Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

Sorry I've been busy the past couple of days both at home and work. So I haven't looked it up yet but will. I find the topic very interesting. And so will take a futher look at it. whats an opc reconstructionist? I have no idea. BTW Newton was weird. He had some nuggets of truth but had a lot of weird stuff as well. You have to disceminate whats good and not.

 

What is this about? I've never made an assertion that says this! All I've said is that I've looked at the man to determine if I can rely on his information. Like I've mentioned before I think its fool hardy to jump on a band wagon just because someone has my point of view. That can only lead to trouble. Now. That I've seen the kind of man proposing the view now I can take a look at the view. Like I said previously he may have a point he may not. So far from what you said it sounds like he does. But since this isn't my area of expertise I'll have to research it.

 

This is actually a difficult thing to study. There are only a handful of papers and some in french that deal with this subject. Now I don't know your persons view. But this is what I'm to understand about the genome project and the study of static genomes. The problem is that we get static shots of the genome and have only a limited access to seeing "Darwinian" mutations over time. So most of their studies are reliant on bacteria. In order to determine how the evolutionary process works. The University of San Deigo submitted a report to Nature genetics discussing the observed rapid evolutionary changes in bacteria. Particularily the e-coli bacertia. They've determined that the genome is more of a moving target that prevously thought with the static model. Here is what the University of California San Deigo has said in their News Journal

 

but what about the article I posted from the University of California specifically speaking of the RNA polymerace. Could it then be possible if a rewire-ing taking place in the RNA is nonsustainable that the mutation may add a mutation to make it so? Thus given enough time you can add levels of mutations that add coding genes? It seems the e-coli are doing more than just turning on/off coding sequences but mutating the coding gene to make life sustainable.

 

Hi thinkingstuff, it's been years since I dabbled in the evolution/creation debate...in my opinion, there's more important pressing issues facing the Church today, than evolution/creation...

But any way you mention the following...

I think we have to be careful here and distinguish between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution", the fact of the matter is that the researchers started with e-coli, and in a controlled environment, forced mutations upon the e-coli...but at the end of the day, if I read the article correctly, the end result was still e-coli.

In XC
-

 

Thats true.

 

A couple of things:

1 - Evolutionary theory is not a core scriptural doctrine, and Christians are not required to discard it as a prerequisite for being a Christian, bible believer, evangelical, baptist, or conservative. In fact, the Baptist Distinctive of individual soul liberty allows a person to accept the concept if reason so dictates.

2 - Intelligent Design is not a matter of science, it is a matter of philosophy.

3 - Intelligent Design is a completely different concept than hyperliteral creationism. One does not equate to the other, yet you frequently see people using the terms interchangeably.

4 - Intelligent Design does not in any way state that the evolutionary process is impossible. It only states that the complexity of living things suggests a design behind them.

 

Conservatives do not under any circumstances hold to any form of the liberal evolution.

This could not be more wrong and I would suggest some more research before making such comments.

No such thing as "hyperliteral creationsism

Again more research is needed before making such comments.

 

On the contrary. Whether we like it or not, the theory of evolution is frequently subjected to the scientific method, and consistently passes.

Abandoning he theory of evolution is not a prerequisite for being a theological conservative.

ID doesn't adhere to the scientific methhod.

There are numerous forms of creationist beliefs. Hyperliteral creationism is the belief that the universe was created circa 4004 bc in six literal 24 hours days.

That's actually how the Discovery Institute defines ID. It defines it as certain features of the universe and of living things being best explained by an intelligent cause. It does not state that natural selection is impossible, it simply makes the implication that natural selection, if shown to exist, is directed by a designer.

 

Not true. Nobody has ever been able to show one species becoming another.

It is required to be a bible believer.

There is enough science in the first chapter of Genesis to keep one busy for a lifetime.

I forgot how you liked to consider yourself the resident contrarian before you left. But your answers are as vague as they always were. Welcome back, but I was hoping you'd be out getting discipled.

 

This is an entirely false statement. Evolution has never met any of the requirements for the scientic method. It is not even osbservable and therefore impossible to facilitate the requirement necessary to use the scientic method. Evolution is a atheistic system of belief and nothing more. Many scientist who were 'once' evolutionist now claim it is an impossible theory (and many are not even christians). And a fair portion who are still in the scientific community, because they will not openly stand against it for fear of losing their jobs, will not give staunch support for it either.

Actaully it is. 2 Peter describes in the later days scoffers will come saying certian things. One of them is ..:

Their 'ignorance' stems from the fact they do not believe God created in the literal manner given in Gen 1-2. If we are to take the creation of the heavens and the earth at face value then we must take the rest in the same manner. Those who deny such, scripture states they are 'willingly' ignorant of this truth.

Neither does evolution :thumbs: - If it does , then where is the observable evidence? There is absolutely -none! Evolution has never been observed, duplicated, nor tested. It has been 'presumed' and 'assumed' and theorized but never, not once has it been observed, nor it is even said to 'be' obserable. Therefore neither does it adhere to the scientific method.


Editted to add - Let me qualify the "Evolution" I am speaking of is not micro-evolution but specifically macro-evolution. The term micro-evolution is a play by evolutionist to confuse the truth. Micro-evolution is nothing more than adaptation. Understand that evolution is not a matter of science but philosophy, period.

 

John 8:47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God. Evolution is not scriptural and Jesus knows the reason why men do not believe Gods testimony about creation.