Creationists and anti-evolutionist's, please explain this away...again.?

Question

Read the story and tell me again why this did not just happen?
Is it the liberal anti-Christian media or more of Satan's work?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_sc/darwin_evolution;_ylt=AowdCxUrytC_oesHK6v6n9es0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-

To dead alive: Who created God then? Also, what about the appendix? It is useless to us, so why do we have it? Not such an intelligent creation, eh?

I have to say this: almost everyone on this post is an idiot. How any of you have managed to learn to read (much less write)might just be a testament to God. Maybe I should reconsider. Wow.

Answer 1

"Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on it's surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola... 12 fluid ounces."

Of course my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident is to move from the intellectual free zone.



Here is another:

"The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare"

Note that the banana...

1. is shaped for the human hand.

2. has a non-slip surface.

3. Has outward indicators of it's inward contents. Green - too early, yellow - just right, black - too late.

4. Has a tab for removal of it's wrapper.

5. Is perforated on wrapper.

6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.

7. Is shaped for the human mouth.

8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.

9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.

10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.

To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

Test 1.

The person who thinks the Coca Cola can has no designer is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Now the document that I am referring from states that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings and focuses it's muscles approximately 100,000 times a day. and that the eye has a retina that contains approximately 137,000,000 light sensitive cells.

The document continues and states that Charles Darwin stated:

"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" Agreed... it does not have the reference recorded so I do not know if this statement is true or false. But let me get to the point at hand.

If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance? In fact... man can't create anything from nothing... we just do not know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop... but we can not create one grain of sand from nothing. Yet the human eye... is a mere tiny part of the most sophisticated part of creation - the human body.

Again... another statement which I would have to research and verify if this person actually made this comment:

"George Gallup; "If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."

Now this statement concerning Albert Einstein. This is confusing... why would this man contradict himself? If he stated this... then every other statement that has been quoted at this forum is invalid because the man appears to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. In this statement Einstein is quoted to have said:

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of our modest powers must feel humble."

Test 2:

1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?

2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?

3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?

If you answered "Yes" to any of those statements... please give details:______________________...



Third analogy:

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and then by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? Logically, anyone with an intelligent mind might conclude that someone put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.

Test 3

Yes or No 1. From the atom to the universe is there order?

Yes or No 2. Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?

3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________________...

To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: "There is no gold in China."

Test 4 What would I need to have for that statement to be true?

A. No knowledge of China?

B. Partial knowledge of China?

C. Absolute knowledge of China?

"C" is the correct answer. In order for the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China.

Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn't one.

Let's say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let's say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an "agnostic." You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn't seem to know if there is a builder.

Test 5 The man who sees a building and doesn't know if there is a builder is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive

In summary: There are plenty of things that we have faith in that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not have a complete understanding that when you turned your computer on as to why it worked. You took a step of faith that turning it on... that somehow that it would work. You accept the unseen electrical waves that appear right in front of your eyes when you type your comments here. We do not see the reason for why the messages appear... because the powers that be are invisible to the naked eye. For them to be manifest, we need a monitor... so we can enjoy the experience of this forum.

God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible... like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn't, forget it.

Or do you have an ulterior motive? Could it be that the "atheist" can't find God... as a thief can't find the policeman? Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?"

Answer 2

Oh man do I have to explane every thing? Ok i'll do my best.

The sientist have never prove or found any bones structure to make their theory of evoltion to be true. The only thing that they have found which that could make their theory of evolution to stand out, is that they found dinosuor bones that match to the other animals of today, but God made all the animals of the sea, and land creatures at the same time. and they were similar to each other;but in humen bones scientist found that the human bones were smaller than our own today, and back then people were smaller; but I believe that the reason for the bone structer to be smaller is that people back then never had the right nutrients or the amount of in take that the body needed.

Genesis 9:1-3 1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered; 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

So before Noah's time it was forbidden for any man to eat any kind of meat. They could only eat fruits or vegtibles. So what happens to most vegitarians when they don't eat meat? What kind of nutriens do they not have. Vitimin D, Zinc, Iron which carrys oxygen to the cells, and tissues which makes red blood cells, and meat can also make your bone stronger, and grow healthier. The bones that the scientist found are similar to the starving people in Africa of today.
In evolotion's theory, you see that in a number of years the speices starts to diverce. If this was true. How did the genetic sperm cell reject it's own kind over time, or why? There is no way that can be possible.
Thing that still stands, and always stands is the Bible, and I know the Bible is not a theory it's a fact.

May God bless you on finding the truth.

Answer 3

Is it still a finch?
The issue has never been evolution for me. Adaption to environmental change is necessary for species to survive.
The key word here is 'adaption'. The fact that a human can devote his life to dog breeding, and within that lifetime, develop a new breed, compares to the breeding in nature. For it is within the set boundaries of each animal, a range of adaption that includes, say, in cat's, the small house cat, all the way up to the largest of lions and tigers. Yet no matter by natural(environmental), or directed(human), the animal will always have offspring that will be in the cat family.
So although many perceive and personify evolution as the means of changes observed in the wild, they totally neglect the more directed 'evolution' that is being overseen by humans.
That is, the intevention by humans who understand that we can affect the parameters of animal characteristics.
We do not call breeders, "evolutioners" do we? Why not? Because they are not.

Answer 4

I am both a Creationist and Evolutionist. I think science and religion need to agree to disagree, so they can finally talk realistically about the mysteries our Mother Earth is trying to reveal to us. We helped make this planet. If only we didn't have to be in these animal bodies of ours, we wouldn't have to fight wars over whose religion is right, much less whether or not humans evolved from primates. Of course we HAD to, we had to make a body suitable to be mobile...And then on to the next step to evolve into what we are today. We made ourselves, that's a mind bender, isn't it. That we are all God, just tiny fragments to the whole.... oh the Christians and Atheists are gonna be mad at me.. I don't care:) blessed be

Answer 5

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist"..! Evolution is a term that stems from the coherence of many different fields of scientific research that explain the adaptability of species by means of natural selection. Science has very many more parts to it besides just "evolution"..!! Yours is a question from an ignorant and ill informed fool, who makes the assumption that worms appeared from nowhere with either option supplied. You are a liar and a fool.

Answer 6

Sadly, it is all to apparent you are a lay to scientific knowledge. You seek to prove a theory with an article written by the Associated Press.

How about you explain to me the what Darwin's theory was and how it differs from the current theory of Evolution.

note: you may not find it in a newpaper article. You may have to actually do some real research.

Do not demean the intelligence of those with whom you disagree. You will find that you only demean yourself when your supposed victims turn out to be head and shoulders above you.

Answer 7

Christians don't believe that things can't change. We believe that ultimately you can't have nothing create something, so there must be a something. So that is God. The Big Bang sounds nice till you ask, "How did the gases that caused the Big Bang get created?" That question always stumps an evolutionist.

Answer 8

No Problem.

Darwin’s finches
Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood adaptation
by Carl Wieland

Thirteen species of finches live on the Galápagos, the famous island group visited by Charles Darwin in the 1830s. The finches have a variety of bill shapes and sizes, all suited to their varying diets and lifestyles. The explanation given by Darwin was that they are all the offspring of an original pair of finches, and that natural selection is responsible for the differences.

Surprisingly to some, this is the explanation now held by most modern creationists. It would not need to be an ‘evolutionary’ change at all, in the sense of giving any evidence for amoeba-to-man transformation. No new genetic information would have been introduced. If the parent population has sufficient created variability (genetic potential) to account for these varied features in its descendants, natural selection could take care of the resulting adaptation, as a simplistic example will show.

Say some finches ended up on islands in which there was a shortage of seeds, but many grubs were living under tree bark. In a population with much variation, some will have longer, some shorter, beaks than average. Those birds carrying more of the ‘long-beak’ information could survive on those grubs, and thus would be more likely to pass the information on to their descendants, while the others would die out. In this way, with selection acting on other characters as well, a ‘woodpecker finch’ could arise.

The same thing is seen in artificial selection, with all the various modern breeds of dogs being more specialized than the parent (mongrel) population, but carrying less information—and thus less potential for further selection (you can’t breed Great Danes from Chihuahuas). In all these sorts of changes, finches are still finches and dogs are dogs. The limits to change are set by the amount of information originally present from which to select.

Creationists have long proposed such ‘splitting under selection’ from the original kinds, explaining for example wolves, coyotes, dingoes and other wild dogs from one pair on the Ark. The question of time has, however, been seized upon by anti-creationists. They insist that it would take a much longer time than Scripture allows. Artificial selection is quick, they admit, but that is because breeders are deliberately acting on each generation. The usual ‘guesstimate’ of how long it took for Darwin’s finches to radiate from their parent population ranges from one million to five million years.

However, Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant recently released some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galápagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action.1 For example, during drought years, as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, selection favoured those with larger, deeper beaks capable of getting at the remaining large seeds and thus surviving, which shifted the population in that direction.

While that is not very surprising, nor profound, the speed at which these changes took places was most interesting. At that observed rate, Grant estimates, it would take only 1,200 years to transform the medium ground finch into the cactus finch, for example. To convert it into the more similar large ground finch would take only some 200 years.

Notice that (although the article fails to mention it) such speedy changes can have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation, but are based upon the process described, that is, choosing from what is already there. It therefore fails to qualify as evidence for real, uphill (macro) evolution — though many starry-eyed students will doubtless be taught it as ‘evolution in action’.

Instead, it is real, observed evidence that such (downhill) adaptive formation of several species from the one created kind can easily take place in a few centuries. It doesn't need millions of years. The argument is strengthened by the fact that, after the Flood, selection pressure would have been much more intense—with rapid migration into new, empty niches, residual catastrophism and changing climate as the Earth was settling down and drying out, and simultaneous adaptive radiation of differing food species.

Reference
P.R. Grant, ‘Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches’, Scientific American, 265(4):60–65, October 1991.

Answer 9

It is a fact Darwin was and still is all theory! Evolving finches.
They elfed! their beeks are small! quick get this out on the wire
Birds beeks shrink. Just another stab at poking fun of those of
us who serve God, and another small win? for satan. People will believe what they want to, and no one can tell them other wise.
If you believe it , well you're entitled.

Answer 10

I believe you are.. .. finding proof where there is NONE...

it is still the SAME SPECIES!!! it has not changed SPECIES!!!... and until something does change SPECIES.. and then is able to reproduce.. evolution will not be proven...

(by the way... one species is not able to reproduce with another species and produce offspring which can reproduce... so the ONE creature to be the first of a new species will have no others to mate with.)