EVOLUTION IN THE BIBLE? ARE YOU KIDDING?!

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pogrud

Guest
#21
It is the gradual process by which the diversity and complexity we see in the universe arose from more primitive and simple forms, this process has according to evolutionary doctrine been slowly developing over approx 3000 million years or more...
Close enough. It doesn't have time frames though. It's a process applicable to any organism within our universe describing how it changes over time, much like how we now understand how gravity affects anything with mass.

...in several thousand years of recorded human history it was generally believed that life was created instantly and divinely in its fixed form, each species and life form recieving it's own Genesis and creation fom a higher intelligent being or beings
So you're hypothesis is that if a belief has been around for a significant enough time, it must be true and anything we later find to contradict this must be false. So gravity doesn't exist, electro-magnetism is 'magic', the world is flat, etc.

In science, if contradictory evidence comes along, your original theories and hypothesis are re-assessed and you either alter or scrap those original theories. For example, Newton's idea of gravity was fine, we found it didn't always work, and we eventually came up with a more refined theory (Einstein's General Relativity). No one is saying that the theory of Evolution will stay around forever. We may well find some contradictory evidence. At the moment there is none.

... it would take an amazing flight of fancy for me or any other Christian to not only take 'evolution' as truth, which it is not, it's an physical and scientific impossibillity, so cannot be taken as truth...
Truth, in a scientific context, is one for which all evidence to supports the theory with no contradictory evidence. If it is a physical and scientific impossibility please explain why. I've clarified why the 'evidence' against evolution claimed by you, Swat4Christ and Slepsog4 is incorrect. If you have some other 'physical and scientific' evidence still against evolution please share it.

Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist, it's gravely important, more so then ever in history that the distinction be made very clear.
I think Eric51 and I have done a good job of explaining why they can exist and how many Christians do believe in Evolution (and Science). Again, if you have a reason for why they cannot exist, please share.
 

RoboOp

Administrator
Staff member
Aug 4, 2008
1,419
651
113
#22
.
.
[clip]
.
.
It get irritated by hypocritical people who blame science but still enjoy all the benefits of it. If you want to blame science, don't bother using the computer, mobile phone, microwave, TV. Forget about seeking the latest medication or medical care. Either believe science has something to offer and respect the system of science or just live like the Amish. Evolution doesn't destroy creation. The majority of Christians outside of America do not believe the creation story literally. RoboOp, if you don't believe in evolution I'd love to hear your reasoning for it.
When I have time :)

In the meantime, I'm sure many others here can express (and have expressed) their reasons (for not believing evolution), if they have the time and interest.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
#23
Close enough. It doesn't have time frames though. It's a process applicable to any organism within our universe describing how it changes over time, much like how we now understand how gravity affects anything with mass.
Even Sir Isaac Newton himself didn't understand 'gravity', nobody does, but if you have people asking to many questions, and you didn't want to tell them the truth, you might come up with something like 'gravity theory'; like 'why do things fall to the earth'? and you might say in response, 'oh that is because big things attract little things to them, because they're ahhh big' and instead of just saying 'well heavy suff is stronger then not-so heavy stuff' you can spruce it up, few fancy words, a number set, things like that.



So you're hypothesis is that if a belief has been around for a significant enough time, it must be true and anything we later find to contradict this must be false. So gravity doesn't exist, electro-magnetism is 'magic', the world is flat, etc.
No I did not say that. the only reason that you know that the world is a sphere is because that knowledge has barely changed since Adam was told it by God. I think the Chinese were of the opinion that the earth was flat for a long time, until the Christians came with scripture and enlightened them, Jesuits to be precise told the Chinese the Earth was a sphere, that's always been known, the evolutionists are right on that one, bout the only thing they are right on.

In science, if contradictory evidence comes along, your original theories and hypothesis are re-assessed and you either alter or scrap those original theories. For example, Newton's idea of gravity was fine, we found it didn't always work, and we eventually came up with a more refined theory (Einstein's General Relativity). No one is saying that the theory of Evolution will stay around forever. We may well find some contradictory evidence. At the moment there is none.
Oh the theory was fine as a doctrine, it works very well, but not well enough, too many gaps, Newton didn't think much of it at all, probably was bored one day, or made it up as a joke, 'tell them the old apple fell on the head story'! Newton set the record straight later on, pangs on concience I suppose, pretty much said that whatever you call 'gravity' that is controlled by another force that we can't explain...and the he went back to reading his Bible.

Now Einstein was known to tell porky pies (lies), just about all his research papers came from his wife or other scientists, he was a plagerizer basically.

General Relativity has a long history, this goes all the way back to Babylon, it's ancient, never goes away, when Satan is in a bind he pulls out the old Relativity spell, it compliments existentialism which fosters nihilism totally secular sucker punch!



Truth, in a scientific context, is one for which all evidence to supports the theory with no contradictory evidence. If it is a physical and scientific impossibility please explain why. I've clarified why the 'evidence' against evolution claimed by you, Swat4Christ and Slepsog4 is incorrect. If you have some other 'physical and scientific' evidence still against evolution please share it.


Why? Because it is totally beyond logic and reason and contrary to all physical observation and scientific test! The crux is 'over time' that's your gap filler right, over time we see disintergration, we see the gradual increase of disorder, just if I drive up and dump a truck load of bricks on a vacant lot, the bricks will just fall in a pile, they wont magically arrange themselves into a fine brick house, if I just leave them there 'over time' they will not do anything but simply erode, in pile, until they turn to dust and blown away by the wind, never to be bricks again, "What is our life, but vapour, that appeareth for a little while, and then it vanisheth away."

Order does not become higher more complex order, over time, entropy increases resulting in disorder 'over time' remember that' that's your crux, 'over time'. The odds of Order resulting in ever increasing amounts of order higher and more refined and sophisticated order, like the pile of dumped bricks falling into the shape of a nicely designed and livable abode, of course other materials would need to by 'chance happen to congeal with my bricks, like cement, that could be brought in by say an explosion at a nearby cement factory, sort of flying into the bricks as they fall giving them a nice lick of mortar before they arrange themselves into walls, what else, fall of the land, could be a factor, wind direction maybe an overhead plane drops roof tiles from the sky by accident, just pure accident and they fall on top and they too, by chance form a roof, I mean by chance, just assume, what are the chances, it could happen once over billions of attempts, it could happen once. That's how evolutionary secular state followers sound. The chances of that happening are so embarrasing they should not be given a number, the number is 'impossible', that the number, now maybe that is 10^20, conservative estimate, probably higher, I guess, I don't know, but just to give it a chance, I mean we can put a figure on it;- pile of bricks to turn into a house and given any amount of time, so maybe the roof tiles come from somwhere and some other component comes from somewhere and they all happen to congeal in the correct house formation, once, just once, what are the chances? but is that even reasonable, a Logician or Theologian or Philosopher would have to declare that an unreasonable expectation.
 
May 3, 2009
246
2
0
#24
As a scientist, I can agree that all this is in keeping with the current understanding of science:



Time is tightly linked to space, it cannot exist outside of it. Science believes the universe came from a singularity (a tiny point). It does not explain how this was created - it could have been created by a God or could be infinitley expanding and collapsing.

Not talking about Science, I am talking about the Church making a pronouncement on a matter of Creation which is the natural jurisdiction of the Church. Therefore, your comment is irrelevant.



Again, in terms of science - time is relative. The term 'day' is meaningless, or at least very different, without the structure of the solar system as we know it. Following on from above, if God did create the singularity, there is no reason it he didn't plan for it develop as it did.
Time is relative because time is a creation of God. For God, time does not exist. The term "day" is meaningless to God. Because God transcends space and time. Not sure why you are making these comments--trying to show off?


As before, there is no reason why his creations could not develop as he planned. The argument creationists often use is the difference between macro and micro evolution. From a biologist's perspective there is no difference in the processes - it's just handy for comparing different scales.

Not sure why you bothered to make this comment.



Much as before. Science cannot substantiate what a 'soul' is. It does however indicate we have developed over time, most likely as a result of evolution.

Who cares what science can or cannot substantiate? A soul as an entity is the providence of the Church, as an institution established by God, it is not a subject for science. Your comment is irrelevant.
quote]
 
P

pogrud

Guest
#25
Eric, in response to your last post, I was extending your point that science and christianity are not mutually exclusive by providing the 'scientific' take to all your points. There was no argument in there.
 
P

pogrud

Guest
#26
Even Sir Isaac Newton himself didn't understand 'gravity', nobody does, but if you have people asking to many questions, and you didn't want to tell them the truth, you might come up with something like 'gravity theory'; like 'why do things fall to the earth'? and you might say in response, 'oh that is because big things attract little things to them, because they're ahhh big' and instead of just saying 'well heavy suff is stronger then not-so heavy stuff' you can spruce it up, few fancy words, a number set, things like that.

Oh the theory was fine as a doctrine, it works very well, but not well enough, too many gaps, Newton didn't think much of it at all, probably was bored one day, or made it up as a joke, 'tell them the old apple fell on the head story'! Newton set the record straight later on, pangs on concience I suppose, pretty much said that whatever you call 'gravity' that is controlled by another force that we can't explain...and the he went back to reading his Bible.
Firstly, you seem to be claiming Newton as 'one of your flock'. Although, he may claim to believe in the bible, many Christians at the time view him as a heretic so I'd be wary. This is a quote of his that touches upon his outlook: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." - it's something any christian scientist would agree with.

So nobody understands gravity? As I've explained before - they are theories, which fit all evidence at the time. Based on Newtonian Gravity we could predict a huge number of things very accurately that we couldn't before - the motion of projectiles, the force needed to overcome gravity, the mass of the earth, the motion of the majority of planets etc. But I guess we knew all that from the bible already? Einstein's model of gravity further refined our understanding. As a result we can plot the path of anything under the force of gravity. This model is key for things such as the accuracy of GPS. I guess your opinion is that GPS is just a lucky guess though and isn't very accurate.

One other (non important) point to clear up your ignorance. Nowhere does it say that an apple fell on his head, that was popularised by cartoons.

No I did not say that. the only reason that you know that the world is a sphere is because that knowledge has barely changed since Adam was told it by God. I think the Chinese were of the opinion that the earth was flat for a long time, until the Christians came with scripture and enlightened them, Jesuits to be precise told the Chinese the Earth was a sphere, that's always been known, the evolutionists are right on that one, bout the only thing they are right on.
OK, what about the other things I mentioned? Electro-magnetism, all our current medical understanding. Let me guess... you think we don't understand any of it, and it's all lucky guess work?


Now Einstein was known to tell porky pies (lies), just about all his research papers came from his wife or other scientists, he was a plagerizer basically.

General Relativity has a long history, this goes all the way back to Babylon, it's ancient, never goes away, when Satan is in a bind he pulls out the old Relativity spell, it compliments existentialism which fosters nihilism totally secular sucker punch!
What is your proof that he stole it? Where is the proof it's from Babylon? In any case, General Relativity works extremely well. There is no evidence that contradicts it, unless you have some?

Why? Because it is totally beyond logic and reason and contrary to all physical observation and scientific test!
OK, please give a decent example of this, that's all I've asked for.

The crux is 'over time' that's your gap filler right, over time we see disintergration, we see the gradual increase of disorder, just if I drive up and dump a truck load of bricks on a vacant lot, the bricks will just fall in a pile, they wont magically arrange themselves into a fine brick house, if I just leave them there 'over time' they will not do anything but simply erode, in pile, until they turn to dust and blown away by the wind, never to be bricks again, "What is our life, but vapour, that appeareth for a little while, and then it vanisheth away."

Order does not become higher more complex order, over time, entropy increases resulting in disorder 'over time' remember that' that's your crux, 'over time'...
For people who don't want the details of science, a counter-example would be how can a basic seed grow into a complex plant.

Your example is of bricks, Evolution applies only to ORGANISMS. Are bricks ORGANISMS?

In your example you touch upon the amount of disorder and how it always increases, so I assume you're referring to the second law of thermodynamics. I've already explained in a previous post why you cannot apply it to evolution. Say I play along though: everyone of us is created, we also die, so the net change is zero.

...I mean by chance, just assume, what are the chances, it could happen once over billions of attempts, it could happen once. That's how evolutionary secular state followers sound. The chances of that happening are so embarrasing they should not be given a number, the number is 'impossible', that the number, now maybe that is 10^20, conservative estimate, probably higher, I guess, I don't know, but just to give it a chance, I mean we can put a figure on it...
The probability argument again. You're comparing it to something like randomly picking coloured balls from a bag. So you assume it's completely random. It's not though, nature has a degree of predictability to it. I'll use the abstract example I gave before - a football competition. The first day of the season - it's hard to know what's going to happen. Half way through the season, some teams are top of the league others are at the bottom. Using your principles, the team at the top is as likely to win or lose as the bottom team. Most people would realise that the team on the top is more likely to win than the team at the bottom though.

Applying this notion of probability to evolution - sure they are still long odds to get to human as we know it. We're talking a huge amount of time though, so it's certainly not unfeasable. Evolution also indicates that we didn't necessarily have to be exactly as we are today - just as a house can have many different combinations of bricks, windows and cement and still be a 'house'.

The abstract example of a football team to argue the 'odds' debate is a long way from how we became human from a bunch of cells. In a previous post on this thread, I've given an example of how a circulatory system and organs could have gradually developed.
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
#27
The issue is not what could have, might have, possibly was, etc. The issue is what actually is and did happen. GOD SAID.... Read Genesis 1 & 2.

God created a mature fully functioning universe, with our solar system, and our planet.
 
P

pogrud

Guest
#28
The issue is not what could have, might have, possibly was, etc. The issue is what actually is and did happen. GOD SAID.... Read Genesis 1 & 2.

God created a mature fully functioning universe, with our solar system, and our planet.
I do not argue against that. The bible is a description of events. It does not describe in extreme detail. Passages like "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." do not explain how that exactly came about - it only indicates that it was God's plan. It doesn't state that they magically appeared out of nowhere. If anything, I'd interpret that as it growing from the Earth.

If the bible were written as a science textbook detailing every tiny step and reason behind it, the message in it would be lost on the average person. There is no purpose for it to describe gravity, atoms or how our bodies work. If anything, science shows just how complex the universe is.

The only 'argument' I see against evolution is the interpretation of 'day'. What is a 'day' to God though if he's eternal?

My only agenda to this thread is to try and understand where the arguments against evolution come from. If you read the rest of this thread, nobody has been able to describe anything from the bible that rules out evolution. Any scientific 'evidence' discounting evolution is flawed. I only seek that Christians understand that science is not an attack on God.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
#29
The only 'argument' I see against evolution is the interpretation of 'day'. What is a 'day' to God though if he's eternal?
"A day is a thousand years to the Lord"

The Bible must be interpreted by the Bible, so a 'day' may not neccessarily mean a 24hr day, but then again it might mean just that.

In the 'Book of Adam' which some scholars consider to be inspired at least in parts; God says to Adam that salvation will come in 5 days, Adam believes and waits anxiously for 5 days praying with all his might that he may get back what he lost, only to hear God come to him and say that He the Lord did not mean 5 small Adam days but 5 big God days, He meant 5000 years! Adam was crushed by that solemn news.
 
B

Baruch

Guest
#30
I do not argue against that. The bible is a description of events. It does not describe in extreme detail. Passages like "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." do not explain how that exactly came about - it only indicates that it was God's plan. It doesn't state that they magically appeared out of nowhere. If anything, I'd interpret that as it growing from the Earth.

If the bible were written as a science textbook detailing every tiny step and reason behind it, the message in it would be lost on the average person. There is no purpose for it to describe gravity, atoms or how our bodies work. If anything, science shows just how complex the universe is.

The only 'argument' I see against evolution is the interpretation of 'day'. What is a 'day' to God though if he's eternal?

My only agenda to this thread is to try and understand where the arguments against evolution come from. If you read the rest of this thread, nobody has been able to describe anything from the bible that rules out evolution. Any scientific 'evidence' discounting evolution is flawed. I only seek that Christians understand that science is not an attack on God.
What about the description of the behemoth being a dinosaur in Job 40? That is pretty defined as a tail like a cedar is a tree which no hippo nor elephant has.

Then you have pictures from historical newspaper accounts that proves dinosaurs existed with man.

http://www.s8int.com/plesio.html
 
P

pogrud

Guest
#31
What about the description of the behemoth being a dinosaur in Job 40? That is pretty defined as a tail like a cedar is a tree which no hippo nor elephant has.

Then you have pictures from historical newspaper accounts that proves dinosaurs existed with man.

http://www.s8int.com/plesio.html
Firstly, the possibliity of a dinosaur being described does not imply evolution doesn't exist. Suppose it were a dinosaur, it only suggests humans and dinosaurs may have overlapped.

The issue with interpretating Job 40 literally as a dinosuar, is that you're supposing it has a giant tail the size of a cedar, but it's small enough to hide under lotus leaves (which are a few feet high, if that). You could say that lotus plants used to be bigger, but that too implies evolution.

How do pictures from historical newspaper accounts prove that dinosaurs existed with man? Unless they were photographs from the time? I'm pretty sure photography isn't that old though.
 
P

pogrud

Guest
#32
One more thing...

Personally, I wouldn't describe 'His tail sways like a cedar' as pretty defined. Does it refer to the size, the movement, the sound...

I'm seriously interested in what the evidence is against evolution. I'd love you guys to ask your preachers what the evidence is against it.
 
D

Dragoon9

Guest
#33
No offense meant to those of you who are committed to this topic, but I find it kind of a pointless one in terms of end result.

Evolution does not disprove creation by God. It may put into question whether creation was a 'literal' human 7 days, but scripture tells us often that time for God is not like time for man.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (2Peter 3:8)
Interesting that shortly before that verse, we see, "but they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." (2Pe 3:5)

Evolution seeks to explain a process... it says nothing about whether that process was done by the hand of God.
 
D

Dragoon9

Guest
#34
Oh Eric51....
are you sure you don't mean Homo Sapiens Sapiens?
 
P

pogrud

Guest
#35
No offense meant to those of you who are committed to this topic, but I find it kind of a pointless one in terms of end result.

Evolution does not disprove creation by God. It may put into question whether creation was a 'literal' human 7 days, but scripture tells us often that time for God is not like time for man.
I think you're spot on Dragoon, apart whether the discussion being pointless in terms of end result - It's your opinion though.

I'm trying to find out whether there is a valid 'creationist' arguement for why evolution is false. There are many claims made by 'creationists'. None of the ones which have been discussed on this thread could be taken seriously by anyone who actually understands science or what evolution is. In my opinion, such claims only manage to make Christianity a laughing stock to anyone who values science. Such ridiculus arguments are likely to put off anyone who understands evolution/science. I've yet to see any respected scientists come out with something along the lines of 'evidence X proves the evolution is false and the world was created in 7 human earth days'.
 
M

mcap

Guest
#36
Sounds like another evolutionist twisting the Bible around to fit his beliefs.I think the most important part of the argument between evolution and creation is that this is exactly what Satan wants from Christians.If we are constantly defending our faith instead of living it,Satan is winning.Believe in what the Bible says,live it every day and know that regardless of what proven evidence you show an evolutionist they will still argue.It is really not worth the time.
 
P

pogrud

Guest
#37
MCap. Can you explain what I've twisted round from the bible? or could you tell me what the proven evidence is?
 
May 3, 2009
246
2
0
#38
What is the relationship between faith and reason for Apostolic Christians?


Tertullian raised this issue early on with his famous question, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” Should Christians attempt to appropriate secular thought and culture, or should they avoid it altogether? Should we purify the best of human reason as a means of leading to and reinforcing faith, or should we occupy ourselves with Revelation alone? Over the course of centuries it is fascinating to observe the different emphases the great defenders of the Faith have given the roles of reason and faith in appreciating the truth of the Gospel.

For some, the inner logic of Revelation is so obvious that it can be largely demonstrated through natural reason. Faith is above all a confirmation and a shortcut. Some apologists argue that if we gain sufficient understanding, we will believe, and systematic rational argument is the key to their work. But for others, the essential force of faith comes from a subjective commitment to an interior experience so luminous that it demands a response. These would say that we understand primarily because we believe, and they place a great emphasis on the sublimity of the Gospel and the personal fulfillment it offers. We also find every imaginable position between these two poles.

But Apostolic Christianity does not share the Protestant emphasis on the total depravity of man and the consequent worthlessness of all his works. For Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, faith and reason may sometimes be in tension, but it is ultimately a harmonious and fruitful tension. In this context, it is not surprising that in a recent news story we find Pope Benedict inviting university students to offer “a convinced witness to the ‘possible friendship’ between knowledge and faith,” and to avoid the temptations which lead away from this friendship. The Pope explains:
This involves incessant efforts to unite maturity in faith with growth through study and the acquisition of academic knowledge. Study also represents a providential opportunity to progress along the road of faith, because well-cultivated intelligence opens man’s heart to listening to the voice of God, highlighting the importance of discernment and humility.​
But, Benedict cautions, in our time “there exists a race, sometimes a desperate race, toward appearance and possession at all costs, at the expense, unfortunately, of being.” For this reason, the Church never tires of exhorting people “to remain watchful and not to fear choosing ‘alternative’ paths which only Christ can indicate.” In the Apostolic view, so well articulated by Benedict XVI, faith does not obliterate reason. Rather, it recognizes reason as good, relies on it for deeper understanding, and guides it to still greater heights.
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
#39
I love it when an evolutionist likes to quote scripture and twists it.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (2Peter 3:8)

This is pointing out the fact that what APPEARS to have taken thousands of years to accomplish, God can do in one day.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
#40
So nobody understands gravity? As I've explained before - they are theories, which fit all evidence at the time. Based on Newtonian Gravity we could predict a huge number of things very accurately that we couldn't before - the motion of projectiles, the force needed to overcome gravity, the mass of the earth, the motion of the majority of planets etc. But I guess we knew all that from the bible already? Einstein's model of gravity further refined our understanding. As a result we can plot the path of anything under the force of gravity. This model is key for things such as the accuracy of GPS. I guess your opinion is that GPS is just a lucky guess though and isn't very accurate.

One other (non important) point to clear up your ignorance. Nowhere does it say that an apple fell on his head, that was popularised by cartoons.
What you or Newton or anybody else call 'Gravity' from the Latin gravitas (heaviness) is an invisible force, a force that acts on matter, with no identification of catalyst, no identification of cause or mediator, no physicist has ever been able to identify the relationship between the 'gravitational' frce and any other known forces, Newton himself was unable to provide adequate explaination. Newtonian gravity theory does not explain planetary orbit as it does not really explain anything and Newton was not satisfied that it did.

"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."

Newton is correct in stating that Gravity (heaviness) is a implausible explaination, but that is not to say that it will not do as a suitable excuse for a lack of explaination, he does not state that an brainwashed worker drone would not accept it, in fact it is a simplistic and primitive old idea that fills a gap, it's a stop-gap, a prop used in the secular materialism realm, it's simplicity makes it attractive, and it has the Kabbahlistic advantage of of creating a barrier to inquiry, in Kabbahlistic thought if one wanted to create a barrier to thought development in a controlled class, Newtonian Gravity Theory would fit the bill perfectly and then General Relativity would be the logical next extemporization.


OK, what about the other things I mentioned? Electro-magnetism, all our current medical understanding. Let me guess... you think we don't understand any of it, and it's all lucky guess work?
Electro-magnetism is infinitely more powerful then 'gravity', what is called 'gravity' is very weak as a force, and poorly understood. For example; modern establishment empirical science would have a niave student believe that the moon's orbit is responsible for the tidal movement of oceans, a force supposedly by its own definition connected by weight and mass, the inquiry of course is then by that standard- how much does the Atlantic Ocean weigh? The neutral gravity zone has been breached no? Breached twice by the moon's 'gravitational pull' one reaching out towards the Atlantic Ocean and then passing back through a supposedly 'neutral gravity zone', that is illogical! But further they go claiming that this invisible force is able to pull an entire ocean towards it, yet a sea bird can fly against the 'moon force' on a ocean breeze!Or that the moon actually sucks the earth towards it causing it to bulge, like a beachball gatting sucked into the super vacuum cleaner, but that the earth's alleged gravity is some 6 times stronger so the Atlantic ocean gets sucked back to earth in the opposite direction intead of ending up with a splash on the face of the moon! And they call the empirical science!

Theories of 'gravity' force are simply fantastic, they can defy all logic, but like said 'gravity' is not there for the inquiring philosphical mind, it is a man made thought barrier, that has more holes in it then swiss cheese, but that would not stop anyone teaching it in a school or university now would it?



What is your proof that he stole it?
Because it was known long before a scruffy patents clerk claimed it.


Where is the proof it's from Babylon? In any case, General Relativity works extremely well. There is no evidence that contradicts it, unless you have some?
Yes it works extremely well and has done for thousands of years, it just does not explain obsevable phenomena that all, it works well as an existential alienation meme for the purpose of mass human control.



For people who don't want the details of science, a counter-example would be how can a basic seed grow into a complex plant.
it's growth pattern is preprogrammed in it's DNA, a seed would find it hard to writ its own DNA code, but according to evolutionists, it does not have to all it need is 'a long time' and 'blind chance', just need to say the magic words.


In your example you touch upon the amount of disorder and how it always increases, so I assume you're referring to the second law of thermodynamics. I've already explained in a previous post why you cannot apply it to evolution. Say I play along though: everyone of us is created, we also die, so the net change is zero.
No of course I cannot apply Law or physics to 'evolution', 'evolution' is magic it can defy all observable phenomena, just look how it defies all odds, even infinite odds are no match for the magic word! It amazes me how much faith secular evolutionaries have, they have amazing faith, the problem we true Christians find is that we are too logical, we ask too many questions when we suspect a lie, and that gets you in all sorts of trouble with the state bereaucratic apparatus.



We're talking a huge amount of time though, so it's certainly not unfeasable.
That's right just extend the amount of time and if it goes past infinity, just cast probability out the window and believe, believe because that's what they told you in school, that's what the text book said, that's what National Geographic magazine says, Discovery Channel says so, it must be true, no one would lie would they? all you need is time, evolutionaries remind me of buddhist monks chanting the same magic words over and over again- "vain repititions" as the Bible says, nothing but "vainity" and "vain reptitions"

Evolution also indicates that we didn't necessarily have to be exactly as we are today
You saved the best till last...that really is the crux of it isn't it, really gets to the core of secular post-modernism; just start from the basis that what you observe presently as not being true, because evolution 'indicates' that it must be something else! Right, just give this doctrine another 10 years and it will be alligned with hindu re-incarntion concepts, that's the next obvious extemporization.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.