The Athiest and The Ape

Text Evolution is a fact. If you have evidence against it or for another theory, let's have it.

reply to post by Barcs


@ Danger
I think you misunderstood my rant. I never made the statement that evolution is not a fact. I said that I can not prove Darwin wrong from the very onset of my rant. That being the case i do have another theory and it is as follows.

Your science declares the that the universe is still expanding at a great rate even today. So by this claim I have come to realize (as a fundy) that my God is still creating. My bible does not tell me that God simply quit creating but that He only rested on the seventh day of creation. That would agree with your science would it not? I believe that this is a fair assumption on my part but not on your part if you do not believe in my God. Now what this universe is expanding into is another matter and not related to this rant but by admission science admits that there is a something outside of this terrestrial universe.

My point is that my God is still creating (expanding) and that if this is true then God could still create the many species of that which you call evolution and on a timely basis. Instead of the millions of years the evolutionists always use to explain their theology, my theology is that God creates on a timely basis and that those many millions of years are not true at all.

In a sense of fairness the evolutionist cannot show millions of years any more than I can show my God but I also have evidence that shows that your science verifies that the universe is indeed expanding. Now you may choose to call this "happening" while I call it creating. In either case something is being produced without evolution and on a daily basis. You asked me for my opinion and there is some of it. Can I prove my opinion? No I can not and neither can you. Evidence is nothing but supposition mixed with some facts to suit the theology of evolutionists. The same formula that a fundy uses.

reply to post by Seede


So how do you explain genetic mutations and the fruit fly experiment that clearly demonstrated a species changing after thousands of generations into a new species? Where does god factor in? You could maybe say that he controls evolution, but to discount it or claim it's really god creating each species individually at various times despite how similar they may be is a bit speculative and certainly a leap in logic.

Text So how do you explain genetic mutations and the fruit fly experiment that clearly demonstrated a species changing after thousands of generations into a new species? Where does god factor in? You could maybe say that he controls evolution, but to discount it or claim it's really god creating each species individually at various times despite how similar they may be is a bit speculative and certainly a leap in logic.

reply to post by Barcs


@ Danger

As I said before I have no explanation for any mutations of any sort that would involve thousands of generations because I have no observation of thousands of generations. A generation of the human species is regarded as about thirty years by today's science and that would entail 30,000 years to be even i,000 generations. When evolutionist claim thousands of generation then it becomes a bit too much for a fundy to believe. If evolutionists could mark time with a definite start and use that start as the bible of science, such as speed of light, then that would not only promote their theology but would dispel the six day theology that some fundies have.

Now this is not to say that science is all wet and that God people are dry. I make no such claim simply because as I stated from the onset that I can not prove evolutionists wrong. There may very well be that some evolution is absolutely correct as fact but if the evolutionists would then cite the time of evolution as theology instead of stating thousands of years or millions of years along with their fact then it could be more believable. In other words not mix fact with theory and present it as fact.

Even as a fundy I cannot believe in a 24 hour 6 day creation theology simply because (to us) the sun was not instituted in our service before the 4th day of our creation. And actually the other two days may be far removed as being 24 hour spans. There are too many variables to consider such as rotation of the earth. To my way of thinking how could there be time when it did not exist? Those first 4 days of creation were timeless even though they may very well have existed before our understanding .time. This only applies to our thinking and not modern science. If a man was conceived today then how could he have been conceived yesterday? That is, in the same geographical place. Does this circumvent reality? Not really. The world may very well be eons aged but not provable in our reality. So in all honesty we all use some theology to make it fit what we design. I believe that all science as well as religionists are guilty of this time jumping simply to impress their peers who write the books.

The fruit fly mutations may be the process of creation and it may be in a very short time. God does not always just poof a creation. Regardless of whether or not you can observe this genetic change in a lab does not prove that the original pattern was not caused by a Creator. There are some religionists who believe that the races of humans were instant and deliberate while others declare that humans evolved into what we see today through breeding. Then again in order to have breeding you must have an original pattern to begin the process. I have not a clue as to what that original pattern might be to either breed or mutate.

There are some requisites of time that are believable and then there are some that are not. Adam and Eve are believable by fundies because the time is believable but if you were to try and sell the theology that Adam and Eve evolved from a lower primate thousands of years ago and from an accidental split in the genes of the monkey family, then you would have an empty choir to sell. When you prove this gene split in a petri dish, all you have proven is that you can observe a gene split. You cannot add anything other than what you observed in that lab dish. You could note your theology as a tag with the experiment and this would be more accepted even by the fundies.

Thanks for letting me bend your ear "Destroy" -- You are a very bright man and I do appreciate your thoughts.

My apologies to you Barc. -

Danger and Destroy were a mix with your blog and had my posts mixed up. Stupid is what stupid does.

Seede

It seems to me that if you have billions of years to play around with as the evolutionists do you can come up with any old excuse to make up for the otherwise inexplicable gaps that cast doubt on the theory. I mean could you come up with a bigger and better blackboard to draw imaginative hypothesis on?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Spookycolt

 

The bible never states exactly how we popped into existance and they argue that evolution could very well have been the method God chose to create us.

Well it does talk about the first woman coming from a man's rib.

He could have used the Rib to extract the DNA.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

He could have used the Rib to extract the DNA.

Well sure hypothetically.

But that's a rationalization you have to make to defend it because it's ambiguous.