BookTalk.org

I suggest you to do the same... google the opposing argument... google "Logic against Evolution"...

The best argument against evolution was made by Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, that Jesus Christ is the Second Adam, and therefore, if there was no Adam there could have been no Jesus Christ. We all know (or at least everyone who is saved knows) that Jesus Christ is our Personal Lord and Saviour whose atoning death on the cross saves us from sin. As Saint Paul taught, the divine action of Christ on the cross restored the union with God that was destroyed by the Fall from Grace that occurred when Eve tempted Adam.

So this 'evolution' idea that perhaps Adam was a myth undermines the core story of salvation in Western Civilization, the atoning work of Christ. No Adam, no Christ. Natural selection is incompatible with the main dogmatic teaching that believing Christians are washed in the blood of the lamb. Darwinian logic means there is no actual heaven or hell, contrary to fundamental longstanding teachings of the Christian religion.

It is obvious to any believer that the saving power of Christ crucified is the citadel of faith, which must be protected from all Satanic onslaughts, such as scientists sowing doubt about the actual historical existence of Adam and Eve. QED

^ There you go, Person123, have fun with that one.^

When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
1 Corinthians 15: 37-39

That was a reasonable observation at the time it was written. However Darwin showed all flesh is related. Subsequent discoveries including genetics and DNA support Darwin, not Saint Paul. If 1 Corinthians 15 was accurate, one would expect the evidence to show human DNA has zero in common with apes, and birds have zero DNA in common with fish, etc. But in contrast we find vast commonalities in deep time such as humans share gene regulation mechanisms with ancient sea sponges. So let's just say there's a bit of a disconnect between assertions made nearly 2000 years ago and modern scientific evidence.

Mr. Tulip wrote: Darwinian logic means there is no actual heaven or hell, contrary to fundamental longstanding teachings of the Christian religion.

I don't think that's True. Darwin spoke to how life evolves, not to the supernatural. Yes the theory of evolution renders heaven, hell, and the supernatural unnecessary to explain the diversity of life. However it does not address abiogenesis, life after death, or the magic that's involved with Jesus' crucifixion and the forgiveness of current sins.

I'm not a religious person, and I don't believe in the bible... what do you mean by "render"? "Refute"? "make obsolete"? How exactly evolution refutes heaven, hell, jesus or whatever.
Also there is no evolution... if scientists can't explain a very simple thing like the origin of first cell, you have to be very naive to think that they can explain anything else... it's like to expect from a person who doesn't know how much is 5+5, to be good at calculus at the same time. There is no point to make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, it's same biology and chemistry.

I know you don't believe in the Bible, but thought you would enjoy that support anyway...

OK replace the word "renders" with "makes," is that more understandable?

There is no point to make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, it's same biology and chemistry.

Wrong! Since you don't understand the word "renders," I don't expect you to get that distinction either...

why would you make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis? So who is supposed to deal with it? I mean I understand it's not the same thing, but I won't trust scientists that can't explain abiogenesis but claim to be able to explain evolution.
I never saw mathematicans that only can add or retract, but can't multiply or divide.


As for "Yes the theory of evolution renders heaven, hell, and the supernatural unnecessary to explain the diversity of life."
You mean no need for religion to explain deiversity of life? Ok... but what about the life itself, and the creation of the universe? Or this is small things that don't bother you?

person123 wrote:Also there is no evolution... if scientists can't explain a very simple thing like the origin of first cell, you have to be very naive to think that they can explain anything else... it's like to expect from a person who doesn't know how much is 5+5, to be good at calculus at the same time. There is no point to make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, it's same biology and chemistry.

We don't need to know how the first cell appeared to know that it did, and that life evolved and diversified over the next 3.7 billion years or so.

Interbane provided a beautiful illustration of Intelligent Design's central idea of irreducible complexity. The naysayers keep looking at those missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, while the those of us who choose not to be blinkered see the very obvious big picture.

Indeed, as scientists continue to amass evidence supporting evolution, the IDers and YECers have to keep moving the goalposts. They don't want to accept evolution and use belligerence and motivated ignorance to maintain their positions. But they espouse no alternate theory. Intelligent Design is not a theory but pseudoscience.

Meanwhile, we have a very good idea how life arose from inorganic or inanimate substances, but of course it's 'just a theory.' If that's where you want to stake your claim, you'll likely be safe for a long, long time.

So asking basic questions like where did we get unique DNA, how 3 chamber heart evolved from 2 chamber heart, how bacterium evolved a flaggelum is "moving goalposts, use belligerence, being ignorant and being a naysayer..."? Ok... I thought asking questions is what science all about, and not simply "believing" in something... like... the religious people that you claim that you are nothing alike.

"Meanwhile, we have a very good idea how life arose from inorganic or inanimate substances"
No, you don't have a very good idea, or any idea.... some evolutionists even say that first cells came from space, this is how desperate they are...

BTW I still don't understand why you chose to separate evolution and abiogenesis... I mean it's a fact that some proccesses led to creation (or production) of biological complex structures (first cells)... so why do you assume that those proccesses that made the first cell are no longer active and are not relevant anymore? How do you decide that whatever had make the first cell, is not what keeps producing new biological complexity and making all the biological diversity (new species)?
on what authority you decide that?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b01mk8vh

person123 wrote:How do you decide that whatever had make the first cell, is not what keeps producing new biological complexity and making all the biological diversity (new species)?on what authority you decide that?

Evolution is the authority.

The beauty of evolution via natural selection is that it may well have been that a secondary form of biologically complex cell did emerge but subsequently died off from a failure to compete.

The link I've provided is an excellent discussion of abiogenesis, It is presented by people who are at the very top of this particular field of research and covers much of current understanding.

Those missing puzzle pieces become less relevant as modern scientific understanding of how cell development is supposed to happen improves. Those missing pieces do not falsify Neo-Darwinian understanding, only intelligent design attempts to accomplish that through pseudoscientific means.

"The link I've provided is an excellent discussion of abiogenesis"

At what minute? I listened for 5 minutes, it was pointless babbling.

"Those missing puzzle pieces become less relevant as modern scientific understanding of how cell development is supposed to happen improves."

No... it doesn't become less relevant. The more they know about the cell, the more complex it appears, the harder it becomes to explain its origin.

You all living in some kind of fantasy world...

"The beauty of evolution..."

The real beauty of evolution is that it doesn't really exist and nobody understands what it really is, but everyone pretends as if he knows what he talks about...