Is an evolutionist someone who looks at a building and wonders if it had a designer?

Question

And if they never seen the designer that means the building created itself on accident???

Answer 1

Nature has a tendency to decompose, not re- compose. Throw a truckload of lumber out on the ground. See if it rots or turns into a nice, orderly house.
Big Bang ? Put a stick of dynamite under the wood. See if it explodes into a nice house or a countryside full of disarrayed splinters.
No, my friend, no accident or big bang could set the universe in order the way God has. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. Could it be an accident that our bodies are so intricately put together and function the way we do? That we have the same seasons year after year after year ? That each and every thing under the sun has a PURPOSE ? Is it an accident that man has the ability to reason, or that he has a conscious, that he has the ability to discern right from wrong.
We couldn't "evolve" to such a high status in trillions of years. We were CREATED, the good and the bad, by a higher, more intelligent power. And that power is God, the one who loves his creation and longs for the love, fellowship and adoration of His creation. Praise forever His Holy Name.
Would the evolutionist concede that the building had to be put together by someone with the intelligence to do it or would he say that over time all the parts of the building just hopped up and came together all by itself?

Answer 2

An evolutionist would look at the building and tell you how it was constructed, then show you similar buildings that were constructed in the same way. Would suggest that the builder started with nothing but the dirt, then mixed some clay to make bricks, all things which were around to start with, or perhaps used bricks from other buildings, then slowly put the building together over a reasonable amount of time. What he or she wouldn't do is assume that the building appeared all of a sudden, from nothing, or by accident.

A creationist, on the other hand, would not wonder at all how it was built, would just accept that it was there, and would ignore all suggestions that the building is made of smaller parts, all joined together, and that this proved that it was built over a long time, rather than just appearing, illogically, in an instance. He or she would ignore the similarities to other buildings in the area, or to very old buildings which may have fallen down, suggesting, perhaps, that they are supposed to be piles of rubble, and not previous buildings.

.

Answer 3

Using metaphors to try to understand (or debunk) ideas can be useful or, in this case, extremely and purposely misleading. A building is not a biological system that grows and changes over time as a result of its own processes (and does not contribute to the perpetuation of and change within the larger population by having offspring). Pretending that saying something about buildings (and how they were constructed and by whom) somehow says something about evolution and natural selection in living things is silly, to say the least.

Answer 4

You are seriously confused between evolutions beginnings in random mutation and the non-accident of natural selection. This is a creationist argument that is quite well refuted by the evidence; not just some man saying some thing from belief. I suggest that you avail yourself of this site, so you may lift the veil of ignorance that covers your eyes. It directly addresses this question and many other creationist lies.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 5

Evolution is a little bit more complicated than that.