ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Concept Of Evolution

How does one reconcile Bible-based Christianity with the concept of Evolution?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 9/14/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



'Unexplained phenomena'- atheist.

This must be atheist's unexplained phenomena of DNA information appearing from random, evolutionary chance events, which in the final analysis he says "I don't know". This must be the mythology he is referring to.

As atheist cannot tell us he doesn't know DNA information could not have come from an intelligent mind, therefore admitting it could have- it can be rightly said DNA information arising from an intelligent mind does not fall into atheists category of mythology.

"There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter"- Dr.Werner Gitt- 'In The Beginning Was Information'.
---David8318 on 9/27/12


'Supernatural means you don't know how something happened and so you'll invent a god to explain it.'- atheist.

Oh, so atheist by saying he "doesn't know" also believes in the supernatural! Because atheist doesn't know where or how DNA information came from, he has to invent a supernatural god to explain it... atheist calls it 'evolution', the god of chance and 'good luck'.

Atheist's reasoning becomes even more interesting the more he posts. He "doesn't know" so by his own definition, he believes in the supernatural!

At least I and many other Christians have an explanation for the origin of DNA information- it's called intelligence. It came from an intelligent mind, deliberately and purposefully.
---David8318 on 9/27/12


'Why should I believe your supernatural explanation for anything'- atheist.

I don't expect you to- just as I don't believe your supernatural explanation.

I'm just curious as to why it is when you "don't know" the origin of DNA information you insist DNA information could not have come from an intelligent mind!?

Park the 'life from non-living matter supernatural process' you talk about for the time being. Before chasing down peoples belief in DNA information originating from an intelligent source, try sorting your own house out and get your facts and mind straight on what you believe to be the origin of DNA information. And when you've done that try coming back here and talk some sense!
---David8318 on 9/27/12


David,

I also don't know if an infinite number of other mythological explanations for an infinite number of unexplained phenomena are true or not. Why should I believe your supernatural explanation for anything, especially if I do not believe in the supernatural?

Supernatural means you don't know how something happened and so you'll invent a god to explain it.

I just stop at "I don't know".
---atheist on 9/27/12


'I admit the question is too hard for anyone at this time'- atheist.

The question atheist refers to is the DNA information dilemma, of which I have asked repeatedly of him and yet to receive a reply. Regarding the origin of DNA, atheist says- "I don't know". The question I ask is thus: if atheist "doesn't know" how DNA info arrived, how does he know it didn't come from an intelligent mind? Its a simple question.

Atheist admits 'its a hard question'. He has no idea, thus he cannot insist DNA information didn't come from an intelligent mind. So at least for atheist- the jury is out!

Admitting he "doesn't know" and "its a hard question", I believe atheist is more agnostic than atheist.
---David8318 on 9/27/12




Atheist avoids tackling the point I raise and the simple question I pose for obvious reasons. Everyone can see the dilemma he claims he doen't face.

Because atheist can't say he "doesn't know" how he knows DNA information didn't come from an intelligent mind, this means DNA info could have come from an intelligent mind- by intelligent design.

If atheist "doesn't know" how DNA info came by evolutionary chance events, it follows that he "doesn't know" it could have come by intelligent design.

Of course, true science, logical thinkers and the Bible agree that there is no doubt where DNA info came from. Through intelligent, deliberate design- Ps.139:16.
---David8318 on 9/27/12


Darlene: I agree with you that Evolution should not form a part of a Christian's paradigm. And while it is understandable that the atheist would hold fast to his blind-faith religion of Evolution, I have difficulty understanding how many here on CN still cling to this pseudo-science while claiming to be Bible-believing Christians.

Some tend to speak evil of science itself - as if it were the culprit. It is not. Evolution is NOT science, and I will continue to try to educate the Christians of CN until they learn that TRUE science refutes the fantasy of Evolution.


---jerry6593 on 9/27/12


They don't have to reconcile Bible and Evloution. Christianity belongs to God,Evolution belongs to the fleshly world. No contest Christians live by the Word of God and His Word says the things which are were not made of the things that are seen. That rules out evolution as man knows it because they say one thing evolves into something else. Christians must live by God's Word and therefore cannot accept mans concept of evelolution. We worship and live by a higher and greater Spiritual power,God, His will,His way,His purpose,His steps He alone laid out since He spoke the world into being.
---Darlene_1 on 9/26/12


GOD has the power to turn energy into matter. He also has the power to make nonliving matter come alive.

Beyound that answer I only have guess work. Just like Scientist can only guess what caused the Big Bang. Or how they still cannot figure out how life begain.
---Samuelbb7 on 9/26/12


athiest, why is it you will risk going to hell because you are so stubborn. The whole Word of God in so intertwined together to fit like a glove. Genesis says God spoke everything into existence.He isn't responsible for the chaos in the world today. God gave you a choice and is is plain to see you have made yours. If you could ever experience the power of a Holy God you would know for yourself. hang in there satan is waiting for you.
---shira4368 on 9/26/12




Atheist, I'm not asking you to explain everything in 125 words, neither am I forcing you to conclude there is a god. You are laughably avoiding my point.

My issue with you is with regard to the origin of DNA information. You already admit you "don't know" where it came from or how it arrived by evolutionary chance events.

My point therefore is, as you "don't know" where DNA info came from, how do you know it didn't come from an intelligent mind?
---David8318 on 9/26/12


Atheist,

"mythological god"? How do you know that God is a myth? What, because you putatively can't see God? You say you can't see the ultimate evolutionary cause for the DNA coding and information so therefore evolution must be mythological?
---Marc on 9/26/12


David,


David,

you expect me to provide an explanation of everything in 125 words. When I won't because I admit the question is too hard for anyone at this time, your response is that I have to believe in god.

Which "god" and how'd he do it are fair questions?

I have no answers to some questions, and your answer is that a mythological god did it. Where the reason in that? If your god did it, then explain how?
---atheist on 9/26/12


'How do you know which god did what?'- atheist.

That's irrelevant to how information came to be within DNA. Which God did it can be discussed on another thread, whether your god of blind chance or the "spaghetti god" you refer to. The fact is, information is found in the DNA.

You have already admitted you "don't know" how information came to be within the DNA.

As you "don't know" how DNA information came to be there, how do you know it didn't come about by an intelligent mind- by intelligent design?

Is it not reasonable to conclude because you "don't know" how DNA info came by chance evolution that it is possible DNA info came by intelligent design?
---David8318 on 9/26/12


Atheist,

So you've returned so soon to your original position of being Intellectually Dishonest. You've not answered our questions about how one knows anything - and this applies equally inside a materialist worldview - but merely pretended to respond by asking us how we non-materialists know. This is why you're basically a dishonest person. You've been given ample opportunity to explain your position but you refuse, not by actually saying that you refuse, but pretending that you have.
---Marc on 9/25/12


Marc and David,


How do you know which god did what? The invisible, but in the sky, goddess maybe created DNA. The flying spaghetti monster formed the earth, and Thor with his hammer makes thunder.

Skip Thor, science has an explanation for thunder.

How do you know which god or how many gods are responsible for all the unexplained stuff in the world?
---atheist on 9/25/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


For Christians who believe that GOD contacted people on earth through prophets we believe that there is only One GOD. But at his service are millions of angels.

To me it is impossible for non living material to come alive. No one has been able to make it happen on purpose when they think it happened by accident.
---Samuelbb7 on 9/25/12


"I don't know"- atheist.

Well if you don't know atheist, how do you know it wasn't God who programmed DNA information!?
---David8318 on 9/25/12


"A wise man can admit that he does not know"

Atheist,

So since you admit evolution is unable to explain everything NOW, then when (i.e. on what basis) does a wise man know that a materialist system is unable to explain life coming from non-life? Or do you a priori believe that ONLY a materialist philosophy is capable of explaining life from non-life.

Come on wise man, we're all waiting for your reply.
---Marc on 9/25/12


Marc,

The problem with your abduction argument is that there are other possible, if unfounded explanations. But even if we keep it in the action of a supernatural beings, one must ask how many supernatural beings do you think are out there?
---atheist on 9/25/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


Atheist,

Without a trace of "we told you so", I'm really happy you've finally allowed a breath of Intellectual Honesty to enter the debate. As Godel pointed out, you can't ultimately explain everything in the system by something in the system. And your faith in the [materialist] system is screaming at you telling you this.

Abductively (look it up!) only an immaterial all-intelligent Being from without (who occasionally becomes immanent) can ultimately explain the rise of the immaterial DNA information storage and retrieval coding system, optical active biopolymers etc, things science simply cannot explain because material science cannot explain non-material phenomena. Science, like all things, has limits alla Godel.
---Marc on 9/25/12


David,

There is no dilemma. "I don't know," is perfectly acceptable. Why make up an answer. There are a lot of questions out there that for now that have no answers. But saying the SIGS did it adds nothing, and certainly does not create an explanation for anything. That's just as much a non-answer as, "I don't know." A wise man can admit that he does not know....
---atheist on 9/25/12


Hebrews 3:4 highlights the dilemma atheists face in waiting for their miracle 'microbe to man' evolutionary "process".

'Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God' (Heb.3:4).

No one needs to physically see the builder to believe a builder built the house. Logic and evidence of construction tell any intelligent person that a house had a builder.

The atheist here grappling with this logic has yet to identify where the information contained in the DNA came from even before he can dream up his miracle "process of life from non-living matter" theology. Atheist has more faith than many religionists on this site.

Atheist is waiting for his own "SIGS".
---David8318 on 9/25/12


Atheist first you appeared to be saying there exists a process which demonstrates how life first came into being by naturalistic evolutionary methods. But now you look hopefully, and faithfully forward, somewhere over the rainbow, to a time when such process may be developed. That's not science but blind faith. Meanwhile we have life, (far far more complex than the best intelligently designed computer) which in itself is solid evidence that life was created. And you have nothing rational to contradict this.
---Warwick on 9/25/12


Send a Free Good Luck Ecard


Jerry,


Rather than wait until a scientific explanation comes along you would rather expose mythological mumbo jumbo.
---atheist on 9/25/12


A theist: Oh boy! Now the "missing link" has a "missing process" to keep him company. I wonder if they are made of "dark matter" and are kept warm by "dark energy". Or does 'dark energy" make them cold? No matter, we KNOW by blind faith (and contrary to known science and mathematics) that they exist. And besides, anything supernatural just has to be harder to swallow than these "extra-natural" concepts!


---jerry6593 on 9/25/12


The guys at S.E.T.I. (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) scour the Universe for signs of E.T. intelligence. If they found a sequence of signals deep in space that held to a mathematical pattern, or any intelligent signal, they would be forgiven for concluding that there could be intelligent life sending those signals. The signal itself would be sufficient evidence of E.T. life.

A coded signal has already been found deep inside living matter, within the DNA- G.C.A.T. Evidence enough for intelligence!

'I believe that this process will be found before your mythological SIGS will be', shouts the atheist. Ignorance is bliss.

See, it doesn't take more than 125 words to highlight blind evolutionary ignorance.
---David8318 on 9/24/12


Sorry if you two get confused so easily.

What I meant is that no metaphysical principle is to be found, but I believe A PROCESS will be found that explains how something like "life" came to be from "non-life". A process that can and will be duplicated....meeting the criterion of good science.

I believe that this process will be found before your mythological SIGS will be.
---atheist on 9/24/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Marc,
How about a single peer-reviewed source for your nonsensical, unscientific polemic regarding a sky god creating life.
---atheist on 9/24/12


'Nothing was lost in your example'- atheist (9/20/12)

Of course the DNA information is lost! Atheist doesn't understand people are sickle cell anemic- they don't just have it as if it were a common cold. Its not as if the correct DNA info is parked somewhere ready to be found. It is lost. The body is deficient because of its loss.

It causes malfunction of hemoglobin molecules,and its 'benefit' is the result of the interaction of two horrible diseases.

All mutations seen in human beings have deleterious results. Physical deformities & infirmities such as mongolism, down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. A process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be 'an evolutionary mechanism'.
---David8318 on 9/24/12


Atheist religiously believes evolution is "No metaphysical principle" and is "A PROCESS that explains how something like "life" came to be from "non-life". A process that can be duplicated".

To misquote Festus, all your lack of learning has driven you mad, Atheist.

No scientist has ever, I repeat, EVER produced life from non-life by stochastic, evolutionary chemistry. Because you're ID, you won't cite a single peer-reviewed source for your nonsense, unscientific polemic.
---Marc on 9/24/12


Atheist you believe the origin of life can be duplicated, by man. The world of science awaits your advice as to how this can be done. Quite a few have tried, but without success. The Miller experiments were totally unsuccessful.

But the joke is on you because if modern science with all the sophisticated technology available should produce life it would demonstrate that intelligence was involved. The opposite of naturalistic evolution.

None the less we await your pronouncement as to how this can be done!
---Warwick on 9/24/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


No metaphysical principle.

A PROCESS that explains how something like "life" came to be from "non-life". A process that can be duplicated....

A SIGS, supernatural invisible god in the sky explains nothing, and is nothing more than mythology.
---atheist on 9/23/12


Hey Mr I[ntellectually] D[ishonest] (aka Atheist), let's rewrite your claim, goose and gander style: "Claiming an invisible metaphysical principle is an explanation for anything is intellectually dishonest. Claiming that Intelligent Design has problems and then saying that an invisible metaphysical principle did it certainly provides no enlightenment on the matter."

See how easy it is to spin out a superficially alluring counter-argument. It's one thing to claim evolution transformed a chemical soup into an eye - it's an entirely different thing to demonstrate it happened. To say evolution must have done it because we have sight and "an invisible sky god" didn't is, what we trained philosophers call, question-begging.
---Marc on 9/23/12


Atheist if you consider Jerry's comments to be insults you are a frail little chap. Man up!
---Warwick on 9/23/12


**************

A theist: What insults? I'm giving you the opportunity to produce your best "proof" of the magical god you call Evolution. So where is it?



Warwick: Of course the computer evolved from lower life forms, although its progress was dotted with occassional punctuated equilibria such as the jump from vacuum tubes to transistors. And, it's all happening so quickly! Who needs millions of years? I just can't decide if natural selection or mutations is its engine, however. Maybe inheritance of acquired characteristics.... Who knows!

***************
---jerry6593 on 9/23/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Jerry,

now you are again down to insults.
---atheist on 9/22/12


*************

A theist: Other than childish conjecture, wishful thinking, fraud and the demonizing of decent, God-fearing folks, what does Evolution have to support it? Do you have a clue?

Wow! Since I posted that remark yesterday, you've hit three out of four. Couldn't you conjure up some FRAUD for us to support your "just so" stories? Maybe an extinct pig's tooth or something from which you could "prove" Nebraska man.

**************
---jerry6593 on 9/22/12


Atheist, looking at a computer, with its hardware and software, I don't imagine anyone believes it came about by naturalistic evolutionary processes. No, anyone can see it is the product of intelligent design, but still extremely primitive when compared to the human eye. Therefore as we plainly see the very limited intelligence behind the creation of the computer to consider the human eye to be, likewise, a product of super intelligence is logical. To imagine the seeing eye came about by millions of years and blind chance is illogical. Considering Dr Wald's quote such evolutionary thinking is the domain of those who will not believe what their eyes are telling them because the consequences of such belief are surrender to the Creator God.
---Warwick on 9/22/12


Apparently it all worked really well. Although there seem to be quite a few running around saying that the Sigs did it. But in general the evolution thing is well accepted,
---atheist on 9/22/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Atheist said "Eyes are specialized parts of the brain, not separate parts."

Wow everyone, Atheist is now a creationist!

And, the brain is connected to the eye bone, the eye bone is connected to the finger bone, the finger bone is connected to the...

Yep, Atheist, it's all connected. So how does your piecemeal, zillions and quadzillions of mutations, both information-adding and deleterious, get it all together.

You're a really funny guy, Atheist.
---Marc on 9/21/12


Marc,

Rather than trying to figure out how it all got here, and having the courage to admit there are things you just don't know, you prefer saying a Supernatural Invisible God in the Sky, aka, Sigs did it.

How did Sigs do it? Did he have the help of a flying teapot or the spaghetti monster? Or did he speak it all into existence? Exactly how does that work? Just a few details please so it's not so much like mythology.

Did Sigs make us out of mud?
---atheist on 9/21/12


Light transport system,


Eyes are specialized parts of the brain, not separate parts.

There's the nervous system with a brain processing most of the information, but the brain is nothing when disconnected. The eye and the brain developed together, they are parts of a whole.

Imagine a computer with no inputs. What would be its purpose? Sensitivity to light, heat, cold, pressure, touch, pain, sound, all come from different sensors and are part of the brain. Imagine the world of a bat.
---atheist on 9/21/12


"Build it from there"? Build what from where? What, build (I like the word choice, sort of like 'construct' - that's right, slip in a word which has the connotation of Intelligent Design, Mr Intellectual Dishonesty aka Atheist!) an eye from a single cell organism? Don't you actually mean from a chemical soup? Either way, show us all how it's done by chance chemistry and natural selection. I haven't got a few billion years left on me, but you could have a go. You never know, maybe a miracle just might occur.
---Marc on 9/21/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Marc,

Claiming an invisible supernatural sky god is an explanation for anything is intellectually dishonest. Claiming that evolution has problems and then saying the sky god did it certainly provides no enlightenment on the matter.
---atheist on 9/21/12


Atheist what you have written about is but a 'just so' story with absolutely nothing to back it up. A human with a tiny percentage of vision can react to light only because they have a whole system which is working, albeit poorly. A perfectly working eye has no survival value without the light transport system and the brain to interpret the image.

The light sensitive cell, of which you write has no image transport system, nor a brain to interpret anything. Therefore useless.
---Warwick on 9/21/12


Marc,

No dishonesty. Try it the other way.

One cell in an organism responds to light, and that organism has a better chance at survival. Build it from there.
---atheist on 9/21/12


Atheist: please come on to Jesus's side before it is too late.God is the truth, evolution is nil, a lie and not continuous, life created by God is continuous until God decides to end it. Do not wait until physical death before you recognize the truth, it will be too late.
---Adetunji on 9/21/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Atheist,

The following isn't for you: you're intellectually dishonest.

Atheist assumes half vision=one eye, and a quarter vision=half an eye, etc. Vision is not just an eye but a myriad's myriad of interdependent biochemical pathways, nerves, interconnected areas of the brain, etc. Not to mention, for humans, the age-old problem of how the brain "sees". You've got to have it all in place for it to function.

Atheist's trickery is he works in the wrong direction i.e. assumes all is in place and then says "What would happen if this part's removed?" That's the creationist position. The evolutionist must start with NOTHING and try to get vision.
---Marc on 9/21/12


Atheist,in reality I do get it.

A car with everything but a gearbox, or a powered electrical circuit, does not function. Sight is a far far more complex system comprizing 3 separate co-dependent systems and is useless unless all 3 systems are in place connected, programmed, and operating. Consider the eyeball a camera, the optic nerve as image transport, the brain which interprets it all a programmed computer. In the evolutionary story something will be retained, only if it adds survival value. Therefore it would have to evolve complete and functioning to give any value. Do you imagine these 3 interconnected systems evolved in one step, and from what?
---Warwick on 9/21/12


A theist: "You can't fight blind ignorance in 125 words."

Of course we can. That's what we're doing. You have given up the fight long ago, and now embrace blind ignorance as your religion. Other than childish conjecture, wishful thinking, fraud and the demonizing of decent, God-fearing folks, what does Evolution have to support it? Do you have a clue?


---jerry6593 on 9/21/12


David,

Nothing was lost in your example, one piece of code in the DNA was changed. The capacity to hold information was the same. Fact is, and I think you know it, is that there is a lot of DNA that appears to be extra and does nothing. But time will tell...

Warwick,

Are you better with one eye or none, an eye that sees only shadows or none, an eye that see only shades of grey and not color? You just don't get it do you?

Now tell everyone about what's in my head....Or maybe you can seance with Jerry and find out?
---atheist on 9/20/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


"You can't fight blind ignorance in 125 words." atheist

Well that's certainly convenient = )
---scott on 9/20/12


David, thanks for your comments regarding Behe's book. He is exactly the scientist atheists claim doesn't exist. I found his book enlightening. I believe it has caused many people to understand that microbe to man evolution is indefensible once you investigate the details.

I have asked many evolutionists how the eye could develop by naturalistic processes, and have yet to receive a cogent answer. In the evolutionary story anything which gives survival value will be retained. But the eye is an amazingly complex multi-part system which could not have appeared at once, and functioning, by naturalistic processes but would not have been retained unless it did. But it could have been created, but not by human intelligence or technology.
---Warwick on 9/20/12


You can't fight blind ignorance in 125 words.
---atheist on 9/20/12


Strange- but I'm drawn to Warwick's reasoning on sickle cell anemia- a good example of lost DNA info.

The cause of sickle-cell anemia is a 'point mutation,' that is, the alteration of a single nucleotide base within the DNA of the gene coding for the beta-hemoglobin polypeptide. The sixth DNA triplet, CTC, has been changed to CAC.

The mutation is a loss of DNA info. The hemoglobin's normal function is impaired, not improved, and the protection from malaria is simply an incidental side benefit. The malaria happens to be destroyed along with the person's own defective cells. This mutation does not introduce new complexity. There is no new DNA info or structural feature for evolution to build on. Mutations do not support evolution.
---David8318 on 9/20/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


'There are more than enough possible combinations in the other DNA to provide "the information" needed'- atheist.

This argument is evolutionary voo-doo science.

What "other DNA" is atheist referring to? Where and how does this "other DNA" magic up 'the information needed' to make possible combinations... possible combinations for what? Monkey to man!?

Where does evolution show the increase in DNA info from a micro-organism to the DNA info required for humans! There should be plenty evidence if billions of years have elapsed!

Atheist also fails to explain where DNA info originally came from, obviously because the 'silly' argument is far too complicated and far too inconvenient for him.
---David8318 on 9/20/12


Recommend reading 'Darwins Black Box- The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution' by Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.

Behe writes how evolutionary science is silent on the development of molecular structures, 'The complexity of life's foundation has paralyzed science's attempt to account for it... How did the photosynthetic reaction center develop? How did intramolecular transport start? How did cholesterol biosynthesis begin? How did retinal become involved in vision? How did phosphoprotein signaling pathways develop?'

Darwinian evolution fails to address the origin of these biochemical processes & is an "inadequate framework" for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems.
---David8318 on 9/20/12


Atheist, in the west medical intervention has raised life expectancy of sickle cell anemia sufferers to 45-55 years. No one would consider it advantageous-the opposite. In Africa where malaria is a problem sufferers have a life expectancy less than 10 years. They are unlikely to get malaria but die before breeding age. No use to evolution there. As I am sure you understand Africa with its generally poor medical system is more akin to the situation of supposed evolution over eons. No medical intervention, early death, no chance to breed, no help for evolution.

Further this disease causes loss of genetic information the opposite of what would be needed for the original imagined life-form to evolve into all the life-forms of today.
---Warwick on 9/20/12


Haz, your Wald quote is excellent. He knows the truth but does not want to be responsible to God. Like Frank Sinatra he wants to do it his way. There are none so blind as they who will not see.

I think our friend Atheist is similar to Wald in that he is in rebellion against God as he also wants to live by his personal morality. The fact he continues battling here shows he is troubled, not indifferent. I do hope he sees the light, and I am not being in any way condescending in saying that as what we see it what God gives us to see. Our insight is no credit to us, being God given. But as Wald admits we can blind ourselves to the truth.
---Warwick on 9/20/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


David,

Theorem 28, seriously? DNA, as in Does Not Apply. There are more than enough possible combinations in the other DNA to provide "the information" needed to trivialize your silly argument.
---atheist on 9/19/12


Warwick. Yes, Atheist has 'Blind faith'. Much like noble prize winner in Biology, Dr George Wald who said:

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose, one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God,...Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was SCIENTIFICALLY DISPROVED 120 years ago...That leaves us with ONLY ONE possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God....
I do not want to believe in God, THEREFORE I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN THAT which I KNOW is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

As Rom 2:22 says: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"

---Haz27 on 9/19/12


'Random mutations come along'- atheist.

Microbes are complicated structures, but a human has for more instructions within the DNA than a micro-organism, eg. the bacterial flagellum does not contain info to construct an eye etc. Thus if evolution is true, DNA info must increase.

However, atheists cite natural selection (NS) as an example of evolution. But NS is the oposite of evolution. NS eliminates info within DNA to get the variety within each kind. Mutations also reduce DNA info. There is no gain in info either through NS or mutation.

Thus, could a monkey become a man by losing DNA info through NS or mutation? No, because there is different info in human DNA. You can't turn one kind of info into another by losing it.
---David8318 on 9/19/12


Law of information science: even though info can be copied, you know it comes from a mind.

"There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter (Theorem 28)... When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backwards, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender (Theorem 15)"- Dr.Werner Gitt, in his book, 'In The Beginning Was Information'.

The DNA language: G.C.A.T, which contains information determining the characteristics of humans, comes from an intelligent source- a mind. 'In the beginning, God created...' (Ge.1:1) I've yet to come across an atheist who can explain otherwise.
---David8318 on 9/19/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Sickle cell anemia causes pain, fatigue and delayed growth, because of a lack of enough healthy red blood cells....yet genetic mutations that cause it, recessive genes for the oxygen-carrying hemoglobin protein, have survived natural selection because they provide a natural defense against malaria, preventing the most severe symptoms of malaria, including death.

There are hundreds of such claims that you could make Warwick, and they all can be refuted, or will be as research is done. When will you stop twisting everything fit your mythology?
---atheist on 9/19/12


Atheist you have blind faith. You continue to believe in microbe to man evolution while unable to defend it.

I have pointed out the human genome contains c3,600 serious conditions/diseases caused by mutations. Any medical doctor will tell you that these mutation caused diseases are either disabling or fatal. And the number of such harmful mutations increases. These diseases are known scientifically testable fact so how can you imagine such mutations,over millions of years, have created all the new, specific, unique, functioning genetic information to create totally new, healthy functioning creatures?

For one example consider sickle cell anemia, cause by mutation. How does it lead to positive microbe to man evolution?
---Warwick on 9/19/12


Random chance has nothing to do with it, and you know that Jerry. Random mutations come along, but that's where the environment takes out those that are less fit to survive and reproduce.

RC is non-sense.
---atheist on 9/19/12


I disagree. Evolution is not science.

I agree in the sense that scientific methodology is not allows strictly followed. That is why I said good and bad means. Similar to Socrates who said, "Object A which is heavier than Object B thus Object A should hit the ground first when drop at the same time."
---Scott1 on 9/19/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


A theist: How do you reconcile atheistic mythology (abiogenesis, evolution) with scientific fact (mathematical impossibility)?

By blind faith religion - that's how! Random Chance is your god, and Charles Darwin is his prophet!


---jerry6593 on 9/19/12


Bible-based Christianity has nothing to do with evolution.

Had a long (productive) conversation with an atheist/evolutionist on the subject of 'irreducible complexity' which the atheist had no answer for. Irreducible complexity is the teaching where complex biological structures could not have come about by gradual development through blind chance, but must have appeared complete and ready to go- eg. the eye, or the 'bacterial flagellum' which micro-biologists recognise has what is ostensibly an out-board motor as part of its structure.

When quizzed about information contained in the DNA, the atheist could not explain how that information was first programmed into the DNA structure.

The Bible can. (Psalms 139:16)
---David8318 on 9/19/12


How do you reconcile biblical mythology and scientific theory?

You don't.
---atheist on 9/18/12


//aka: Is "Cluny" or "Lee" also one of your other CN names?// jerry

no. cluny is Orthodox and if it is the same lee that i think you are referring to he is Calvinist.

hope you earn some more points.
---aka on 9/15/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


You don't obviously. Chalk and cheese.
---marc on 9/15/12


aka: Is "Cluny" or "Lee" also one of your other CN names?



Scott1: "Evolution (and science in general) is the study of science."

I disagree. Evolution is not science. It is a creation story by and for atheists. It is childish conjecture propped up by occassional fraud. Charles Darwin had no training as a scientist whatever. Evolution is to Historical Geology as Astrology is to Astronomy.


---jerry6593 on 9/15/12


Well, people have not proven evolution, only have given an explanation that they are able to come up with . . . not being God. And God's ways are "past finding out." (in Romans 33:11) So, what He has done and is doing in His creation has His ways "past finding out". So, I can see "why" people calling themselves qualified have not been able to figure out what God has done and what He is doing. This includes how medical people still have not figured out how the body works > God's ways "past finding out" are involved in how our bodies work.
---willie_c: on 9/15/12




Copyright© 1996-2014 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.
[Mall |Christian Blogs |Bible Quizzes |Free Ecards |Articles |RSS |Terms |Christian Advertising]