by Ogma: Destroyer of Worlds: 7/13/2015 6:07:22 PMIt's always funny to me when people say they "believe" in evolution. No belief is required. The thing in question is the scale. We have never made a discovery that has taken us a step backwards when it comes to what we know about evolution. It is also not meant to be an explanation for the why, just the how. We don't know the why and so some of us choose beliefs in that absence of that information. Belief by definition is a choice. It's choosing something in the absence of an answer or explanation. And it is doing so without sufficient evidence or proof for the claim. There will never be an amount of belief that makes something true. That being said, I think it's better to entertain and test ideas, so I don't have beliefs. If an idea doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of logic and reason when critical thinking is applied, I dismiss it. I'll trust someone who I think means to seek the truth as opposed to someone adhering to a belief. Beliefs are the easy way out. They are complacency.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 7/11/2015 10:08:06 PM[b]3,000[/b] Post! (1) That's too much for a dull subject. (2) I would like to thank [i]Britton[/i] (the real one), [i]psycho[/i] [i]n3rd[/i], and all you other beautiful atheists for the support.
-
We were on Mars first became an advanced civilization there but we ruined Mars so we tried to find a place to settle down.Mars was becoming the Mars we know today.We found Earth in its early stages.Who knows what technologies we had back then but we some how left bacteria and shit on earth.It started to evolve -------> fast forward.Pictures of man like buildings/structures on Mars.Also the infamous Mars Yeti could this mean we left our heritage on Mars?[spoiler]This could be b8[/spoiler] [spoiler]My co-worker while high thought of this [/spoiler][spoiler]b8?[/spoiler]
-
Micro evolution is definitely true like in the case of dogs, but there is hardly any evidence for macro evolution ie: fish to chicken
-
I don't think you've ever heard of the Darwin finches. In short, they have been observed in nature with their beaks changing physical form depending on their geographical location. This was due to the kind of food that was available for them.
-
What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from stacking up to the point that the animal isn't the same species?
-
The need to place humanity on a pedestal is nothing short of a fear of the unknown. A lack of quantification for the human consciousness also plays in. But the fact that our DNA so closely resembles Great Apes and the ever expanding fossil record is better proof in my mind then here say from a book.
-
-
Edited by Frogley: 7/3/2015 8:26:14 PMIf you want an interesting debate on this, watch Bill Nye vs Ken ham Both very extreme sides of evolution and creation. Also I enjoyed your post, very well put together, even if I don't agree with many of your view points, though next time list some sources. It does make it easier for others to create a debate against you and for you to have a better stance on your topic.
-
Holy -blam!- TLDR
-
-
Edited by Icarus026: 7/11/2015 9:22:19 PMMacro- and Microevolution are literally the exact same thing, but macroevolution is on a larger scale, numbnuts.
-
So you say evolution is nonsense as it cannot be proven but you then say that we were created by a higher being which, as far as I am aware, there is 0 scientific evidence for. Am I correct in this reading?
-
So you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution, despite mountains of evidence. That's merely silly. Clearly you're smarty enough to grasp the concept, I don't see why you'd deny such.
-
Edited by BenjyX55: 7/3/2015 7:32:57 PMYou have used the Bible as evidence. Until you prove the bible to be accurate, all of your arguments are meaningless. Prove that the bible is accurate, then maybe I'll start taking you seriously. I'm not quite as educated on this subject as Britton, but I've still managed to destroy all of your arguments with my 10th grade education. If you really did major in biology, as you claim, then your professor is an utter failure and should resign from teaching forever.
-
Get a life
-
Edited by Jyapp448: 7/11/2015 9:00:36 PMGod-blam!-it, WE HAVE PROOF OF LIFE EXISTING 65 BILLION YEARS AGO THE BIBLE IS BULL-blam!-!