tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.comments2019-11-09T21:07:30.092-08:00Creation - Evolution - Atheism And Everything Else...Joe Siriannihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07596993325094868267noreply@blogger.comBlogger349125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-76180378574803111092011-07-27T13:20:57.817-07:002011-07-27T13:20:57.817-07:00Yeah, sorry. It looks like the owner took it down...Yeah, sorry. It looks like the owner took it down. <br /><br />Don't worry, the post is about 15 months old and no atheist has provided a legitimate answer to the reasonable questions. The "Christian Darwinist" above has compromised what the Scriptures teach and have failed to provide biblical passages that support the claim that God used the cruel means of evolution (death, mutation, disease etc) to bring about his creation and then say "it was very good". For that matter, he can't even provide one single indisputable and obvious fossil that shows one kind of animal turning into a completely different kind ie how the frog got to the polar bear, the giraffe etc. Let alone teach that it happened by accident and random chances over millions of years ago. <br /><br />JoeJoe Siriannihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07596993325094868267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-33422768941204595262011-07-27T10:29:28.000-07:002011-07-27T10:29:28.000-07:00wish this video was still available to see. I have...wish this video was still available to see. I have so many Athiest friends who take such hard stances on athiesm that I'd love to share some food for thought with.love laughter peacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14643557458491108657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-74755566157120876742010-09-26T22:57:23.664-07:002010-09-26T22:57:23.664-07:00Sorry, meant evolutionistSorry, meant evolutionistJoe Siriannihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07596993325094868267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-33158288429591493682010-09-26T22:56:38.117-07:002010-09-26T22:56:38.117-07:00Or you could just answer the question being a avid...Or you could just answer the question being a avid revolutionists and all... ;-)Joe Siriannihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07596993325094868267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-85622819242986938822010-09-26T22:25:03.629-07:002010-09-26T22:25:03.629-07:00If you want to argue against evolution on this top...If you want to argue against evolution on this topic, I think you should already have investigated what the evolutionary biologists' answer is and then try to counter it. If you don't know their answer, you should think about it and see if you can guess, and then try to find out what it is.<br /><br />Evolutionary biologists do NOT think that the evolution of heart, blood vessels and blood is a problem for the idea of evolution. Do you really think your question about the heart never occurred to any biologist in all these years? <br />And if it did occur to biologists, since the concept of evolution is stronger than ever, don't you think there must be a solid reasonable idea, convincing to biologists, on how this could have happened? Maybe you should do some reading first and find out what that idea is before you wrongly suggest it is a problem that leaves evolutionary biologists floundering?highdeserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16689032652542100074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-22151579108270036512010-09-26T20:24:46.472-07:002010-09-26T20:24:46.472-07:00Sure is...
and it's unfounded.
The chances o...Sure is...<br /><br />and it's unfounded.<br /><br />The chances of two things or entities that are completely reliable on one another or can't exist without the other is ridiculous.<br /><br />Did your heart evolve first and then later evolve heart vessels? Why did a heart need blood vessels? How did the heart survive before blood vessels came along? Or did the blood vessels evolve first? But why, there was no heart? And for that matter did blood evolve already at this time as well? You have many problems here with this argument. (co-evolution)<br /><br />JoeJoe Siriannihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07596993325094868267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-34243406583301949422010-09-26T19:59:39.344-07:002010-09-26T19:59:39.344-07:00It's called co-evolution.It's called co-evolution.highdeserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16689032652542100074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-91827101019983082142010-07-29T18:35:14.005-07:002010-07-29T18:35:14.005-07:00Similarly, this video creates a straw man argument...Similarly, this video creates a straw man argument when it talks about breeding.<br />Although it says that evolutionary biologists see the transition from water to land as a slow gradual process, and that evolution comes by way of 'mistakes' (mutations), it then presents a supposed model that is the opposite of a gradual accumulation of adaptations by way of mutations, and the opposite of a gradual change from solely water-dwelling to mostly land-dwelling.<br /><br />The video asks: <br />"And what about breeding? Fish need both males and females to reproduce.<br />So perhaps one of each sex crawled out of the sea.... AND on the same day...<br />Then, amazingly, the male found the female. they bred, and their successive generations continued to evolve over millions of years."<br /><br />Again, this is a word picture that has no relation at all to the ideas of evolutionary biology, and it makes no sense.<br /><br />According to the video, for the evolution of land-dwelling species from fish, two fish just happen to crawl out of the water onto land . And I think the implication is that they live on land permanently after that (like a movie about a shipwrecked man and woman just happening to land on the same desert island).<br /><br />But how could these two fish survive on land? To survive out of the water they would already have to have adaptations for land-dwelling. These adaptations would not happen in one single event but would be an accumulation of mutations. The way mutations work, each single mutation, if it is not acutely harmful and doesn't prevent reproduction will spread through a population by way of mating within the population. As the mutations are spread through the population, not just one fish but a whole population of fish are over a number of generations accumulating the traits which will let them live at least partially out of the water. <br /><br />Again I'll point out that many amphibians live lives connected to water and continue to reproduce in water even when they are able to spend time on land. Frogs and salamanders are examples of that. If a transitional fish were able to crawl out of the water, it could just as easily crawl back into the water. It could find food both on land and in the water. It could continue to breed and lay eggs in the water as fish do, and its young could grow up in the water as tadploes do. There is no reason to portray this all-or-nothing view of the water to land transition that is presented in the video. A male fish which crawls onto the bank could crawl right back in the water and find a female back in the water. And because the adaptations for surviving on land would be present in the population of this transitional species, there would not be just a single unusual fish able to crawl onto land - there would be many fish crawling out onto land and back into the water. That this way of life is reasonable we know from current amphibians - it does not have to be all or nothing. No amazing coincidence in time and space is needed! The picture this video paints is completely bogus.<br /><br /><br />You asked how I could know that was how it happened. Well, of course I don't have a time machine (and neither to you). But this is the way mutations do spread in fish populations now. It happens all the time in research labs and the aquariums of fish hobbyists as well as in the wild. If a mutation occurs which is not seriously harmful and does not prevent reproduction, the fish with the mutation is able to reproduce with a fish of its species which does not have the mutation. Eventually a whole line of fish can be bred with a new mutation. There is no need for an amazing coincidence as portrayed in the video.highdeserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16689032652542100074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-55772163650583022262010-07-25T23:42:42.459-07:002010-07-25T23:42:42.459-07:00The video is biased in its presentation.
Although...The video is biased in its presentation.<br /><br />Although it says that evolutionary biologists see the transition from water to land as a slow gradual process, it then presents a supposed model that is the opposite of a gradual accumulation of adaptations, the opposite of a gradual change from solely water-dwelling to mostly land-dwelling. It represents the idea of the transition from water to land with the visual image of a single fish JUMPING out of the water and flopping around gasping for air, without any adaptation for land-dwelling.<br /><br />Then it states that this would be nonsense to thinking people. Well, yes it would be, if that is what evolutionary biology actually proposed! This is another straw-man.<br /><br />But then, it adds, as if it were an unimportant, maybe unrealistic, afterthought, that it has been proposed that the fish species which began the transition to land were lungfish.<br />Lungfish IIRC have lungs which are modified swim bladders. They also have gills. They can breath on land or in water because they have both lungs and gills. So no gasping for air is needed.<br /><br />But instead of just simply stating this possibility, the video focuses on the picture of the kinds of fish most people would be familiar with, fish that only have gills and can't breathe on land and do flop around gasping for air. The video encourages its audience to focus on this false straw-man image of what evolutionary biology proposes, and throws in the actual idea of the possibility of lungfish ancestors in a dismissive way as if it had no merit. <br />This is biased presentation, an attempt to manipulate the audience not with information but by innuendo.highdeserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16689032652542100074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-91948785280811504012010-07-23T12:00:11.469-07:002010-07-23T12:00:11.469-07:00This video has some huge misrepresentations of the...This video has some huge misrepresentations of the current evolutionary and geologic view of the history of the earth. Even if the maker of the video thinks that view is false, he should have presented it correctly. As it is, he is arguing agianst straw man claims.<br /><br />The video describes a scenario in which a male and a female fish jump out of the sea, "luckily at just the point in time when plants had evolved to produce air for them to breathe".<br /><br />But the conclusion of evolutionary biology is that oxygen became present in the atmosphere millions of years before the evolution of fish, let alone tetrapods, as a result of the metabolism of a type of archaea or very primitive bacteria - also called cyanobacteria and previously called blue-green algae. (They are not now classified as plants, and never were classified as green plants.) <br />The suggestion in the video that the evolution of tetrapods from fish was unlikely because there might have been no oxygen is without basis because the oxygen was there long before there were even fish. It seems like the person who wrote the script for this video didn't bother to check his or her facts with even a high school biology textbook.<br /><br />Equally bad is the suggestion that the plants 'needed to produce breathable air' would not have been able to have been pollinated because the insects had not yet evolved from 'fish to amphibians to reptiles and all life'.<br /><br />First of all, the archaea (cyanobacteria) had already been responsible for the oxygen atmospphere long before the multicellular land plants had evolved.<br />Second, there were land plants before the kind of pollinated green plants that we know today had evolved.<br />Third, many land plants today are self-pollinated or wind-pollinated - there is not an absolute necessity for insects in the early evolution of the green land plants we see today.<br /><br />But fourth, and most ridiculous was the idea that there wouldn't have been insects at that time because insects evolved from reptiles! This is beyond ignorant.<br /><br />Seriously, the person who wrote this script is ignorant of even the most basic biology and didn't bother to check his facts.highdeserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16689032652542100074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-42645087823260162382010-07-20T20:47:28.707-07:002010-07-20T20:47:28.707-07:00You said this:
"And there is nothing in scien...You said this:<br />"And there is nothing in science that shows that just because something mutates (which is a loss of information when evolution teaches there must be a gain of information) this does not mean that their offspring will indeed have the same or similar mutations. "<br /><br />If the mutation happens in a germline cell, then there is a 50:50 chance that the mutation will be passed to each offspring.<br />On average half the fish's offspring will inherit the mutation.highdeserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16689032652542100074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-33797184541667125022010-07-19T18:50:24.911-07:002010-07-19T18:50:24.911-07:00I want to try again to give you an idea of how tha...I want to try again to give you an idea of how that video comes across to me. I'm going to make a parallel example from the Bible. this is not to argue about the Bible or convince you of anything, but try to get you to understand the way in which the male-female thing from that video seems so wrong to me.<br /><br />First, a question: you know the story about the loaves and fishes. Back when i went to church, I got two ideas of what happened. the first was that there was an actual miracle - that many loaves were created in the place of just a few by divine power. the second was that there was no miracle in the supernatural sense, but that there were actually a lot of people in the crowd who had brought along their own food, and by Jesus's teachings and actions they were motivated to share their food with the group. (Or both things could have happened.)<br /><br />The Bible is unclear on what actually happened - just that they started out with only a few loaves and at the end they had a surplus.<br /><br />So what's your belief - was there an actual miracle, where bread was created from nothing for the crowd? <br /><br />I'm going to assume you believe there was an actual miracle by Jesus (although because of what I learned in my church's Sunday school I'm not sure.)<br /><br />Suppose I make a video about the story of the loaves and fishes. And in the video I say that the loaves and fishes were most likely just extra food brought by the people in the crowd. But I also say in the video that Christians teach that Jesus created the extra loaves and fishes by waving a magic wand.<br /><br />So you'd probably think I was wrong to think there was no miracle. But wouldn't you also be bothered that I presented your belief incorrectly, and said Jesus had to use a magic wand?<br />You can't go back and show evidence one way or another, and the Bible is not clear on what happened. But one thing you know for sure is that Christians do not claim that Jesus used a magic wand.<br /><br />This is what bugs me about the male-female thing. Not only doea the video say evolution didn't happen (parallel to the loaves and fishes being provided by the crowd, instead of through an actual miracle) but also the video says that for evolution to have happened there would have to be this weird thing of the male and female - which is absolutely not what evolutionary biology teaches. (This is a parallel to Jesus and the magic wand.)<br /><br /> Maybe I can't convince you that evolution happened, that's okay, but I surely ought to be able to convince you that evolutionary theory doesn't agree with what the video says about males and females.<br /><br />Evolution happens in small steps. That's the part I don't think you are seeing.highdeserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16689032652542100074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-17128745710638503562010-07-19T07:42:30.017-07:002010-07-19T07:42:30.017-07:00It is hard to find the comment link on your new we...It is hard to find the comment link on your new webpage format.<br /><br />In my comment I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was tryong to give you a picture of how evolution works in contrast to the picture that the maker of that video was trying to give you. When the narrator talked about the male and female fish just happening to come out of the water in the same place at the same time he was giving you a mental picture of how evolution was supposed to work in their vie3w (and how unlikely that would be). So I tried to correct the picture they were giving you. Not to prove anything, but so you would understand the process.<br /><br />If you need proof that animals with different genetic sequences acn mate and produce offspring, it happens all the time. You and your wife are not twins. Dogs of different breeds can reproduce even when they have obvious structural differences (which means genetic differences). Animals of some closely related species can reproduce under some conditions even if they normally wouldn't: lions and tigers, horses and zebras. Horses can reprodiuce with that ZPolish -named horse species that I can't spell at the moment, even though they have a different number of chromosomes.<br />I don't have a time machine to go back and observe all the steps in fish mutation and reproduction that led to lan animals. But for this ex0planation of the male and female, i don't have to. It's just the same thing thaT HAPPENS NOW ALL THE TIME. (sorry capslock - I need to leave.<br />Again, not tryng to prove anything, just trying to explain why the need for a male and female that s4eparately had the same mutation (or whatever the video was proposing) is unneccessary.highdeserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16689032652542100074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-9251714702406416732010-07-18T23:34:22.058-07:002010-07-18T23:34:22.058-07:00Highdesert,
I have no idea where to even start wi...Highdesert,<br /><br />I have no idea where to even start with this "story"<br /><br />It seems like to me you would rather operate in the realm of "scenarios" and "it could have happened like this" comments.<br /><br />Care to use any scientific data or fact?<br /><br />Do you understand that all you keep doing is presenting stories of how it could have happened. If what you are saying is true and happened then there would be an ample supply of evidence to back it up. We would see millions and millions of transitional fossils showing these alleged mutations.<br /><br />And there is nothing in science that shows that just because something mutates (which is a loss of information when evolution teaches there must be a gain of information) this does not mean that their offspring will indeed have the same or similar mutations. This is a great stretch of the imagination. You believe all of this with little to no scientific evidence but rather how you think it could have happened. <br /><br />A scientist would laugh at your comment. It is the most unscientific thing I have ever heard you type yet. Where is the evidence? If you were brought to a court of law and had to defend this argument the case would be dismissed because you would not be able to supply any evidence whatsoever. Bring a bone in if you will and try to prove the animal who that bone belongs to had offspring. Now try to prove it had "different" offspring (mutations)<br /><br />Wow would/could you do it? You can't. So instead you offer your story of how you think it could have happened. How far will that get you?<br /><br />Listen to your comment. For years now these statements have been peppered throughout all of your comments<br /><br />"Lets say there was"<br />"was probably"<br />"it could have spent"<br />"fishes could breed"<br /><br />Some of your points almost sounded as though you were there personally as you pint point specific things that supposedly happened. <br /><br />"Some of the offspring inherited the mutation. They bred with other fish in the population, either with the mutation or without. After a few generations, if the mutation were not harmful, and especially if it gave a survival advantage, the mutation would have occurred in an increasingly higher percent of the fish population" <br /><br />how in the world do you know that this is how it happened?Joe Siriannihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07596993325094868267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-77003024715661847732010-07-18T21:19:44.101-07:002010-07-18T21:19:44.101-07:00Joe, if you think that's what I said I must ha...Joe, if you think that's what I said I must have explained it poorly. I'll try again.<br /><br />Let's say there was a fish which had had a mutation that made it better able to survive out of the water. (I know you don't think mutations work that way, and I know you don't like hypothetical arguments, but try to put up with it for now so I can explain the reproductive idea.)<br /><br />The fish which had the mutation was a member of a fish species. Its parents belonged to that species. One mutation was probably not enough to make it into a different species. The fish lived in a population of fish, and these fish had both sexes already. Fish have males and females with male and female reproductive organs. This mutation which improved its ability to survive longer out of the water did not chanqe its reproductive abilities.<br /><br />And the mutation didn't mean that the fish instantly switched from living, breeding, or reproducing in the water to living, breeding, or reproducing on land. It could have spent a little time on land but continued to reproduce in the water. So there was nothing to stop this fish from breeding with a member of the opposite sex in the population in which it lived. There didn't need to be a fish of the opposite sex with the identical mutation because the mutation did not affect its reproductive abilities. <br /><br />Some of the offspring inherited the mutation. They bred with other fish in the population, either with the mutation or without. After a few generations, if the mutation were not harmful, and especially if it gave a survival advantage, the mutation would have occurred in an increasingly higher percent of the fish population. At every point in time, the transitional fishes could breed with other members of the population in which they lived.<br />Each mutation had to happen only once in a single fish, not twice, (one in a male fish and one in a female fish). The first fish with the mutation found its mate in the group of fish in which it already lived. It didn't have to find a fish of the opposite sex which by coincidence had had the sajme mutation. It didn't have to breed with another fish that had the mutation. It mated with a fish without the mutation from the population of fish in which it lived, and their offspring that inherited the mujtation started the spread of the mutation into the population.highdeserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16689032652542100074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-88408357620515714232010-07-18T18:23:00.371-07:002010-07-18T18:23:00.371-07:00Same old rebuttal - Tiktaalik is a unique fish. C...Same old rebuttal - Tiktaalik is a unique fish. Can you show me the transition where digits were formed in the gradual evolution of this creature? Or whatever the next step was? What did Tiktaalik evolve into? And I still you like using words like "could have" You have always had a difficult time telling the difference between fact and speculation.<br /><br />And what is ignorant is someone "assuming" that within a single species there evolved separate exact reproductive organs for the opposite sex with absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever. Yes as you have said in the past this IS what evolution teaches. However, your dilemma is now the extreme lack of evidence for such a notion. You're assuming something occurred in the past that doesn't occur today. Aside from A-sexual organisms females need males and vise versa for reproduction. You are veering greatly from science into the realm of speculation and fairy tales<br /><br /><br />Joe.Joe Siriannihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07596993325094868267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-14882306389212844832010-07-18T18:02:42.179-07:002010-07-18T18:02:42.179-07:00Same old false arguments.
Tiktaalik is a fossil t...Same old false arguments.<br /><br />Tiktaalik is a fossil that shows both fish and tetrapod features in its skeleton. Its descendants or the descendants of similar creatures could have lived on the edge of the water, breeding in the water as frogs do and coming out onto land for brief periods. <br /><br />Good grief, another person talking about the supposed problem of needing one individual of each sex to evolve separately! It is totally ignorant to think that evolution proposes such a need.highdeserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16689032652542100074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-67430360922520386642010-04-11T19:19:27.604-07:002010-04-11T19:19:27.604-07:00CD
Can you show me in the scriptures where it sup...CD<br /><br />Can you show me in the scriptures where it supports, states or implies that God used evolution to bring about his creation all the way up to the existence of Adam himself?<br /><br />Please give the supporting scriptures. <br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />JoeJoe Siriannihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07596993325094868267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-92167868848604950822010-04-11T18:28:36.556-07:002010-04-11T18:28:36.556-07:00I found this on a non-Youtube site, and thus have ...I found this on a non-Youtube site, and thus have no filter problems. I will respond to the first question because that is an argument about evolution.<br /><br />Evolutionists believe that chance drives things, but not in the way the video implies. You don’t need monkeys to randomly type out Hamlet, not even on the 10^153 try. That’s not how it works, and that’d be ludicrous, but that’s what the video’s creator implies we’re putting forward. No. Very gradual change. <br /><br />We see that chance leads to many variations in living, just in what we can observe today in nature. And we see that those variations can accumulate and effect change, as it has been intelligently driven by breeding of animals like dogs. We purposely specialized dog breeds to certain tasks: rat killers, hunting dogs, herding dogs, etc. It takes no grate leap of faith to believe in certain very small, very gradual changes happen in nature. Some are detrimental, others give no distinct advantage, but others do cause some advantage, and some of those advantages can be passed on in the genes. It really takes no stretch of the imagination to believe this. And, when given enough time, advantages that are passed on genetically VERY slowly cause variation in species. When I realized how reasonable this was, I first began to question Creationism. <br /><br />I feel the second point fails to understand the intelligent atheist who probably has some sense of humility before science. Such an atheist probably understands that, in Einstein’s words, all of today’s science is still “primitive and childlike” compared to the great breadth of undiscovered, unrevealed truths. If he can’t explain why matter & energy exist, exactly where they came from, he won’t lose sleep.<br /><br />I just feel that the video tries so hard to understand atheists (and evolutionists), but it really misses it and fowls up.<br /><br />And, Joe, you are not going to win atheists by appealing to reason. Test for yourself if what I'm now saying isn't true. It’s got to be a work of the spirit. What we believe is foolishness to those perishing. When Paul came to the Corinthians, he came “not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” and “decided to know nothing among [them] except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (From 1 Cor 2, ESL). If you preach evolution/creation, you will fall short. Preach the cross! Preach Christ! He is everything!Christian Darwinist who probably should spend less time on this sitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-10184248695739102802010-03-30T04:26:58.507-07:002010-03-30T04:26:58.507-07:00Thank you, Joe, for taking the time to reply. Befo...Thank you, Joe, for taking the time to reply. Before I continue, on my computer the "Post a Reply" link appears to be the same color as the background. I noticed that when I last posed, too. <br /><br />Forgive me for misunderstanding you, which I probably am, but you seem to be arguing from silence that, because we know of no other planet that can support life, there must be none. God sometimes makes some surprising "coincidences." In my silly, sci-fi thinking, I'd say that he could have easily made another planet elsewhere to meet all those specifications for life, whatever they are. The Lord could make life radically different from how we know it. <br /><br />I was trying to say that just because the life here fits the earth perfectly doesn't exactly disprove evolution. One could say it developed/unfolded according to plan/evolved to fit the earth.<br /><br />Ironic that you mentioned C.S. Lewis. From his "The Problem of Pain":<br /><br /><i>“For long centuries, God perfected the animal from which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated [. . .] Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past [. . .] We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods [. . . ] They wanted some corner in the universe of which they could say to God, “This is our business, not yours.” But there is no such corner. They wanted to be nouns, but they were, and eternally must be, mere adjectives. We have no idea in what particular act, or series of acts, the self-contradictory, impossible wish found expression. For all I can see, it might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, but the question is of no consequence.”</i><br /><br />I found that quote here:<br />http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall/<br /><br />The above article talks about a subject I had a great deal of difficulty understanding with my fairly new evolutionist perspective. It helped me, and it may help you understand me, friend.<br /><br />The problem I have with articles like "He could have done it that way" and "Why God wouldn't use evolution" is that the world speaks, it testifies of evolution. I'm not simply embracing the most reasonable or appealing philosophy. I'm accepting creation's own witness about the process its Creator used. Paul recognized that the world testified that there was a Creator. <br /><br />If you want to take the time, you can read up on how Christians like me understand and interpret God's Word.<br />http://biologos.org/questions/category/faith/<br /><br /><b>George:</b> I don't have access to Youtube. I'm behind an accountability filter.Christian Darwinistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-40883347491183130282010-03-28T19:28:42.636-07:002010-03-28T19:28:42.636-07:00I find it interesting that you consider yourself a...I find it interesting that you consider yourself a novice in the field of science but can speculate that my friends are too shallow to understand the complexity. C.S. Lewis referred to your "mindset" as chronological snobbery.<br /><br />Why do you find the precision of the universe to support life on one known single planet amongst billions and billions of stars and galaxies "weak"? You have a major lack of understanding yourself just how coplex the universe and galaxy truly is. The entire universe is extremely rational and should be utterly chaotic and irrational if stellar evolution is true and the big bang really did occur. The odds are too great to ignore as a man of science and mathamatics would tell you.<br /><br />I think you would have an extremely difficult time (as I have asked you before) to show how Christians can reconcile the evolutionary theory with the bible. You have to reconcile the contradictions between how scripture (which is divinely inspired by God himself) and how God says he did it and what evolution teaches. The two are irreconcilable. <br /><br />I would like to refer you to some of my earlier post that show crucial evidence that God did not use the method of evolution to bring about his creation and then say "it is very good" after everything finally stopped dying off from disease and mutating. <br /><br />‘He could have done it that way … couldn’t He?’ (Operation: Refuting Compromise (ORC))<br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0204lead.asp<br /><br />Why wouldn’t God use evolution?<br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/1223.asp<br /><br />Did the Creator use Evolution?<br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/evolution.asp<br /><br />What’s the problem with theistic evolution?<br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0520.asp<br /><br />And your reference "Evolution tailors species to their environment." Though I wouldn't put it in those words, no Christian argues about "natural selection" What you are forgetting is how did that species arrive their in the first place? And what other species or kind did it come from? And where is the fossil evidence for that transition? etc..<br /><br />Darwin's finches only had differences in the millimeters when it came to the different lengths of their beaks. This is not a case for Macro evolution (one animal turned into a completely different animal. This doesn't prove they evolved from other animals. It only proves that they adapt to their environment hence natural selection, weak ones die off and strong ones go on but they turn into different animals. Natural selection is not a mechanism to push any animal into becoming something different. It doesn't add anything to their genome to acquire the new traits of the next animal it is about to evolve into. <br /><br />Talk about weak arguments. My friend, you jumped from Finches landing on the Galapagos islands and adapting to going over long periods of time and then change accumulating and then bam! we have Darwinian evolution. And all of this with zero evidence. You are purel speculating on the subject<br /><br />Sorry my friend. You believe all of that on pure faith and nothing else because science does not support that. It's not even scientific. You have a great stretch of the imagination to make that far jump.<br /><br />Thanks for the comments<br /><br /><br />JoeJoe Siriannihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07596993325094868267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-67418335156910219502010-03-28T16:23:39.492-07:002010-03-28T16:23:39.492-07:00I'd recommend you watch this.I'd recommend you watch <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of0PjoZY4L0" rel="nofollow">this</a>.Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-64004321487689906572010-03-28T04:30:43.078-07:002010-03-28T04:30:43.078-07:00I'm sorry to say I couldn't watch the vide...I'm sorry to say I couldn't watch the video. I'm behind a web filter. I enjoy the accountability.<br /><br />Anyhow, without seeing the video, I would like to comment nonetheless.<br /><br />Being an absolute novice at science, it is pretty awesome how earth is in just such a position to support life. Scientists have theorized that Mars might somehow be able to support life under the right conditions. However, nothing got the ball rolling there.<br /><br />The argument that everything is too perfect for evolution is pretty weak. You'll convince your friends who have a shallow understanding of evolution, but no one else. Evolution tailors species to their environment. The finches that landed on an island in the ocean within a matter of generations become adapted and specialized to live on the island. Over long periods of time, change accumulates, and then you've got Darwinian evolution. I think you're preaching to the choir and educating them using straw men to boot. (COMBO: Triple idiom score!)<br /><br />I found a website for people of my mindset. I think you'll find it interesting, though I don't think you'll find it persuasive: www.biologos.org. It's helmed by an atheist-turned-Christian who worked on the human genome project.<br /><br />In case I don't comment again this week, in all seriousness: He is risen!Born Again, Bible Believing Darwinistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-37512513588909937492010-03-27T21:52:40.876-07:002010-03-27T21:52:40.876-07:00Joe, I just wanted to thank you for your kind word...Joe, I just wanted to thank you for your kind words in your opening intro to this post. I also want to thank you for clearly identifying our faith's and beliefs in that intro. That is very important stuff for anyone who stumbles upon this.Pedronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-517559575802799334.post-68550919400604396942010-03-27T21:46:38.895-07:002010-03-27T21:46:38.895-07:00interesting stuffinteresting stuffPedronoreply@blogger.com