Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

[AFJ]

Alex, I am aiming at anyone personally. I am not saying you or anyone is close-minded. I apologize to you if that is how you took it. I am merely stating what I assumed was self evident--that in general we all, including me, have presuppositions by which we form opinions, and beliefs. The most basic of these is that we exist, and then we can go from there. I am not escaping your request to present citations. I can do this, but it is much more time consuming. I have done this before in my small experience of this debate on other forums, and been accused of copying and posting, without really having any background knowledge.

Can I say that the opening post on this goes as follows:"Can anyone come up with any solid, completely unexplainable arguments that defy evolution with our current scientific understanding of the issue.

Note: Please do not run at me and bash me with your bibles."

Lets reverse this to see how this sounds. Can anyone come up with any solid...arguments that defy THE SCRIPTURES with our (that being knowledgeable experienced Christians) understanding on the issue? Please do not bash me with your science text books.

Would this question not be considered purely rhetorical from someone who was convinced of evolution? Yet you can hear the bias of someone is completely convinced that the scripture is trustworthy. I'm not saying that there is something wrong with this bias, but that it is self evident--no one has to explain it or make citations from pschycologists or philosophers to see it.

I asked questions in response to provoke thought, because I have seen that to simply say that this was all created by the word of God is to evoke the response that I suffer from blind faith. I want to show people that some Christians have actually thought this subject thoroughly. And that evolutionists, many who so confidently affirm that to believe anything other than on origins is ludicrous, have plenty of their own blind faith.

[alextemplet]

Alright, I see your point that one can read a degree of inherent bias into the original post. That said, I'm not so sure it was necessarily out of line. "The Bible says so" hardly counts as scientific evidence, especially when one could just as easily cite chapter and verse from the Qu'ran or Confuscious (misspelled?) as well as plenty of other religious scriptures.

My point is that the validity of any scientific theory is ultimately dependent on evidence. I am sorry if your efforts to present evidence have not met with success, but since you bring up the question of background knowledge, I must confess that I am curious as to the extent of your scientific education. Do you hold a science degree or are you simply an armchair enthusiast? If you're curious about my own credentials, I'm an undergrad student pursuing a double major in biology and chemistry. I plan to go to grad school and work on a doctorate.

Most of the questions you presented have nothing to do with biology. The big bang, for example, is a matter of astrophysics, just as the development of rock strata is a concern for geologists. I'm not saying that I wouldn't mind discussing those topics with you; I'm just skeptical if this is the right place to do so, since this is a biology forum. However, that's probably up to the mods to decide. Still, given that evolution is a biological phenomenon, it might be best to base your arguments on biological facts and theories.

I must admit I am a bit concerned by the way you seem to equate evolution with atheism, especially since many of the greatest Christian theologians (Augustine of Hippo comes to mind) have been strong supporters of evolutionary thought. Even then, evolution is at its heart a scientific concept, and thus should be kept independent from any religious affiliation. Maybe I'm reading too much into your words here, but that's just the impression I'm getting, and feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted you.

I am also a bit concerned by this:

...our (that being knowledgeable experienced Christians) understanding...

Again, I might be misunderstanding you, which is why I'm going to ask for a clarification before I go off half-cocked. Are you implying, or do you believe, that all "knowledgeable, experienced Christians" are going to believe and think exactly as you do?

[AFJ]

My degree is in theology, but before that years of personal study of the Bible, so I have a good working knowledge of what is in it--a pretty good knowledge of prophecy also. I was a missionary for a number of years, but now do secular work. In science my level is laymen/student--but not according to what I can remember from high school--I am currently studying chemistry, but I also read much on the internet. I kind of take turns, so I don't get bored. One day I may study the geologic time scale, another day I may read my chemistry book. Another day I may study about the electron transport chain or another area of microbiology. Then I read alot of articles on the answers in genesis website. So yes you would call me a science enthusiast. I have 3 kids and a grandchild in the house at this point so I couldn't make a switch in careers at this point. I wish now I had majored in science. I could see myself being a high school science teacher (my wife is a 4th grade teacher).

Let me ask you a question, Alex. What do you with Adam and Eve and original sin since you are catholic. How do you blend evolution in with that?

[alextemplet]

Theology? Interesting; another favorite subject of mine. I'm sort of in the same boat as you are with being an enthusiast in a great many topics, and like you I don't always find the time to indulge my academic curiosities as much as I'd prefer. Although my excuse isn't a family; it's just the simple curse of being a college student! But despite my lack of spare time, I have a very strong interest in theology, and probably would've majored it if that hadn't have meant going to a private university, which I can't afford. Plus there's not much prospect for employment in theology unless I would go into the clergy, which I'm not exactly cut out for. I am currently reading a book called Unabridged Christianity which examines the beliefs of the early Christians and compares it to doctrines today; it's written by Fr. Mario Pamero, who's pastor of a Catholic church in Lafayette, Louisiana; about two hour's drive from where I am in the Houma-Thibodaux area. Anyway thanks for indulging my curiosity on that topic.

As for your question, I'd be more than willing to answer it, but as we've both agreed here isn't the place. Send me an e-mail and we can discuss it.

[AFJ]

Hi Alex, sorry I did not have time to get back to you. i worked 73 hours this week--shooo!! I am getting a little read in my chemistry book about the basics of thermodynamics. i know generally about chemistry from the laymen articles I have read, but I want to get a strong foundation in my technical understanding of chemistry and microbiology. My motive being to be better equipped to speak in this debate.

I don't have alot of time but I did want to say on the issue on the emergence of life that I accept wholeheartedly the biblical account that we were created by God from "dust"--which is a outstanding metaphor for the elements. The fact that it is dust -- small particles of matter, rather than say a rock or by something other worldly say, speaks to all generations, especially us today.

Secondly, on the question of expecting all experienced Christians believing as I do. Technically no. Generally yes. Theologically, there is room for some speculation and interpretation on some doctrines, because we are not given the complete picture on some doctrines--eschatology (the study of end times) being one of them. There are essential doctrines for the salvation of the soul and then there are periphery doctrines in which we might in part err but will not disqualify us from a heavenly entrance.

For instance, no matter what denomination we are, we must be born again by water and spirit to be a Christian. Christ teaches this in the gospel John ch. 3. It is essential to be regenerated by God's spirit and become a new creature in Christ Jesus, or we are only religious. Of course, you know we do this by acknowledging the truths found in Romans 3:23, 6:23, Romans 10:9-11, Acts 2:38, Epeshians 2:8-10, along with Christ teaching to Nicodemis in John 3. These principles are essential for genuine scriptural faith no matter what our denominational or theological background.

[AstusAleator]

Since you "research the debate" you might want to take a long look at www.talkorigins.org

Researching a debate means looking at both sides right? Not just stocking up on the best arguments for your side of it?

[alextemplet]

Researching a debate means looking at both sides right? Not just stocking up on the best arguments for your side of it?

Wait a minute; are you suggesting people should actually try to be open-minded? How dare you bring that kind of heresy in here!

Just kidding, of course!

[gamila]

Can anyone come up with any solid, completely unexplainable arguments that defy evolution with our current scientific understanding of the issue.

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf
'THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG'

or
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html
the Samuel Wilberforce T. H. Huxley debate

here is one slam dunk - noted over 160 years ago- and nothing has changed
THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION

As Dawkins notes the problem

And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

Darwin said it made his view wrong

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/explo/explo.htm

Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)

Goould says nothing has changed since Darwin

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/explo/explo.htm

Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) "The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Evolution of Life," in Schopf, Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, 1999, p. 9.)”

Even the arch evolutionist Dawkins states the Cambrian explosion is a major problem and gives support for the creationists

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/explo/explo.htm
“Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).

[alextemplet]

Gamila, you are presenting arguments from a website that claims that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, and even seems to suggest that some dinosaurs might still be alive in some parts of the world. Do I really have to explain how rediculous this is, and how unreliable it makes your source?

[gamila]

Gamila, you are presenting arguments from a website that claims that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, and even seems to suggest that some dinosaurs might still be alive in some parts of the world. Do I really have to explain how rediculous this is, and how unreliable it makes your source?

you just refuse to see what is written dont you- i have pointed this out in numerous post quoted your own experts
the myths of your science have just a to greater hold on you
go read up on the cambrian explosion
dawkin and gould have told you the problem with it

And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

darwin has told you about it

Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)

and gould again

“Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).

[alextemplet]

you just refuse to see what is written dont you- i have pointed this out in numerous post quoted your own experts

You just refuse to use logic, don't you?

[DanielSan]

"And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
This quote you just took out of context is from Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker". And it seems to me that you haven't read the book...