KingdomInsight

Creating a Learning Network for Kingdom Builders!

The Bible tells us that the Lord is visible even in His creation. I learn concepts and am horrible with exact scripture references. Can you scholars help me out here? I see God in His creation all of the time. Ever notice the incredible varierty of color and beauty in the birds or the flowers. Although similar they are all different. Shape, color, size, behavior each is unique and fascinating in its own way. For me the ultimate in the Lord's creation and complexity is a bug. Yes, I'm weird that way. I like bugs, especially bottom dwelling stream instects (Macrobenthic insects). It is amazing how complex these things are; every leg has numerous joints, their mouths have numerous moving parts, and the immature stage ussually looks radically different from the adult. At the genus level identification may be determined by the size of a "hair", the prescence of a "thumb" on a mouth part, or the location and shape of a hard skeletal plate (sclerite). When even these "simple" things are so complex how can evolution even be considered? A random beneficial mutation? Since when? How/where do you see the Lord in his creation?

Views: 47

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Jim,

I am an American and as an American we believe that science is a revolutionary activity. I agree with your friend Ken Miller that "truly great science overturns our accepted ideas of nature, and therefore always present a threat to the established order." Darwinian clearly see Creationists and ID proponents as a threat; however, all the work done to falsify Darwinian evolution has been done by Lenski himself.

Darwinian Evolutionary is in trouble and the influence of the Intelligent Design arguments is about to explode onto the scene. Let me tell you why?

Richard Lenski is trying to reproduce evolutionary development as he studies the reproduction of E. Coli. The results of his work thus far after 44,000 generations of E. Coli have resulted in 653 mutations. The experiment has provided proof positive that the mechanism for Darwinian evolution (mutation plus natural selection) is a failure.

Here’s why:

The E. Coli has experienced 44,000 generations. These generations equivalent to 1,760,000 million years in human generations. During these 44,000 generations, only one new ability has been observed.

The 653 mutations that have taken place which is the equivalent of 1.76 million human years have failed to produce any beneficial change to the organism at all. The only change that Lenski has reported is the ability of the E. Coli to metabolise citrate. Even this change has been challenged by Andy Schlafly, B.S.E who has requested Lenski to release the study.

He stated, “Skepticism has been expressed on Conservapedia about your claims, and the significance of your claims, that E. Coli bacteria had an evolutionary beneficial mutation in your study. Specifically, we wonder about the data supporting your claim that one of your colonies of E. Coli developed the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E. Coli, at around 31,500 generations. In addition, there is skepticism that 3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000″…”Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science state that “(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information.” Also, your work was apparently funded by taxpayers, providing further reason for making the data publicly available.”

Lenksi has not and apparently will not release this information (Climategate REPEAT); however, even if what Lenski says were true, his experiment would provide proof positive that Darwinian evolution could not have been responsible for the creation the 50-100 unique genes that exist in humanity!

Michael Behe stated, “Lenski’s decades-long work lines up wonderfully with what an ID person would expect — in a huge number of tries, one sees minor changes, mostly degradative, and no new complex systems. So much for the power of random mutation and natural selection. For his work in this area we should be very grateful. It gives us solid results to point to, rather than having to debate speculative scenarios.”

I think it is ironic that a Darwinian who believes in Darwinian evolutionary theory has proven that Darwinian evolution which relies on mutation and natural selection is false. Darwinian evolution just had the engine fall out but Lenski doesn’t realize just yet what he has done. A Darwinian will be the one to falsify the theory of Darwinian evolution. This is BIG!

However, please remember that Darwinian evolution cannot be falsified because it is a belief based on assumptions that exist outside human observation. Darwinians will simply say that Lenski did something wrong (circle the wagons). Jim, I am pretty sure you will too because you have such great faith in a theory which lacks any observational support.

Lenski as well as every ID proponent out there knows that humans have at least 50-100 unique genes that are not shared by a lower species. The actual number of 50-100 unique genes is outdated because the newest count is 250 unique genes (which has yet to be published due to being suppressed). In 1.76 million human years, Lenski has failed to observe an evolutionary rate that can explain humanity!

I hope you can all see that at his current rate, Darwinian evolution will fail to explain human evolution. The mechanism of mutation combined with natural selection is an abject failure that has in fact been falsified! The problem with Darwinian evolution gets even bigger because Darwinians currently teach that man came from Ardi which was 4.4 million years old. We know that ARDI would have had to experienced the creation of new genes in order to become a modern human.

The longer Lenski continues his experiment, the stronger the evidence against Darwinian evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolutionary theory lacks a mechanism for Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution has now been falsified as a theory.

Jim, In the UK they quote Darwinians. In the US, we actually do science because we believe science is a revolutionary activity! It is in our blood.

God Bless...
Jim,

I have more bad news for you. The British are having to cut their funding for the colleges by 1 Billion dollars over the next three years (12% reduction). I guess providing health care is even more important than education which includes slashing science... You are going to have to admit at some point Jim that the people over in Britain have turned brain dead allowing ideology to rule rather than common sense. When you quote the 'expert' realize that you are generally quoting someone who lacks common sense. I would stop listening to the experts and start using your own mind. The propaganda is hard to see through; however, I think you are intelligent enough to see through it.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9D6BSAG0&show_article=1
Jim,

As I stated, even when it has been in fact falsified, you will simply go into blind faith mode because your reasoning process isn't rational. You simply have a emotive desire that Darwinian evolution be true because you believe it supports your worldview. You are guilty of projection.

As I stated and will repeat, the entire edifice of Darwinian evolutionary theory is built on unproven assumptions. It only needs a small wind to blow that deck of cards down. The same evidence can be used to demonstrate the hypothesis that there is a common Designer and a common design.

When we actually come to observable science, Darwinian theories never work! They are based on faith. Your rejection of Lenski evidence is simply a desire on your part for Darwinian theory to be true no matter what the evidence. You can clearly see that the rate of change (one change in 1.76 million human years) does not provide enough time to justify Darwinian evolution. Lenski won't even release the data to see if the process can be repeated!! The longer he goes on with his experiment, the stronger the evidence becomes that Darwinian evolution doesn't work. In fact, at the current rate of 1.76 million years for one change, you cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion at all!!

You accuse Theists of believing in stuff we can't see; however, you believe in all kinds of unproven assumptions that we can't see. You don't see the irony of your own belief system.

We will be in prayer for you. I know that you don't enjoy doing real science at this point. You want to believe in stuff you can't see...however, you just don't want to believe in God at this time. You can be inconsistent if you want; however, your rejection of God is not rational, it is moral.

Jim, open your heart to the Lord and open your mind to science. Science is not about naturalism...it is about describing reality and God is apart of that reality which science has demonstrated over and over again. Science cannot be done without God who is the Designer and this is now a proven fact.

As for your quote from Russell, your the one who is absolutely certain. I am the one who says all knowledge is based on faith since we can only know things in degrees of probability. I guess that line hit you because it applies to you!

God Bless...
In the beginning God!!!!!!!
Ravi Zacharias is a wealth of information if you are not familiar with his sermons/lectures. The attached mp3 links may be helpful in response to this post or you may go to his website and search for other sermons that might address this issue more specifically.

http://htod.cdncon.com/o2/rzimht/MP3/LMPT/131-1.mp3

http://htod.cdncon.com/o2/rzimht/MP3/LMPT/131-2.mp3
OK Lisa, here is one of the Scripture references:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:20

I look at it this way. God's Word exists in a number of ways. Two of them are: (1) written pages called the Holy Bible for those who read, and (2) visual creation for those who don't read.

Blessings, Dave
hmmm, I thought I posted on this subject which I have studied intensely and have come to feel that evolution is "baloney sausage" through science and logic ALONE. I have not read the long thread here - I don't have time right now (have 150 emails waiting for me... ** sigh **) but wanted to share a few things. First, seems Mr Gardner must have heard some arguments that made him uncomfortable because he got ad hominem in several messages (i.e. insulting) and that is a sure sign to me that when one sinks to that level, one has run out of arguments. Which I can understand why is true of atheists and "naturalism" or Darwinism which only can be believed if you do not question it on a logical or scientific level. In fact in one message he told someone that "no one was interested" in that person's messages and so thus that person should shut up but the only person *I* saw complaining about that person was Mr Gardner - I found this rather amusing so whoever that individual was (I didn't take notice of the name) he or she DID obviously provide some rather compelling evidence against evolution or Mr Gardner would have not been so ardent about trying to get him/her to shut up... *LOL*

In my view, the belief in God does NOT rule out evolution but what DOES rule it out, is science and logic itself!

OK let's explore this a bit further - evolution is not Darwin's invention at all. It's been around in one form or another since the ancient Greeks actually. Darwin publicized it with what we would now call a "best seller" to kind of save his name. You see, his granddad, Erasmus Darwin and his father, Robert Darwin were very respected physicians and Darwin was expected to follow in their footsteps only he flunked out of medical school. The family wanting to save face, sent Darwin to the seminary which was at least more respectable than the alternative - interesting because the family were basically agnostic. Darwin apparently figured at some point that launching a psuedo scientific best seller so to speak, would save face so this is the way he went.

He did not mention man in "the Origin of Species". The "evolution" of man was detailed in a later book called "the Descent of Man" but Darwin fans are not too wild about advocating this book because it heavily recommended "eugenics" or the science of cleansing the human species.

Actually if you think of it, a belief set which reduces the human being to "just another animal" easily embraces the limiting of population growth through abortion and also the selectively "putting down" of those specimens too old or stupid or handicapped to be functional. Also the sterilization of members of groups considered to be "less intelligent" or somehow less "civilized". The eugenics theory was embraced by such upright citizens as Karl Marx and Hitler and Stalin. Also the Founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger prolifically wrote about eugenics - that's what her whole deal about birth control was about.... and sterilization... those considered "worthwhile humans" were encouraged to reproduce liberally - those not thus considered were encouraged to be sterilized etc.

"The Origin of Species" was embraced in the so called "Age of Enlightenment" because it de-deified evolution and opined that everything happened by random chance, a theory which at the time of its release, they did not have the tools to prove or disprove and it sounded great to those wishing to eliminate a Creator from the equation.

Thomas Huxley, an ardent follower of Darwin wrote:

"in the evolutionary pattern of thought, there is no longer a need or room for the supernatural."

Later Karl Marx wrote about "The Origin of Species"

"this is the book that contains the natural history which is the basis for our theories"

To say there are serious scientific and logical problems with Darwinism or Naturalism is an understatement.

To begin with we can NOW compute the possibility of mutations which are meaningful (and remember it takes hundreds of small mutations or even thousands to "evolve" a totally new species). And this probability is that 99.99999999999999999999 percent of mutations are either deleterious or insignificant. At that rate, for an animal to mutate into another species would take at least twice or three times the age of the universe.

But we know that MOST animals appeared on the scene relatively recently:

Darwin predicted that from a single source, many animals evolved but the fossil record disproves that. For example in the Cambrian era, there emerged in a geological eyeblink, virtually all animal groups. In one of HIS honest moments Richard Dawkins admits "it was as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary history!" Darwin predicted that the extinction of a species would be even slower than the evolution of a species... but again the fossil record disproves this totally. In one of HIS honest moments, Gould calls these "anomalous and threatening" (threatening to what - his evolutionary beliefs?) ;)

There is much more - this is only the tip of the iceberg if one studies the subject.

Source articles and suggested reading:

Three articles about evolution and Intelligent Design

Read all three articles - they should intrigue regardless of your beliefs.

Source books:

Johnson, Phillip: DARWIN ON TRIAL, NY 2009
Wiker, Ben, PhD: DARWINS LIFE AND LIES, NY, 2009

other:
Scientific American 1978 Sept - this entire issue is on evolution and many of the flaws in the theory are brought to light... it was after reading this issue that I first questioned the theory.

"15 percent of the world's more brilliant scientists accept the theory of "Intelligent Design" and this is troubling." (Neil DeGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, atheist and evolutionist)
I have been debating the evolutionists for over thirty years. One thing that i have noticed is that they can never produce any scientific evidence in support of their hypothesis. They instead put forth the things that they can imagine happening in long ago soups, and that imagination is what they are asserting is the evidence.

First let's get one thing straight. Science can only deal with the observable. In order to fall within the scientific method, a phenomenon must be ovservable, reproducable, and falsifiable. Evolution does not fit any of those criteria. The best that evolutionists can do is engage in forensic science to try to reconstruct thing no longer observed in the present. And that is what they have done.

Take two fossil skeletons. They look similar. To the evolutionist, that similarity is the forensic evidence that evolution has taken place. But all forensics can do is to try to visualize from the physical evidence what series of events could have happened to leave the observed evidence. The reconstruction, however, is niether evidence of any kind, nor is it even science. Forensics is the exercise of imagining how things transpired to leaave behind the physical evidence.

What an evolutionist will do is to look at fossil A, look at fossil B, and then build the bridge between them IN HIS MIND. There is no physical evidence, not even forensic evidence, only the assertion that because he can imagine it, it must have happened in just that manner. In my estimation, anyone who believes in evolution has simply lost his mind.

As I said earlier, I have been studying almost non stop the scientific issues of creation/evolution since 1977 - 33 years more or less. In all of that time, I can not recall any evolutionist once even trying to present any physical evidence favoring evolution. All I have heard for 33 years of arrogant displays of vain imaginations masquerading as science.

Earlier in this chain, the resident fool said something like (paraphased) we know what the early earth was like. What unmitigated gall. He knows? Was he there? Every word an evolutionist utters is a lie based upon a very complex infrastructure of lies. But make no mistake about it, every sentence is one assertion upon another of something that is not and can not be known.

As a scientist myself, I take great umbrage with fools who think their ability to imagine makes them a scientist.
Sue,

The current evidence does falsify Darwinian evolution. It may not rule out Theistic evolution though which still remains a hypothesis.
Awesome post. You said it better than me!

Bro Cope said:
I have been debating the evolutionists for over thirty years. One thing that i have noticed is that they can never produce any scientific evidence in support of their hypothesis. They instead put forth the things that they can imagine happening in long ago soups, and that imagination is what they are asserting is the evidence.

First let's get one thing straight. Science can only deal with the observable. In order to fall within the scientific method, a phenomenon must be ovservable, reproducable, and falsifiable. Evolution does not fit any of those criteria. The best that evolutionists can do is engage in forensic science to try to reconstruct thing no longer observed in the present. And that is what they have done.

Take two fossil skeletons. They look similar. To the evolutionist, that similarity is the forensic evidence that evolution has taken place. But all forensics can do is to try to visualize from the physical evidence what series of events could have happened to leave the observed evidence. The reconstruction, however, is niether evidence of any kind, nor is it even science. Forensics is the exercise of imagining how things transpired to leaave behind the physical evidence.

What an evolutionist will do is to look at fossil A, look at fossil B, and then build the bridge between them IN HIS MIND. There is no physical evidence, not even forensic evidence, only the assertion that because he can imagine it, it must have happened in just that manner. In my estimation, anyone who believes in evolution has simply lost his mind.

As I said earlier, I have been studying almost non stop the scientific issues of creation/evolution since 1977 - 33 years more or less. In all of that time, I can not recall any evolutionist once even trying to present any physical evidence favoring evolution. All I have heard for 33 years of arrogant displays of vain imaginations masquerading as science.

Earlier in this chain, the resident fool said something like (paraphased) we know what the early earth was like. What unmitigated gall. He knows? Was he there? Every word an evolutionist utters is a lie based upon a very complex infrastructure of lies. But make no mistake about it, every sentence is one assertion upon another of something that is not and can not be known.

As a scientist myself, I take great umbrage with fools who think their ability to imagine makes them a scientist.
I agree.....the way I see it, the miracle of life is too complex to fit in a code....especially one that man invents...i see many things too complex for me to understand...that's when I have the faith to trust God and sometimes, I just don't need to know!
Jim,

I appreciate you posting this article because it helps everyone here to understand how you have come to your concluions. However, you may want to consider this...

First, the article is written by a New York Times writer. I think most Christians put the NY times on the level of the Onion.

Second, the writer of the article is Nicholas Wade who also argues that Monkeys can talk in another article.

Third, the article is basically a claim that provides no substantiation or facts. It just makes a claim based on the opinion of a couple Darwinian (which is usually enough for a Darwinian). What about that 50 years of research prior to this "NEW" Discovery...

Fourth, it appears that the guy doesn't understand genetics. I suspect the writer in his zeal did not understand the reasoning and put together a propaganda piece similiar to the talking monkey bit.

God Bless...

RSS

Latest Activity

James Bartlett posted a status
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdsVZ6VLsk This is my 1st attempt at doing a teaching on Youtube"
Jun 1, 2021
Juanita added a discussion to the group March to Honor
Aug 19, 2020
Juanita posted a group
Aug 19, 2020
Profile IconAlexandria, Kacee Holmes, Trish and 2 more joined KingdomInsight
Aug 19, 2020
Juanita and Pascal Musore are now friends
Jul 13, 2019
Pascal Musore posted a status
"Lets change our world"
Jul 4, 2019
Pascal Musore posted a status
"Prayer that you have made acquaintances with the project, for more information or questions, write to me I am at your disposal"
Jul 4, 2019
Pascal Musore posted a status
"electricity in Africa and around the world, we already have several projects that are in progress, we lack some support from you"
Jul 4, 2019
Pascal Musore posted a status
"People from around the world, I come to you to talk about my humanitarian association which aims to fight against famines, no drinking water"
Jul 4, 2019
Ginny Reid Radtke replied to Juanita's discussion Chapter 3. Not my job. in the group 2019 Review of The Seed - Pre-Publication
"What a thought provoking chapter! Interesting that change is only possible if there is hope; Yes I…"
Jun 20, 2019
James Bartlett joined Juanita's group
Thumbnail

Prayer. Learning to be Intentional.

This is a Call to Prayer!When God intends to move, He calls us to prayer.  He is calling.  Let's be…See More
Jun 18, 2019
Ginny Reid Radtke joined Juanita's group
Thumbnail

2019 Review of The Seed - Pre-Publication

People are confused.   We know how to 'do church'.  Church happens every Sunday morning.   How do…See More
Jun 16, 2019
Michael is now a member of KingdomInsight
Jun 15, 2019
Ginny Reid Radtke and Juanita are now friends
Jun 14, 2019
James Bartlett replied to Juanita's discussion Preface - The Seed 2019 Pre-Launch in the group 2019 Review of The Seed - Pre-Publication
"A "Church" House, Building, Temple, etc. is the House of the Lord, it is a place we come…"
Jun 11, 2019
James Bartlett liked Juanita's discussion Preface - The Seed 2019 Pre-Launch
Jun 11, 2019
James Bartlett joined Juanita's group
Thumbnail

2019 Review of The Seed - Pre-Publication

People are confused.   We know how to 'do church'.  Church happens every Sunday morning.   How do…See More
Jun 11, 2019
James Bartlett and Robert H Patrick are now friends
Jun 11, 2019
Profile IconGinny Reid Radtke, James Pollard, Tom Christensen and 2 more joined KingdomInsight
Jun 8, 2019
Juanita's group was featured
Thumbnail

2019 Review of The Seed - Pre-Publication

People are confused.   We know how to 'do church'.  Church happens every Sunday morning.   How do…See More
Jun 8, 2019

© 2022   Created by Juanita.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service