Criticisms of Evolution? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Method -> Criticisms of Evolution? (7/3/2008 5:49:33 PM)

What are these supposed criticisms of the theory of evolution which are being unfairly kept out of science classes? Have these criticisms been presented in the peer reviewed literature? Are these criticisms supported by experimental data? Are these criticisms supported by any research at all?



Carico -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 11:03:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

What are these supposed criticisms of the theory of evolution which are being unfairly kept out of science classes? Have these criticisms been presented in the peer reviewed literature? Are these criticisms supported by experimental data? Are these criticisms supported by any research at all?



They are:

1) Apes can't breed squirrels, lions, tigers, ducks, goats or humans any more than humans can breed; goats, lions, squirrels, giraffes or monkeys as descendants. All anyone has to understand is the simple birds and bees to know why.
2) Hybrids can't produce offspring of the their own so humans cannot be the hybrid of a common ancestor and an ape or any other fictitious animal
3) The weak and strong co-exist in every society, so the survival of the fittest is a myth
4) No one in history has ever passed along accounts of our vine-swinging ancestors. So evolution can't be backed up by history either.

So everything about the theory of evolution is a fairy tale because it exists in the imaginations of men, not in reality. In fact, the only reason that anyone believes this ridiculous theory is because of Satan, since apes don't breed humans in reality nor is it possible for them to do so.



gluadys -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 11:34:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

What are these supposed criticisms of the theory of evolution which are being unfairly kept out of science classes? Have these criticisms been presented in the peer reviewed literature? Are these criticisms supported by experimental data? Are these criticisms supported by any research at all?



They are:

1) Apes can't breed squirrels, lions, tigers, ducks, goats or humans any more than humans can breed; goats, lions, squirrels, giraffes or monkeys as descendants. All anyone has to understand is the simple birds and bees to know why.



Generally speaking, this is what one expects when using evolution as a paradigm, so it cannot be a criticism of evolution. If you think it critiques evolution, the fault is in your understanding of evolution, not in the theory.

There is one error in your list though. Apes do breed humans, for humans are apes. So the birth of every human is an instance of apes breeding humans.


quote:

2) Hybrids can't produce offspring of the their own so humans cannot be the hybrid of a common ancestor and an ape or any other fictitious animal


Chalk this one up again to a faulty understanding of evolution. It is not a criticism of evolution since it is based on misinformation/misunderstanding of how species originate. There are some instances of species arising through hybridization (usually along with another contributing factor like polyploidy) but this is not how most speciation occurs. No hybrid of a human ancestor with an ape is part of the scenario of human evolution. "Common ancestor" here does not refer to a human, nor to a hybrid, but to an ancestor of all apes, including humans.

quote:

3) The weak and strong co-exist in every society, so the survival of the fittest is a myth


Again, more a misunderstanding than a criticism.


quote:

4) No one in history has ever passed along accounts of our vine-swinging ancestors. So evolution can't be backed up by history either.


History is a very modern invention. There is no reason why early human historians would be aware of the specifics of our evolutionary history. In any case, this is a matter of what is observed and recorded rather that an actual criticism of evolution that would have a place in a science class.

quote:

So everything about the theory of evolution is a fairy tale because it exists in the imaginations of men, not in reality. In fact, the only reason that anyone believes this ridiculous theory is because of Satan, since apes don't breed humans in reality nor is it possible for them to do so.


Actually, what you have presented are three misunderstandings and an irrelevant comment. If any of the first three were to be mentioned in science class, it would be only to show what is wrong with this understanding of evolution and to present the correct theory. None of them is a legitimate, science-based criticism of the theory.



Carico -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 11:50:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

What are these supposed criticisms of the theory of evolution which are being unfairly kept out of science classes? Have these criticisms been presented in the peer reviewed literature? Are these criticisms supported by experimental data? Are these criticisms supported by any research at all?



They are:

1) Apes can't breed squirrels, lions, tigers, ducks, goats or humans any more than humans can breed; goats, lions, squirrels, giraffes or monkeys as descendants. All anyone has to understand is the simple birds and bees to know why.



Generally speaking, this is what one expects when using evolution as a paradigm, so it cannot be a criticism of evolution. If you think it critiques evolution, the fault is in your understanding of evolution, not in the theory.

There is one error in your list though. Apes do breed humans, for humans are apes. So the birth of every human is an instance of apes breeding humans.


quote:

2) Hybrids can't produce offspring of the their own so humans cannot be the hybrid of a common ancestor and an ape or any other fictitious animal


Chalk this one up again to a faulty understanding of evolution. It is not a criticism of evolution since it is based on misinformation/misunderstanding of how species originate. There are some instances of species arising through hybridization (usually along with another contributing factor like polyploidy) but this is not how most speciation occurs. No hybrid of a human ancestor with an ape is part of the scenario of human evolution. "Common ancestor" here does not refer to a human, nor to a hybrid, but to an ancestor of all apes, including humans.

quote:

3) The weak and strong co-exist in every society, so the survival of the fittest is a myth


Again, more a misunderstanding than a criticism.


quote:

4) No one in history has ever passed along accounts of our vine-swinging ancestors. So evolution can't be backed up by history either.


History is a very modern invention. There is no reason why early human historians would be aware of the specifics of our evolutionary history. In any case, this is a matter of what is observed and recorded rather that an actual criticism of evolution that would have a place in a science class.

quote:

So everything about the theory of evolution is a fairy tale because it exists in the imaginations of men, not in reality. In fact, the only reason that anyone believes this ridiculous theory is because of Satan, since apes don't breed humans in reality nor is it possible for them to do so.


Actually, what you have presented are three misunderstandings and an irrelevant comment. If any of the first three were to be mentioned in science class, it would be only to show what is wrong with this understanding of evolution and to present the correct theory. None of them is a legitimate, science-based criticism of the theory.


Sorry, but if you claim that humans are apes, then you are saying that humans have always bred only humans which creationists have always known, thus defeating your own theory. [;)]

Sorry, but every human knows that he came from a human. It's ludicrous and impossible then for the first fully form man not to pass along accounts of his grandfathers who were half-men, half-apes. [sm=purplelaugh.gif] One would think that he'd have wonderfully vivid stories of the tribal wars of his ancestors. But they are conspicuously lacking. oh, but I forgot, they couldn't speak as well as the first fully formed man, so they had nothing to to teach him. [sm=Llol.gif]

But since you've already proven that humans have always come from humans, then it didn't take long at all for you to disprove your theory. So thank you. [:)]



gluadys -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 1:31:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry, but if you claim that humans are apes, then you are saying that humans have always bred only humans which creationists have always known, thus defeating your own theory. [;)]


Indeed, humans have always bred humans. This does not defeat the theory. It is what we expect, given the theory. So all you show is that you do not know the theory.

You are tilting at windmills, not evolution.

You cannot offer a genuine criticism of evolution when you don't understand the way evolution works or how it proposes that species originate.



Carico -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 1:47:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry, but if you claim that humans are apes, then you are saying that humans have always bred only humans which creationists have always known, thus defeating your own theory. [;)]


Indeed, humans have always bred humans. This does not defeat the theory. It is what we expect, given the theory. So all you show is that you do not know the theory.

You are tilting at windmills, not evolution.

You cannot offer a genuine criticism of evolution when you don't understand the way evolution works or how it proposes that species originate.


It doesn't appear that evolutionists themselves know their own theory. Some say that humans came from human apes, others say that humans came from non-human apes. The reason for the disagreement: evolutionists don't know where humans came from because the common ancestor is still as imaginary as it's always been. [;)]

But either way, they prove their own theory false because:

1) If humans are apes, then humans have always come only from humans
2) If humans came from non-human apes, they are contradicting the way animals and humans breed and they are making the impossible claim that a hybrid can breed large populations of its own.

In addition, the following are the ramifications of claiming that either humans are apes or have come from wild beasts in the jungle:

1) Not knowing who the first fully formed human was, when he lived, what language he spoke, etc.
2) Telling a child that he is an accident of "nature" who is no better than an animal which means he can't act any better than an animal, instead of that he was created by a God who loves him.
3) It would make sexual relations between humans bestiality

So calling a human an animal is not only a fallacy, but it is perverted and grossly devalues human life.



cih92 -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 3:04:41 PM)

quote:


Indeed, humans have always bred humans. This does not defeat the theory. It is what we expect, given the theory. So all you show is that you do not know the theory.


Human beings are not eternal. Since humans are not eternal, there must be a first human or first group of humans. Where did this first human or first group of humans come from? From non-human beings?



SavedToo -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 5:38:11 PM)

quote:


4) No one in history has ever passed along accounts of our vine-swinging ancestors. So evolution can't be backed up by history either.



Not only that, but when history is packed full of examples of entities that disprove your theory, you call it a myth. For example, history is fully of examples of dinosaurs living right along people. However, this does not fit the evolutionary theory(I use this term in it's loose sense) so they say that the accounts are not historical but mythological.

Take fire breathing dragons. Historical literature from different cultures is full of these things. Are they possible? Of course. Cows breath methane gas. All you would need to do is hold a match to his mouth and you would have an instant fire breathing cow. So if you get a larger animal, one that could create sufficient friction in it's mouth when it grinds food, you would have a fire breathing dinosaur(aka dragon).



Carico -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 6:07:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SavedToo

quote:


4) No one in history has ever passed along accounts of our vine-swinging ancestors. So evolution can't be backed up by history either.



Not only that, but when history is packed full of examples of entities that disprove your theory, you call it a myth. For example, history is fully of examples of dinosaurs living right along people. However, this does not fit the evolutionary theory(I use this term in it's loose sense) so they say that the accounts are not historical but mythological.

Take fire breathing dragons. Historical literature from different cultures is full of these things. Are they possible? Of course. Cows breath methane gas. All you would need to do is hold a match to his mouth and you would have an instant fire breathing cow. So if you get a larger animal, one that could create sufficient friction in it's mouth when it grinds food, you would have a fire breathing dinosaur(aka dragon).


What's possible is called science fiction. What happens in reality is called science. [;)]

And since the word "dinosaur" was made up in the 19th century, then no, no one in history has ever lived alongside of dinosaurs. [;)]



drj11 -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 6:53:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SavedToo
Take fire breathing dragons. Historical literature from different cultures is full of these things. Are they possible? Of course. Cows breath methane gas. All you would need to do is hold a match to his mouth and you would have an instant fire breathing cow. So if you get a larger animal, one that could create sufficient friction in it's mouth when it grinds food, you would have a fire breathing dinosaur(aka dragon).


Cows FART methane gas (just like many of us). Cows breath O2 and expel CO2, just like every single other mammal out there (CO2- not exactly the stuff explosions are made of). If you held a match up to a cows mouth, and it exploded you are seriously seriously confused as to which end of the cow is the front. I just hope you haven't tried to hand feed any ;)



drj11 -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 7:13:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
It doesn't appear that evolutionists themselves know their own theory. Some say that humans came from human apes, others say that humans came from non-human apes. The reason for the disagreement: evolutionists don't know where humans came from because the common ancestor is still as imaginary as it's always been. [;)]


You need to learn the difference between a species and its family: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology). There is no ape species, there is an ape family, which is the family humans are included in.

quote:


But either way, they prove their own theory false because:

1) If humans are apes, then humans have always come only from humans


Huh? Again, learn the difference between a species and a family.

quote:


2) If humans came from non-human apes, they are contradicting the way animals and humans breed and they are making the impossible claim that a hybrid can breed large populations of its own.


Huh? Again, learn the difference between a species and a family. Evolution is gradual. A species doesn't give birth to a new species. Any organism and the generations immediately surrounding it would all most likely be able to breed with one another, but if you compared one of those organisms to a descendant millions of years apart, they would most likely be unable to breed, and be very different. If you plucked a single hair out of your head every single day, trying to compare the differences between your scalp from day to day would be impossible. It would have no noticeable difference. But compare a photo of your scalp of the first day, and a day 10 years later, you will see the difference. Evolution works in a similar way.

No one who understands evolution would say evolution claims that a monkey gave birth to a human.

quote:


In addition, the following are the ramifications of claiming that either humans are apes or have come from wild beasts in the jungle:

1) Not knowing who the first fully formed human was, when he lived, what language he spoke, etc.


So? We can also make the assumption he didnt really speak any language. Humans came before human invented language.

quote:


2) Telling a child that he is an accident of "nature" who is no better than an animal which means he can't act any better than an animal, instead of that he was created by a God who loves him.


You conveniently forget the majority of Christians believe in evolution, and that it is compatible with belief in God and Jesus Christ. Your talking to one right now (not me, Glaudys) so this assertion is not even close to accurate.

quote:


3) It would make sexual relations between humans bestiality


Your brain is a strange place, apparently...

quote:


So calling a human an animal is not only a fallacy, but it is perverted and grossly devalues human life.


Honestly, you need to listen to those so far who have said you haven't a clue what evolution actually says or claims, because everything you have said is in a universe all its own. If evolution said the things you claim it says, yes, it would be wrong. But it doesn't, and your arguments amount to extremely feeble straw-men. Unfortunately they are common. It looks like you have probably been reading Answers in genesis and other creationist websites.



Carico -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 7:16:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
It doesn't appear that evolutionists themselves know their own theory. Some say that humans came from human apes, others say that humans came from non-human apes. The reason for the disagreement: evolutionists don't know where humans came from because the common ancestor is still as imaginary as it's always been. [;)]


You need to learn the difference between a species and its family: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology). There is no ape species, there is an ape family, which is the family humans are included in.

quote:


But either way, they prove their own theory false because:

1) If humans are apes, then humans have always come only from humans


Huh? Again, learn the difference between a species and a family.

quote:


2) If humans came from non-human apes, they are contradicting the way animals and humans breed and they are making the impossible claim that a hybrid can breed large populations of its own.


Huh? Again, learn the difference between a species and a family. Evolution is gradual. A species doesn't give birth to a new species. Any organism and the generations immediately surrounding it would all most likely be able to breed with one another, but if you compared one of those organisms to a descendant millions of years apart, they would most likely be unable to breed, and be very different. If you plucked a single hair out of your head every single day, trying to compare the differences between your scalp from day to day would be impossible. It would have no noticeable difference. But compare a photo of your scalp of the first day, and a day 10 years later, you will see the difference. Evolution works in a similar way.

No one who understands evolution would say evolution claims that a monkey gave birth to a human.

quote:


In addition, the following are the ramifications of claiming that either humans are apes or have come from wild beasts in the jungle:

1) Not knowing who the first fully formed human was, when he lived, what language he spoke, etc.


So? We can also make the assumption he didnt really speak any language. Humans came before human invented language.

quote:


2) Telling a child that he is an accident of "nature" who is no better than an animal which means he can't act any better than an animal, instead of that he was created by a God who loves him.


You conveniently forget the majority of Christians believe in evolution, and that it is compatible with belief in God and Jesus Christ. Your talking to one right now (not me, Glaudys) so this assertion is not even close to accurate.

quote:


3) It would make sexual relations between humans bestiality


Your brain is a strange place, apparently...

quote:


So calling a human an animal is not only a fallacy, but it is perverted and grossly devalues human life.


Honestly, you need to listen to those so far who have said you haven't a clue what evolution actually says or claims, because everything you have said is in a universe all its own. If evolution said the things you claim it says, yes, it would be wrong. But it doesn't, and your arguments amount to extremely feeble straw-men. Unfortunately they are common. It looks like you have probably been reading Answers in genesis and other creationist websites.


Funny how no evolutionist actually explains the theory, he just yells "strawman." [sm=purplelaugh.gif]

But since you claim that my statements are incorrect and my statements have been that evolutionists claim that humans came from human apes or non-human apes, (because i've said both), then you deny your whole theory. Thus man did not descend from the apes and evolution is false & by your own words, no less. End of story. [;)]



drj11 -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 7:34:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Funny how no evolutionist actually explains the theory, he just yells "strawman." [sm=purplelaugh.gif]

But since you claim that my statements are incorrect and my statements have been that evolutionists claim that humans came from human apes or non-human apes, (because i've said both), then you deny your whole theory. Thus man did not descend from the apes and evolution is false & by your own words, no less. End of story. [;)]


Again you misunderstand the difference between species and family. Because of this, your statements are nonsensical actually.

According to universal common descent, chimpanzees are the most closely related to humans.. and that we share a common ancestor that was neither chimp, nor human. If you want to learn more, perhaps you should start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/



gluadys -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 7:48:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cih92

quote:


Indeed, humans have always bred humans. This does not defeat the theory. It is what we expect, given the theory. So all you show is that you do not know the theory.


Human beings are not eternal. Since humans are not eternal, there must be a first human or first group of humans. Where did this first human or first group of humans come from? From non-human beings?


Yes. Homo sapiens was preceeded by another species known as Homo erectus which was probably the common ancestor of both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. The first group of Homo sapiens originated in Africa--probably north-east Africa.

This assumes that "human" equates to "Homo sapiens" and not other species in the genus Homo.



gluadys -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 7:55:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Funny how no evolutionist actually explains the theory, he just yells "strawman." [sm=purplelaugh.gif]


It is pretty hard to decide where to start explaining when there is so much un-explaining that needs to happen first. And it is difficult to know if you really want an explanation.

But on the off-chance you might be serious, here is a pithy definition of evolution.

Ask any questions you like about it for further explanations.

"Evolution can be precisely defined as a change in the proportional distribution of alleles in a population over generations."



Carico -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 8:02:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Funny how no evolutionist actually explains the theory, he just yells "strawman." [sm=purplelaugh.gif]


It is pretty hard to decide where to start explaining when there is so much un-explaining that needs to happen first. And it is difficult to know if you really want an explanation.

But on the off-chance you might be serious, here is a pithy definition of evolution.

Ask any questions you like about it for further explanations.

"Evolution can be precisely defined as a change in the proportional distribution of alleles in a population over generations."


So what are humans supposed to change into? gods?[sm=icon_smile_boggled.gif]

Sorry friend but your whole theory is as imaginary as the common ancestor. It came about because Darwin denied the biblical account of creation. So the only other scenario that seemed plausible to him is that one animal "must have' come from another. The only problem is that's not how reality works. Each species reproduces itself, not other animals. [;)] All one has to understand is the birds and bees to know that. So Darwin's attempt to play God has failed miserably. [;)]



drj11 -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 8:41:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Funny how no evolutionist actually explains the theory, he just yells "strawman." [sm=purplelaugh.gif]


It is pretty hard to decide where to start explaining when there is so much un-explaining that needs to happen first. And it is difficult to know if you really want an explanation.

But on the off-chance you might be serious, here is a pithy definition of evolution.

Ask any questions you like about it for further explanations.

"Evolution can be precisely defined as a change in the proportional distribution of alleles in a population over generations."


So what are humans supposed to change into? gods?[sm=icon_smile_boggled.gif]

Sorry friend but your whole theory is as imaginary as the common ancestor. It came about because Darwin denied the biblical account of creation. So the only other scenario that seemed plausible to him is that one animal "must have' come from another. The only problem is that's not how reality works. Each species reproduces itself, not other animals. [;)] All one has to understand is the birds and bees to know that. So Darwin's attempt to play God has failed miserably. [;)]


Actually many Jewish and Christian philosophers alike have been denying the interpretation of Genesis as a historical narrative since the time of Christ. Evolution is compatible with most interpretations of scripture, with the exception of the historical view. People didnt need Charles Darwin to understand that Genesis shouldnt be read as a historical text. That idea had been around since the time Christ walked the earth, and perhaps before. And its not just evolution that isnt compatible with your viewpoint, its all of the natural sciences, and pretty much every single scientific theory that holds water today.



evry1needsgod -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 8:52:02 PM)

If A=B, B=C, C=D, and D=E, then A=E. If a 100% ape evolved/bred a 75% ape, that ape evolved/bred a 50% ape, that ape evolved/bred a 25% ape, and that ape evolved/bred a 100% human, then yes an ape evolved/bred a human. As simple as that, and it is this dogma that evolutionist would like the world to blindly accept. We're all just puny animals, completely worthless. When deer over populate Wisconsin, they create a hunting season for them because they are mere animals. Japan is becoming over crowded with humans (animals according to evolutionists) so should they make a hunting season for us home sapiens??? After all, we are no less animal then deer, turkey, rabbits, and other game, correct?



Jhud -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 9:45:19 PM)

quote:

Yes. Homo sapiens was preceeded by another species known as Homo erectus which was probably the common ancestor of both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. The first group of Homo sapiens originated in Africa--probably north-east Africa.

This assumes that "human" equates to "Homo sapiens" and not other species in the genus Homo.


Just out of curiousity, what is the difference between homo erectus and homo sapiens that makes one 'human' and the other not?



gluadys -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 10:08:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Yes. Homo sapiens was preceeded by another species known as Homo erectus which was probably the common ancestor of both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. The first group of Homo sapiens originated in Africa--probably north-east Africa.

This assumes that "human" equates to "Homo sapiens" and not other species in the genus Homo.


Just out of curiousity, what is the difference between homo erectus and homo sapiens that makes one 'human' and the other not?



Good question. That is why I clarified the assumption. One could just as easily say that the whole genus Homo is "human" which takes us back to the Australopithecines as human predecessors.

But that would mean that there was more than one human species in the past, some contemporaneous with each other. I take it that would be theologically difficult for some to accept.

Biologically, it would not be a problem. There are many species of deer, mice, bees, orchids, almost any life form you can name. Why not many species of human?

So it comes down to whether you prefer a biological or a theological definition.

Theologically, we could say that not even all Homo sapiens were "human" and restrict "human" to "descendants of Adam" who need not have been the first biological specimen of Homo sapiens.

IOW there is no real clarity of the relation of the term "human being" to the scientific designations of hominin species. Just depends on how widely (or narrowly) you want to cast the net.



Ryu -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 10:36:06 PM)

Something i've been wondering about is why God made physical attraction the way he did. Wouldn't have it sufficed to make people so there is a simple female/male attraction rather than it being dependent on the traits which are seen as desirable by humans such as physical beauty (which indicates healthiness) and intelligence, traits which are both obviously advantageous. The way physical attraction works is consistent with the theory of the survival of the fittest.

Why did God make adam and eve that way? There was no need as they were already genetically perfect.

Also, I don't understand how you can be Christian and believe in evolution. Somewhere along the evolutionary line did the species which became humans just suddenly become reflective of God's image enough for us to have a soul and be worthy of eternal life? Or did the ape species which were intended to turn human always have a soul? The bible says God created us because he wanted someone to love, why would he want to wait 6 million years or whatever it was for humans to pop up when he could have just made us there and then? How can you believe in some parts of the bible and not others? It's like fabricating your own religion.



drj11 -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 10:47:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ryu

Something i've been wondering about is why God made physical attraction the way he did. Wouldn't have it sufficed to make people so there is a simple female/male attraction rather than it being dependent on the traits which are seen as desirable by humans such as physical beauty (which indicates healthiness) and intelligence, traits which are both obviously advantageous. The way physical attraction works is consistent with the theory of the survival of the fittest.

Why did God make adam and eve that way? There was no need as they were already genetically perfect.

Also, I don't understand how you can be Christian and believe in evolution. Somewhere along the evolutionary line did the species which became humans just suddenly become reflective of God's image enough for us to have a soul and be worthy of eternal life? Or did the ape species which were intended to turn human always have a soul? The bible says God created us because he wanted someone to love, why would he want to wait 6 million years or whatever it was for humans to pop up when he could have just made us there and then? How can you believe in some parts of the bible and not others? It's like fabricating your own religion.


Most who don't hold a historical/literal interpretation of Genesis wouldn't believe that 'image of God' means humans share physical likeness to God (and actually maybe even some who hold literal interpretations as well). There have been many interpretations of that passage... Some of the beliefs hold that our capacity to do good, or perhaps our reason and intellect, or even the idea that we are eternal (ie have souls) are the aspects of us that are in "God's image". Our qualities which somehow 'touch the eternal' are in 'God's image', not our transient, temporary, qualities, such as the bodies that we have, and our base urges.



Ryu -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 11:04:20 PM)

If today's monkeys eventually evolve sufficient intellect to distinguish between good and bad will they suddenly get souls too? Since retarded people can't differentiate between good and bad do they have souls?



Carico -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/5/2008 11:47:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Funny how no evolutionist actually explains the theory, he just yells "strawman." [sm=purplelaugh.gif]


It is pretty hard to decide where to start explaining when there is so much un-explaining that needs to happen first. And it is difficult to know if you really want an explanation.

But on the off-chance you might be serious, here is a pithy definition of evolution.

Ask any questions you like about it for further explanations.

"Evolution can be precisely defined as a change in the proportional distribution of alleles in a population over generations."


So what are humans supposed to change into? gods?[sm=icon_smile_boggled.gif]

Sorry friend but your whole theory is as imaginary as the common ancestor. It came about because Darwin denied the biblical account of creation. So the only other scenario that seemed plausible to him is that one animal "must have' come from another. The only problem is that's not how reality works. Each species reproduces itself, not other animals. [;)] All one has to understand is the birds and bees to know that. So Darwin's attempt to play God has failed miserably. [;)]


Actually many Jewish and Christian philosophers alike have been denying the interpretation of Genesis as a historical narrative since the time of Christ. Evolution is compatible with most interpretations of scripture, with the exception of the historical view. People didnt need Charles Darwin to understand that Genesis shouldnt be read as a historical text. That idea had been around since the time Christ walked the earth, and perhaps before. And its not just evolution that isnt compatible with your viewpoint, its all of the natural sciences, and pretty much every single scientific theory that holds water today.


Oh, Jesus said there will be many false teachers and the Jews just plain don't believe scripture or they would know who their messiah is. Changing Genesis 2:7 from "The Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground..." into; "The Lord God formed man from the wombs of apes" isn't an interpretation, it's blatantly changing God's word to say what they want it to say as every false teacher does. That's no different than claiming that evolutionists say that man came from aliens. So you need to know the difference between God's Word and man's "interpretation" of God's word which is no different than knowing the difference between a quote and a misquote.



drj11 -> RE: Criticisms of Evolution? (7/6/2008 12:31:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Oh, Jesus said there will be many false teachers and the Jews just plain don't believe scripture or they would know who their messiah is. Changing Genesis 2:7 from "The Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground..." into; "The Lord God formed man from the wombs of apes" isn't an interpretation, it's blatantly changing God's word to say what they want it to say as every false teacher does. That's no different than claiming that evolutionists say that man came from aliens. So you need to know the difference between God's Word and man's "interpretation" of God's word which is no different than knowing the difference between a quote and a misquote.


Perhaps you need to entertain the idea that it is your interpretation that is incorrect. If God is real, I would tend to think he is not so simple minded as to create the world in such a bland and nonsensical fashion as the account of Genesis portrays (when taken literally).



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI