The Lie of Evolution......

  • 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.

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#61
I would say the eye is a main stumbling block too.

Why would an eyeless creature begin a hundred-million-year project of forming an eye
Are you serious with it or is it irony?

Of course it does not work this way that some creature says "hey, I will start a hundred million year project". Changes were small and gradual.

For first organisms, the development of cells sensitive to light was useful etc. They did not plan the end. God did.
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#63
Are you serious with it or is it irony?

Of course it does not work this way that some creature says "hey, I will start a hundred million year project". Changes were small and gradual.

For first organisms, the development of cells sensitive to light was useful etc. They did not plan the end. God did.
The science has shown that the time models do not work for the evolution of the eye to have occurred between the various species.
When I find the study I will post it.

How does a organism even know light exists or that sounds exists for that matter so that it mutates to receive it?

When kittens do not receive visual stimulation at birth they go blind, it has to be fully functioning with all the necessary components to work.

Oh so God is the deciding factor in how things evolved not natural selection, are you still talking about evolution?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#65
How does a organism even know light exists or that sounds exists for that matter so that it mutates to receive it?
I think you do not understand how evolution works. Its not a mindful process of the organism/creature. Mindful process is called cultivation or breeding.

Oh so God is the deciding factor in how things evolved not natural selection, are you still talking about evolution?
We can talk about evolution as a process or we can talk about evolution from more holistic approach and this approach of course involves God - theistic evolution.

Like we can talk about gravity as such or we can talk about it from the point of who made the laws of nature.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
#67
I would say the eye is a main stumbling block too.

Why would an eyeless creature begin a hundred-million-year project of forming an eye which would be of no use to it whatsoever until the hundred million years were over? Did these microscopic animals think they were developing something that would be useful after a period of time of which even humans cannot even begin to conceive? And how many more million years for a fish eye to evolve to be useful out of water?

At least we have one scientist that can be honest about where evolution completely fails.

Professor Murray Eden, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, points out that the human genes contain about a billion nucleotides. (A nucleotide is the smallest unit of information in our genes --like a letter in a chemical alphabet. Groups of nucleotides convey messages to the developing embryo: messages such as "This white rat shall have pink eyes" or "This child shall be left-handed like its Dad.") He has shown that however you made the calculations, you ended up with the same conclusion: the length of time life has been on earth was not nearly long enough for all those nucleotides--all that information--to have been generated by chance mutations.

"Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution"

In evolution God builds up the earth based only on death and carnage, it is antithetical to the very nature of God, under selective mutation and survival of the fittest this would have been the Sermon on the Mount........

"For the health of the population as a whole, the weak and the sick in your midst need to be left to die. Giving food to those incapable of passing on healthy genes might seem nice, but in the long run it will hurt everyone."


All science aside, this notion of natural selection and survival of the fittest has been the philosophical underpinning of the most heinous acts of murder in human history Nazism, Soviet Communism, Chinese Communism and Eugenics and I suspect we have yet to see its full dire implications for this world as the OP has rightly suggested.


That any Christian could align themselves with this scientific philosophy that has led to so much destruction baffles my mind.
Natural selection is not a thing either, it undermines the well tested hereditary science.

Consider sickle cell anemia- a hereditary killer disease that has increased with the increase in population. As much as it is a recessive gene, carriers are being born daily. No one in their right mind would attribute the increase to natural selection because sickle cell anemia is not beneficial in any way. And if it is not beneficial, why is it increasing in the population? natural selection has failed to wipe it out because there's no such thing as natural selection.
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#68
I think you do not understand how evolution works. Its not a mindful process of the organism/creature. Mindful process is called cultivation or breeding.



We can talk about evolution as a process or we can talk about evolution from more holistic approach and this approach of course involves God - theistic evolution.

Like we can talk about gravity as such or we can talk about it from the point of who made the laws of nature.
God does not fit into this theory.

God does not create from death. This is a repugnant view about the author of life.

Evolution is far from an elegant mechanism, the entire theory is base upon billions of years of death and starvation making God more of a sadist than a loving Creator

I assume you accept the resurrection without scientific consensus?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#69
God does not fit into this theory.

God does not create from death. This is a repugnant view about the author of life.

Evolution is far from an elegant mechanism, the entire theory is base upon billions of years of death and starvation making God more of a sadist than a loving Creator

I assume you accept the resurrection without scientific consensus?
Its just your opinion. We can have various opinions. Somebody says that calvinistic God is not acceptable, somebody says that arminianistic view of God is not acceptable.

You think that God using evolution is not acceptable or elegant or whatever. Is dead and dry moon elegant? Is dead and dry Mars elegant? Is hot Venus elegant? Is the asteroid belt elegant? I do not know. Is a virus elegant? "Elegance" is a very subjective thing.

I do not care. These emotional opinions are not evidence of anything. God is as He is and we can only study how the universe works or what he explicitly revealed.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
#70
Simply - because "neo-darwinistic interpretation" is one of many interpretations of how evolution works.
There's simply no interpretation of evolution that would make sense. Generally, every interpretation looks at organism in a very narrow scope in the name of distinct organs/traits/structure. Living organisms are not about organs/traits/structure but they are about systems. When you start seeing an organism as a system, it becomes a lot more complex than evolutionists would want us to believe. Instead of seeing a heart, see a circulatory system/ instead of a reproductive organ, look at the reproductive system and remember all the systems work together in an organism to maintain life- none of the systems can stand alone.

An evolutionist would say the most ambiguous thing; the fin transformed into a limb.
For a fin to transform into a limb, there must be a series of coordinated mutations in the skeletal system/ nervous system/ circulatory system/immune system. Each of these systems contains millions of components controlled by millions of genes. Mutations on one system only can paralyze the organism, coordinated mutations in all relevant systems can never be referred to as random mutations but designed. Designed mutations never happen. Random mutations do happen but are either devastating or have no impact.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#71
There's simply no interpretation of evolution that would make sense. Generally, every interpretation looks at organism in a very narrow scope in the name of distinct organs/traits/structure. Living organisms are not about organs/traits/structure but they are about systems. When you start seeing an organism as a system, it becomes a lot more complex than evolutionists would want us to believe. Instead of seeing a heart, see a circulatory system/ instead of a reproductive organ, look at the reproductive system and remember all the systems work together in an organism to maintain life- none of the systems can stand alone.

An evolutionist would say the most ambiguous thing; the fin transformed into a limb.
For a fin to transform into a limb, there must be a series of coordinated mutations in the skeletal system/ nervous system/ circulatory system/immune system. Each of these systems contains millions of components controlled by millions of genes. Mutations on one system only can paralyze the organism, coordinated mutations in all relevant systems can never be referred to as random mutations but designed. Designed mutations never happen. Random mutations do happen but are either devastating or have no impact.
I think many interpretations of evolution make sense. And some mixtures of them, too.

But of course, holistic or systematic approach to anything is better than the specialization.
 
Aug 8, 2018
222
70
28
#72
It seems there is a faction or cult in Christianity that makes it their focus to take on evolution and science in general. To do this they find a need to do the job of science using the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific book. It is a spiritual book. If God wanted his book to to be a manual of science instead of a manual for life he would have written more than two chapters about it.
Anyway , hard core creationists have there on agenda and it’s not on Jesus.
Well that is not true. All throughout scripture God explains the inner workings of things. In the Book of revelation for instance- God reveals the Carbon Bond of our DNA 666=The number 666 relates to the carbon atom, and man. Carbon-12; one of 5 elements in the human DNA is composed of 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons, which equates to 666. Carbon-12 is the most abundant of the two stable isotopes of the element carbon, accounting for 98.89% of carbon.

It is to this that the Mark of the Beast will attach to. It is the number of man. Through science , under fallen angel knowledge- man has learned how to add genes or DNA sequence to creatures. We see example of this throughout recent history, only now to be perfected, examples:
Glow in the dark rats, sheep which produce spider web milk ex.......

Everything is Futile Ecclesiastes 1:7-9
…7All the rivers flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full; to the place from which the streams come, there
again they flow. 8All things are wearisome, more than one can describe; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor
the ear content with hearing. 9What has been is what will be, and what has been done will be done again; there
is nothing new under the sun.…

This crossing of genes is documented in the ACCURATELY COMPILED WRITINGS OF ENOCH, held by the ETHIOPIANS. Only a few translations have been made. You do not have to agree with me. But let me just say this, a book written about 5,000 years ago (maybe more) -for it to be relevant today is amazing. God was angry that the watchers taught man the mixing of genes. Regardless if you accept the book or not, the very fact that man has done this in ancient times proves what Solomon said in Ecclesiastes.

Mad scientist have learned that Carbon is the glue, if you will, that binds. They have learned how to attach genes from other species to our DNA. Of course they have practiced this first on animals , in modern history. None the less they have perfected it. The Mark will be given during the Distress of nations , during a time of great calamity and strife for the world. The Mark of the beast is just that. The false Messiah will believe in extraterrestrial beings. This is something pushed by evolutionist. They believe in an intelligent designer but they believe they are highly evolved humans or beings from distant galaxies who are more advance than us and made us.

This is why evolution is a dangerous doctrine. People who believe they evolved from lesser creatures like primates will not see the distinction between beast and man. They then will see nothing wrong with this mark. After all they believe their origin has come from an animal. They deny the degrees of separation. The false Messiah will come from the EDOM Jew= Red Jew lineage of Esau.
GOD said: "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated".

I will not reveal his name here . I know the symbol of his image as well, which is the image of his family lineage. The 'Red Stew' in the story of Jacob is the story of the non-kosher mark that will be received by people during the end of the age of sin. This is satan's climatic attempt at deceiving the Elect , if it were possible.

The Mark will at first seem great to the people who receive it until a grievous sore appears upon them.
The First Six Bowls of Wrath Rev.16:1-2
1Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go, pour out on the earth the seven bowls of God’s wrath.” 2So the first angel went and poured out his bowl on the earth, and loathsome, malignant sores broke out on those who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image.

These men will also be tormented by demons. Demons are the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim. They are given form again.
"as in the days of Noah so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man".
The Fifth Trumpet Rev.4-6
…4They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5The locusts were not given power to kill them, but only to torment them for five months, and their torment was like the stinging of a scorpion. 6In those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, but death will escape them.…

In Noah's time men were crossing genes. Women were giving themselves into union with the fallen ones= fallen angels, now known as devils. The prince over these devils and demons is satan.

The evolutionist have and are paving the way for all of this. I believe we are the last generation and will see all these things happen.
If you notice these people will seek death but it will escape them. Why? There souls are taken over by demons. No exorcism will work because you only cast out from what is redeemable. Their flesh is no longer human flesh but has animal markers.
Talk about NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD! You can't make this stuff up, art imitates what is or what will be. The Revelation reveals some creepy stuff. Anyone on board with this............ your fried!
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#73
Its just your opinion. We can have various opinions. Somebody says that calvinistic God is not acceptable, somebody says that arminianistic view of God is not acceptable.

You think that God using evolution is not acceptable or elegant or whatever. Is dead and dry moon elegant? Is dead and dry Mars elegant? Is hot Venus elegant? Is the asteroid belt elegant? I do not know. Is a virus elegant? "Elegance" is a very subjective thing.

I do not care. These emotional opinions are not evidence of anything. God is as He is and we can only study how the universe works or what he explicitly revealed.
Yup He revealed His creative energies very well in the first few chapters of Genesis, I guess that is not enough for some.

The study of biology in helpful to understand how were are created and cure diseases etc., however for many in the field biology and its various branches it is a way to explain God out of the picture.

Evolutionary biology being a prime example.
I have had more than one family member leave medical training or training in the sciences as an atheist.
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#74
It seems there is a faction or cult in Christianity that makes it their focus to take on evolution and science in general. To do this they find a need to do the job of science using the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific book. It is a spiritual book. If God wanted his book to to be a manual of science instead of a manual for life he would have written more than two chapters about it.
Anyway , hard core creationists have there on agenda and it’s not on Jesus.
Umm..... its the hardcore evolutionists that have THE agenda and the creationists are reacting to it.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#75
Yup He revealed His creative energies very well in the first few chapters of Genesis, I guess that is not enough for some.

The study of biology in helpful to understand how were are created and cure diseases etc., however for many in the field biology and its various branches it is a way to explain God out of the picture.

Evolutionary biology being a prime example.
I have had more than one family member leave medical training or training in the sciences as an atheist.
If you think that two poetic and metaphorical chapters of Bible are what should teach you about how universe or biological life works, ok, but thats just your opinion, not something that is necessarily "christian".

Leaving school as atheist - thats because YEC Christians in the USA make this "war" between science and christianity. Of course, when people see that science is right, they have no other choice than to reject such Christianity or to live in some kind of a dualistic world.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#76
Umm..... its the hardcore evolutionists that have THE agenda and the creationists are reacting to it.
Hardcore YEC have the agenda, too.

People like R. Dawkins have the same kind of mirror people like Ken Ham, dr. Dino and similar.

Both camps have unscientific agendas. The first one uses science as "God is not needed" and the other one uses literal reading of biblical poems as "the science".
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#77
If you think that two poetic and metaphorical chapters of Bible are what should teach you about how universe or biological life works, ok, but thats just your opinion, not something that is necessarily "christian".

Leaving school as atheist - thats because YEC Christians in the USA make this "war" between science and christianity. Of course, when people see that science is right, they have no other choice than to reject such Christianity or to live in some kind of a dualistic world.
Well that it explains it all, two chapters of Genesis are metaphor and poetry.

Of course the Hegelian dialect perfectly at work ....thesis, antithesis and synthesis (God and Evolution) the fatal flaw in your thinking is that I am not negating science and its truth, while I know for a fact scientists who lack integrity falsify their research to support their hypothesis and world view, however you must negate scripture to accept the hypothesis.

The God of the Bible and His revelation and Paul who supports the revelation clearly shows that evolution does not work according to God's revelation and word. Romans 8:19-23 which is "ktisis" in Greek refers to the entire sub created human order connected to Genesis 3:14-19.

Death did not exist prior to the fall, the process of evolution needs death.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#78
Well that it explains it all, two chapters of Genesis are metaphor and poetry.

Of course the Hegelian dialect perfectly at work ....thesis, antithesis and synthesis (God and Evolution) the fatal flaw in your thinking is that I am not negating science and its truth, while I know for a fact scientists who lack integrity falsify their research to support their hypothesis and world view, however you must negate scripture to accept the hypothesis.

The God of the Bible and His revelation and Paul who supports the revelation clearly shows that evolution does not work according to God's revelation and word. Romans 8:19-23 which is "ktisis" in Greek refers to the entire sub created human order connected to Genesis 3:14-19.

Death did not exist prior to the fall, the process of evolution needs death.
Gen 1 is obviously very poetic text. Gen 2 is in contradiction to Gen 1. You cannot read them both literally, its impossible. Either one of them is not literal or both of them.

The context of R 8:19-23 is not about Adam and about his fall. Where do you see it there?

If death did not exist prior the fall, how could Adam understand the problem with "you will die"?
Also, what was the tree of life there for, if nobody and nothing was able to die?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,409
13,751
113
#79
Natural selection is not a thing either, it undermines the well tested hereditary science.

Consider sickle cell anemia- a hereditary killer disease that has increased with the increase in population. As much as it is a recessive gene, carriers are being born daily. No one in their right mind would attribute the increase to natural selection because sickle cell anemia is not beneficial in any way. And if it is not beneficial, why is it increasing in the population? natural selection has failed to wipe it out because there's no such thing as natural selection.
Your example is a really poor one. Sickle-cell anemia is certainly a terrible disease, but is not a quick killer, so those who have it may reproduce before it claims their lives. It must be passed on by both parents to manifest in such a way to significantly affect health. It is also a lightweight compared to malaria, which is estimated to have killed more people than any other cause. Sickle-cell anemia makes its host resistant to malaria.

That all aside, natural selection is testable and has been demonstrated many times in laboratory experiments. As long as one understands that it cannot generate new information, it is most certainly a valid and essentially proven phenomenon.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,409
13,751
113
#80
Gen 1 is obviously very poetic text. Gen 2 is in contradiction to Gen 1. You cannot read them both literally, its impossible. Either one of them is not literal or both of them.

The context of R 8:19-23 is not about Adam and about his fall. Where do you see it there?

If death did not exist prior the fall, how could Adam understand the problem with "you will die"?
Also, what was the tree of life there for, if nobody and nothing was able to die?
I recall reading a comment on a study of Genesis 1 with regard to textual structure. The researcher looked at several passages that are distinctly poetic, and found that Genesis 1 had none of the "markers" of poetic language found in the unambiguous passages.