Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

If you believe in evolution and deny the reality of Adam or even the need (add to this defend Schuller) the only place you will find agreement on being a theological conservative is in your own mind.

 

How does the electro magnetic force show Intelligent design? How does the Gravetational force show intelligent design? I know God created the Universe but I also believes that he uses the laws of physics to bring about his purposes. So I believe that if you were to say that when you put water into a freezer God turns it into ice. That would be an accurate statement. How he does it is that he gave properties to water that when it reaches a certain temperature it solidifies turning to ice. But I'm curious to see how the EM proves intelligent design.

 

This is not true Allen. You could say that evolution on a macro level cannot be observed but on a microlevel we see it repeated time and again.

 

That's untrue. There have been numerous documentd cases of observed speciation in plants, insects, worms, and bacteria.

That is by no means correct. Abandoning the theory of evolution is not required to be a bible believer. By your standard, a bible believer must also abandon theories of astronomy, geology, studies of anthropology. On a sidenote, hyperfundamentslists in the past (not you in particular) have also required believers to abandon microevolution, plate tectonics, and heliocentrism, but have since abandoned those positions.

Genesis is not a science book, and using it as such is a perversion of scripture.

I've speant the last 5 years in three bible colleges, one baptist, one foursquare, and one reformed. I appreciate the welcome, and I'm sure this will be seen by some as undisciplined.

 

You're still stuck with it not being observable. You need vast amounts of time to properly observe evolution on a macro level. Its clear on a micro level that organism adapt by changing their genome to match the requirements. its a bit simplistic put basically whats happening.

 

If you would have read all of my post you would have noted just such a distinciton.

BTW - micro-evolution is not evolution at all, but adaptation.

 

Sorry not true again. There is no case of one species becoming an different and distinct species. Please do not confuse micro with macro evolution.
You don't have trees becoming rose bushes, nor do you have bees becoming butterflies, or worms becoming ants, ect..

Correct, it is not a science book but it does contain scientic things/aspects God had recorded. Many of our scientific discoveries came things in scripture which men set out to see if it was true. Lo and behold God didn't lie about those scientific things

 

I haven't argue that specifically. But I did say evolution on a macro level is non observable. Doesn't invalidate it. Just can't be determined in the space of time required. But keep in mind these points:

 

The idea that evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable isn't quite accurate. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats.

In reality, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world, examining that evidence, and hypothisizing how that evidence works. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists learn a great deal from multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful hypotheses about the objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences. This is entirely consistent with the scientific method, and not just on the topic of evolution.

On a sidenote, the micro-vs-macroevolution argument is an issue that hypercreationists adopted somewhere in the late 1980's. Prior to that, the assertion was that any type of evolution was anti-scriptural. But when microevolution was observed, the position was changed to be "mocrievolution is scripturally okay, but macroevolution is not". Same thing with speciation. The view used to be "speciation is antiscriptural", and now the view is "the development of new species is scripturally okay, but the developlent of new genuses is not". As a result, whenever a new observation is made, the hypercreationists raise the bar.

 

Its hard but not impossible. Note the very last part of the quote with regard to this issue. One of the things in this discussion with regard to the scientific method is predictability. Which the evolutionist point of view is capable of doing. We should be able to predict certain outcomes with regularity. The problem with the macro level again is time. yet we can do this on the micro level.

 

Keep with your own declaration. You said "the theory of evolution is frequently subjected to the scientific method, and consistently passes."
There are seven specific steps to the scientific method:
* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results

In accordance with the scientific method to which you state evolution has been frequently subjected, fails on point 4 always.

It is true that there is a branch of theoretical science which are things that can be 'presumed' but currenlty no real way scientifically to determine if it is true or not. This is not and should not be confused with hard fact based science. At best evolution should be set forth in the theoretical sciences and not constatantly perpetuated mythology of being hard and factual sciences.

But both these have areas that are hard science and theoretical. They should never be seen as one and the same.

Adaptation (microE) has never been proven to be a 'mechanism' of evolution. Macro nor ANY of it's mechanism have EVER been observed nor studied. That is a complete misrepresention of the facts.

That is just pure ignorance of any real facts.

 

Then you should be able to show some.

You either believe the bible or you don't.

That is ridiculous. Genesis is the word of God, and far be it from you to limit what is in it. Saying we came from monkeys is the perversion.

 

This is a common misunderstanding of evolution. Humans did not evolve from some modern form of monkey.

 

You want me to post documentation of observed speciation? Are you sure you want me to do that? It's quite the cure for insomnia. Plus, this thread wasn't about posting evidentiary support for scientific theories. My point was to note the fact that speciation has been observed, not to post evidence for speciation. If you want me to, I will, but it will probably hijack the thread.

That's the same thing that is often said in the calvinism/arminiam argument, the premil/postmil/amil argument, and the israel argument. Similarly, a particular position on the creation/evolution debate is no more or less a requisite for believing the bible than the calvinism/arminiam argument, the premil/postmil/amil argument, and the israel argument.

The theory of evolition does not claim that "we came from monkeys", .