1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Comparisons to evolution

Discussion in 'Science' started by Alcott, Jan 22, 2006.

Top Posters
  1. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,405
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Which of these examples is a good, or at least fair, comparison to evolution?

    Business... a person or persons gets an 'idea' (mutation) on how to create something or refine some process to a new or more efficient way. They develop the concept further through trial and error, then put the product or process to work, and if it really has a substantial advantage (adaption) over the "old," it will be successful, expand and branch out (speciate) and may dominate the old products or methods and put many out of business (extinct). Most new ideas, though, do not work out and do not last long.

    Sports... new rules, new ideas, or new equipment (mutations) are added to some type of activity to make it more enjoyable, skillful, or "spectator-friendly" (adaptation) and the sport becomes interesting and popular and grows, perhaps spawning new variations (speciation), and the original activity becomes lessened and perhaps dies out (extinct). Example: since ancient times it has been a game to throw an object and hit it with something like a club. In early America many versions of this game were brought by colonists, and "townball" became the most popular variation. Then Alexander Cartwright organized a club and set down new rules which advanced the game as more skillful and likable by players and spectators. Baseball almost completely replaced any other prior variations.

    Languages... a tribe of people communicate with the sounds they come by naturally, then take this further by becoming aware of the complex variety of sound possible and begin to assign particular sound to objects, actions, and ideas as words (mutations). If this tribe expands in numbers and territory it needs more and more words assigned to more object, actions, and ideas(adaptions), as the tribe branches off into new territories in isolation from other branches. They keep the core words, but they become more varied with new generations, and new words to describe more new features and concepts (dialects), and then their languages become more different and it takes from new tribes and nations it encounters (speciation). The original tribal language is lost (extinction) to where there is no one left who would understand it. This, of course, is the description of how the English language developed from the root languages of the Angles and Saxons, which earlier developed as limbs of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European language family. Though it's not language that usually would cause a tribe (and its language or dialect) to die out, either the tribe will die or its dialect probably will.

    In each of these examples, we can also see how, as many generations come, the original concept can be so completely lost that fables and legends may be concocted to tell about its history, and it may have no real connection with reality. Indeed, in the baseball example, a "creationist' tale was put forth about Abner Doubleday "inventing" the sport one day (promulgated by league president A.G. Spalding to futher combine baseball with Americana to keep it growing and expanding, and for him to continue to increase his sporting goods business). This story has long been discredited, even though a few people still believe it because they want it to be true.
     
    #1 Alcott, Jan 22, 2006
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    They are "ALL" like the religious system we know today as evolutionism. They all invovle a system of intelligent minds working on the same problem. NONE of them are the result of rocks falling mud.

    Life could not START without the intelligence we know of as "God". It DOES not "Start" from rocks falling in mud (natural sources) in the lab!!

    It is "imagined" to do so - nevertheless within the sacred doctrines of the pseudoscience we call "evolutionism".

    The Christians that accept the teaching of the NT will "At the very least" embrace the ID concepts they read in Romans 1.

    The fact that the Painter has claimed that his own painting reveals his genius --

    The atheist believer in Darwinian evolutionism responds to this by saying –
    (Of course the blind believer in atheist Darwinian evolutionism must also claim that “NO” the Holy Spirit does NOT “Convict the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment” so we “know” they are typically being “less than straightforward” about what they actually DO perceive in the world around them!!)

    Now the “odd thing” is that so-called Christian evolutionists that reject the Christian evolutionist claims about ID “Intelligent Design” are themselves fully aligned to these Atheist Darwinian objections to Romans 1!!

    Here is the Bible - boldly denied by Christian Evolutionists who reject ID – and we see that God’s Word is claiming that these so-called Christian believers in evolutionism ( like their atheist Darwinian brethren) are being less than truthful in what they “Claim” they can see in nature the things “clearly seen” (what the Americans called “Self evident”).
     
    #2 BobRyan, Jan 22, 2006
  3. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Languages. [​IMG]
     
    #3 Gina B, Jan 22, 2006
  4. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those are all fairly appropriate likenesses to evolution - in a way. They might provoke some thinking, like all good teaching devices.
     
    #4 Paul of Eugene, Jan 25, 2006
  5. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Some excellent analogies. The language one is probably the best since the timespans involved are the largest. Understanding the impact of large spans of time is often the most difficult for our minds in their short lifespans to comprehend.
     
    #5 Gold Dragon, Jan 25, 2006
  6. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the language example especially is quite good. It even works on another level, since a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 11 has led some to believe that all languages are specially created and as such have not developed the way history shows. (Maybe micro-changes, such as from "pure" King James English to modern English, but not entirely new languages like English itself. And of course, the change in English since 1611 is more devolution than evolution, and contains no new information. :D )

    Unfortunately, that's also a possible down side of that analogy. Some will reject language evolution for the same reason they reject evolution of living organisms.
     
    #6 Mercury, Jan 25, 2006
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    A "Literalistic" interpretation of John 1 has led many to believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

    A "Literalistic" interpretation of John 3:16 has led many to believe that God is the Savior of the World.

    A "Literalistic" interpretation of John 14 has led many to believe that Jesus really is "coming again".

    A "Literalistic" interpretation of Exodus 20:8-11 led the People of God to keep the 7th day Holy - literally.

    A "literalistic" interpretation of 1 Cor 5 led the Christian Church to think that church discipline was "literally" necessary.

    A "Literalistic" interpretation of Acts 17:11 led many to believe that the Bible is the "RULE" and standard for all faith and doctrine.

    This squeemish re-invention of "really BELIEVE" the Bible expressed as "A literalistic" reading of it is pure sillyness friends.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #7 BobRyan, Jan 27, 2006
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    An "actual" Reading of Romans 1 in the quote given on this thread is being "avoided like the plague" by those who think that "really reading the Bible" is to be "avoided" and called "literalISTIC".

    so -- what "language is that" anyway?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #8 BobRyan, Jan 27, 2006
  9. Petrel

    Petrel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're off topic.

    None of the analogies match exactly, but I suppose that's the nature of analogies.
     
    #9 Petrel, Jan 27, 2006
  10. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    No new information - that's a joke, right? Thus the grin?
     
    #10 Daisy, Jan 28, 2006
  11. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I say it, I'm joking. When one of my friends whom I first heard it from says it, he's serious.
     
    #11 Mercury, Jan 28, 2006
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    They are "ALL" like the religious system we know today as evolutionism. They all REQUIRE a system of intelligent minds working on the same problem and then they require that we "pretend" not to notice the intelligent attributes of each of those systems. NONE of them are the result of rocks falling mud.


    That is why evolutionism is so great - it starts with a dubious assumption and then strings along improbable sequence after improbable sequence to argue "The christmas angels in my front yard are the unlikely product of a highly improbable sequence of chemical reactions in nature".

    So in otherwords - nothing like the "intelligent systems" represented in the OP.
     
    #12 BobRyan, Feb 4, 2006
  13. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny - I looked in all my evolution books and none of them mentioned christmas angels.
     
    #13 Paul of Eugene, Mar 1, 2006
  14. Petrel

    Petrel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    Duh, that's because they're Godless atheists. [​IMG] Get with the program! ;)
     
    #14 Petrel, Mar 3, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...