Anyone have a emoticon of something going OVER it's head???:lol:

Whales have pelvis bones...

-If they didn't come from a terrestial creature, why would God give these whales these now useless bones to them...

 

We have unused tailbones and appendixes...

-Why would we have an appendix which is necessary to smaller mammals and animals, if at one time, we had not used them ourselves? Why would God give a worthless tailbone?

We have an imperfect vision system....

-Look at it from this standpoint. A man creates a new house, he will build everything perfectly. However, if he is fixing up a house, he must use the things he has present and use them to the best of its ability. Why would God give us a faulty system of vision if he created us from dust?

From my secular science readings, macro evolution's only "evidence" is similarities in genetic codes or DNA strands. This would seem to be a more a result of a limited number of nucleotides and peptides for building DNA. Some scientists want to look at these similarities and find a pattern of emersive evolution from other species. However, this is not only unlikely, but improbable, based upon the odds of a species mutating to the point of creating a new species, and not just a variation. Further when you look at the primordial soup theory, it really struggles with probability. The odd of even an RNA strand being created from base elements are astronomical.

 

 

Completely false... While DNA does come into the equation, homologous anatomical structures, vestigial structures, imperfect systems, and embryotic analyzation strongly support evolution...

From my secular science readings, macro evolution's only "evidence" is similarities in genetic codes or DNA strands. This would seem to be a more a result of a limited number of nucleotides and peptides for building DNA. Some scientists want to look at these similarities and find a pattern of emersive evolution from other species. However, this is not only unlikely, but improbable, based upon the odds of a species mutating to the point of creating a new species, and not just a variation. Further when you look at the primordial soup theory, it really struggles with probability. The odd of even an RNA strand being created from base elements are astronomical.

 

 

It's a good thing that we live in a universe, then. :cry:

Whales have pelvis bones...

-If they didn't come from a terrestial creature, why would God give these whales these now useless bones to them...

 

We have unused tailbones and appendixes...

-Why would we have an appendix which is necessary to smaller mammals and animals, if at one time, we had not used them ourselves? Why would God give a worthless tailbone?

We have an imperfect vision system....

-Look at it from this standpoint. A man creates a new house, he will build everything perfectly. However, if he is fixing up a house, he must use the things he has present and use them to the best of its ability. Why would God give us a faulty system of vision if he created us from dust?

 

 

If you look at the evidence that scientists have found, Whales share common ancestors, and are very closely related to animals with four legs.

It's a good thing that we live in a universe, then. :cry:

 

I might add that my :cry: was supposed to be a;).

From my secular science readings, macro evolution's only "evidence" is similarities in genetic codes or DNA strands. This would seem to be a more a result of a limited number of nucleotides and peptides for building DNA. Some scientists want to look at these similarities and find a pattern of emersive evolution from other species. However, this is not only unlikely, but improbable, based upon the odds of a species mutating to the point of creating a new species, and not just a variation. Further when you look at the primordial soup theory, it really struggles with probability. The odd of even an RNA strand being created from base elements are astronomical.

 

Thank you HHS, you have put into words what I merely accepted by faith. To me, it took a great deal more faith to accept this improbable scenario than simply accepting by faith the Word of God. :thumb:

There is evidence in the form of transitional fossils, DNA evidence, and vestigial (remnant) organs and other physical characteristics.

 

You can believe that if you want to. It takes a great deal more faith to believe this scenario than merely accepting the Word of God by faith. You are accepting humanistic viewpoints and "supposed" findings over the creator of the Universe. You are exercising faith in man instead of God.

You can believe that if you want to. It takes a great deal more faith to believe this scenario than merely accepting the Word of God by faith. You are accepting humanistic viewpoints and "supposed" findings over the creator of the Universe. You are exercising faith in man instead of God.

 

Absolutely not. I believe in God and Christ as my savior. I, however, find that evolution, and science in general makes my faith stronger b/c it shows all the complexity and creativity in the universe. When I see a photo of a galaxy that's 50-million light years away, meaning that image is 50-million years old I think "awesome, God is older than that and still cares about insignificant me."

 

You put your faith in "humanistic" science every time you get on an airplane, step in a car, go to the doctor, take medicine, etc b/c you believe it's going to work. Nine times out of ten it does.

If you look at the evidence that scientists have found, Whales share common ancestors, and are very closely related to animals with four legs.

 

Which supports evolution...

You can believe that if you want to. It takes a great deal more faith to believe this scenario than merely accepting the Word of God by faith. You are accepting humanistic viewpoints and "supposed" findings over the creator of the Universe. You are exercising faith in man instead of God.

 

Research evolution, take a college Biology/Physiology/Anatomy course, and come back to me telling me that they are "supposed" findings... You'd be hard-pressed to find one scientist/doctor, or even a Biology major in college, argue against evolution....

Research evolution, take a college Biology/Physiology/Anatomy course, and come back to me telling me that they are "supposed" findings... You'd be hard-pressed to find one scientist/doctor, or even a Biology major in college, argue against evolution....

 

I have a bachelor of science in education as well as a Masters Degree in School counseling. Plus 15 additional graduate hours. I have taken enough of these classes to cover a city block. It still does not change the fact that these textbooks are written by secularists who hold a humanistic world view as opposed to a Christian world view. They show an obvious humanistic bias in their writings. There research is faulty at best, bogus at worst. You have every right to believe and have "faith" in what ever you choose. I choose to believe and have faith in the Word of God where he lays out the beginnings in the book of Genesis. Neither of us is going to change the others mind so we will just agree to disagree.:thumb:

I have a bachelor of science in education as well as a Masters Degree in School counseling. Plus 15 additional graduate hours. I have taken enough of these classes to cover a city block. It still does not change the fact that these textbooks are written by secularists who hold a humanistic world view as opposed to a Christian world view. They show an obvious humanistic bias in their writings. There research is faulty at best, bogus at worst. You have every right to believe and have "faith" in what ever you choose. I choose to believe and have faith in the Word of God where he lays out the beginnings in the book of Genesis. Neither of us is going to change the others mind so we will just agree to disagree.:thumb:

 

You can try to say one can have faith in one or the other, but its completely judgemental and arrogant of you in a roundabout way.... There's no reason there can't be belief in both..

 

And a BS isn't a Biology Degree, and my professors are far from secularists, and they accept evolution as a fact, which it is...

One of my passions in life is reading. As I sit here writing this, I have a small bookcase within arm’s reach of my chair containing over 70 books ranging in subject matter from astronomy, physics and natural sciences to philosophy and religion including seven different translations of the Bible. In my office, I have over 2,500 books on many topics. I’ve read at least 85% of them… some of them several times. I’ve read the Koran cover to cover, and limited samplings of the Book of Mormon and other world religions.

 

I tend to prefer nonfiction. I’m a science junkie. I’ve loved science since grade school. I was very blessed to score among the top 1/10th of 1% of all science students in the U.S. and receive a national science award in high school. I own over 150 books of science including authors such as; Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Henry Morris and Michael Behe. I subscribe to Discover, Scientific American, National Geographic, Popular Science, and Answers Magazines. I actually read them, and for the most part understand what I read. Of these, only Answers has a “Creationism” or “Intelligent Design” perspective.

 

Now, please don’t misunderstand, I’m not bragging or suggesting that I’m any kind of authority on anything necessarily, just that I’m not what you would typically identify as uninformed or naïve on matters of science.

 

The thing that strikes me most—the absolute bottom line—is the fact that we all have the same basic set of facts, the same evidence. It’s how we interpret the evidence that fuels our different worldviews. Whether they intend to do so or not, Scientists approach the evidence with their own predispositions, biases, beliefs and agenda. They interpret the evidence to fit their worldview. In such cases it often becomes a logical tautology or circular reasoning.

 

I choose to believe, “In the beginning God” whereas, others choose to believe what amounts to, “In the beginning… nothing.” There are many who attempt to suggest many shades and nuances in between, but when it comes right down to it, it has to be one or the other. Regardless of how you define or identify God, He either “is” or “isn’t”.

 

If God is, He is fully capable of creating the entirety of what we see, know and understand in a matter of seconds… much less days or years or millennia.

 

I am investing my eternal destiny in my belief that “God is.” This is far from a blind faith, but a well studied and reasoned faith.

You can try to say one can have faith in one or the other, but its completely judgemental and arrogant of you in a roundabout way.... There's no reason there can't be belief in both..

 

And a BS isn't a Biology Degree, and my professors are far from secularists, and they accept evolution as a fact, which it is...

 

It is a theory . . . :thumb: