Just for the record : ?

Question

Every one HAS to believe in some form of evolution, right? Everyone in here knows that evolution is a FACT of life... I'm not saying you have to believe in the extreme forms, ie. human evolved from earlier primates, etc., but in terms of technology, the human mind today, animals adapting to their ever-changing environment, etc. Those, too, are forms of evolution that one can't deny.

So I guess my point is, when you are looking into an Evolutionist's question, before you start to patronize them for believing in something different than that of your own beliefs, realize that you may have more in common with them than you think!

Any thoughts?

Answer 1

A question espousing reason and common sense, how refreshing.

Answer 2

Evolution Shmevolution. Does it matter?

Life is about growth. Growth IS evolution. If we are created by Something, God or any thing else. This creator would by necessity have some mechanism to facilitate this growth or evolution. In all likelihood it probably would use many mechanisms. Some that might be known others completely unknown.

Point is it doesn’t matter. This whole debate is between little children who just want to be right.

It has nothing to do with God or with Science. It’s only purpose is to make insecure people feel like they know better than someone else does.

If you are a follower of Jesus you need to avoid this kindergarten debate completely. Jesus asks us to love our neighbors. We can’t do this if we are busy arguing with them and trying to make them wrong. Simple truth is we are here. Make the most of your current opportunity to be the love Jesus ask us to be.

Leave the pointless debate to those who are confused enough to think that it matters.

Answer 3

There are two forms of evolution. Micro and Macro-evolution. There is evidence of micro-evolution all over, but, I have yet to find any evidence of macro-evolution. As the names suggest, one is small-scale changes, the other is on a large scale.
As far as the human mind, we had the potential for thinking up any of the technology since the beginning, but we had to take it in steps. There was no evolution of the mind, just new ideas.

Answer 4

No.. There is evolution, and then there is natural selection which is what you are describing. Even creationists believe in natural selection. Natural selection does not create new informaton or new species. That is what evolution is supposed to do. However I don't believe in goo to you and cats turning into dogs.

Good site for this info from a scientific creationist perspective.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp

Answer 5

You would think so wouldn't you? But sadly, no, many people can't look at scientifically proven facts and see beyond their lifetime of religious conditioning.

Personally, I don't believe that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive concepts. Proponents of neither side have disproven the other.

Answer 6

not bad for a tuesday morning-i do get puzzled when people believe that a small physical change possible but dont believe that over the years lots of small changes make for a large one-but hey each their own-keep the peace lots of love old hippie here

Answer 7

Well, yes you are right people can believe what they want to believe, but there is only 1 true way we got here and that is God, not by monkey, or a big bang, or anything else crazy like that!

Answer 8

Prove evolution exists beyond a shadow of a doubt, because so far nobody has.

Answer 9

Hello Aimee.. :)

Great Question..

No..I do not believe in evolution according to men.. :(

There are literally thousands of examples of the unique adaptations that suit each type of organism for its special role in the web of life (Fig. 9). The fantastic features of structure, function, and behavior that make the honeybee so wondrous, for example, are familiar to almost anyone. But then there’s cleaning symbiosis; the explosive chemical defense system of the bombardier beetle; the navigational skills of migrating reptiles, birds, fish, and mammals, etc. But let me single out one example for now.

Take the woodpecker, for instance.25 Here’s a bird that makes its living banging its head into trees. Whatever gave it the idea to do that in the first place? Was it frustration over losing the worm to the early bird? How did banging its head into trees increase its likelihood for survival—until after it had accumulated (by chance?) a thick skull with shock absorbing tissues, muscles, etc.! And what would be the survival value of all these features (and how could they build up in the population) until after the bird started banging its head into trees?

The woodpecker is a marvel of interdependent parts or “compound traits”—traits that depend on one another for any to have functional value. When a woodpecker slams its head into a tree, the deceleration experienced is many times gravity. The nerve and muscle coordination must produce a dead-on hit; a slip to one side or the other could virtually wrench the cover off the brain! The eyelids snap shut when the beak strikes its target. Some scientists say that’s to keep wood chips out of the eyes; others say it’s to keep the eyeballs from popping out of their sockets! Both may be right!

For such drilling, a woodpecker obviously needs a tough bill, heavy-duty skull, and shock-absorbing tissue between the two. But if the woodpecker were put together by time and chance, without any planning ahead, which part came first? Suppose, just by chance, a baby bird is born with a tough bill. It decides to try it out. WHACK! It throws its head into a tree. The bill is just fine, but it squishes in the front of its face. One dead bird, end of evolutionary story!

But maybe I got it backwards. Maybe, just by chance, a baby bird was born with a heavy-duty skull. WHACK! It throws its head into a tree. This time its skull is okay, but its bill folds up like an accordion. There’s no evolutionary future in that either!

In fact, neither the tough bill nor the heavy-duty skull would have any functional survival value until both occurred together—along with the shock-absorbing tissue, nerve and muscle coordination, etc.! That’s no problem if the woodpecker were put together by plan, purpose, and a special act of creation. We expect drilling tools created by people to have interdependent parts that must all be completely assembled before the machine works. That’s just good sense, and good science. We would surely expect no less from the perfect devices created by God!

And there’s more. Since death entered the world, some woodpeckers are doing more than just drilling holes to store acorns. They’re looking for bark beetles. The beetles hear all this pounding, of course, so they just crawl further down their tunnels. To reach the beetles, the woodpecker needs more than just drilling tools; it needs a long, sticky tongue.

But if a bird gets a long, sticky tongue just by chance, what’s it going to do with it? Dangling out of the bill, the tongue gets bit or even stepped on. As the bird is flying over a twig, the tongue could wrap around the twig and hang the hapless “pre-woodpecker.” The answer for the woodpecker is to slip its tongue into a muscular sheath that wraps around the skull under the scalp and inserts into the right nostril! That makes good sense (and good science) if you’re planning ahead, but poses real problems if your faith is in time and chance, trial and error. (You don’t get another trial if the error is fatal!)

Evolutionists believe (like I once did) that all adaptations begin with time and chance, that is, with random changes in DNA and hereditary traits called mutations. In evolutionary theory, those chance mutations that suit an organism better to its environment are preserved by the process called natural selection. But natural selection can’t act until the favored traits arise by mutation, i.e., by time and chance.

Well, what about mutations? Mutations certainly do occur, and they are responsible for perhaps 3500 hereditary defects in human beings alone. But could mutations produce the coordinated set of structural and behavioral adaptations necessary to originate the woodpecker? Let’s see what two well-known evolutionary biologists have to say about that.

Nobel Prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgyi26 writes the following about a system much simpler than the woodpecker. He is talking only about how a young herring gull pecks at a red spot on the beak to get the adult to spit up some food (if you’ll pardon the example). He says, “All this may sound very simple, but it involves a whole series of most complicated chain reactions with a horribly complex underlying nervous mechanism … All this had to be developed simultaneously.” It’s the same thing for the woodpecker. So what are the odds of getting all the random mutations required for an advantageous behavioral response at the same time? Szent-Gyorgyi says that as a random mutation, it has the probability of…

What will he say here? The probability of one, that is, a certainty, given natural processes like selection and vast amounts of time? Some low figure like 10–3,000,000 (odds Huxley gave against the evolution of the horse)? Szent-Gyorgyi says that a coordinated behavioral adaptation such as the woodpecker’s drilling and probing, as “random mutation, has the probability of zero.” Just zero. Nothing. Its survival value, he says, just cannot come about by time and chance and the process of mutation and selection.

In Jesus Most Precious Name..
With Love..In Christ..