PetriFB

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/theory_of_evolution

When it is a question of the Bible’s references to creation, so it is nowadays very difficult for many people to believe in it. They may regard this view as wrong and old-fashioned, while the view of haphazard birth and evolution of universe and all organic seems to them to be a reasonable matter. They believe and regard so as right the theory of evolution, in which all is thought to have been born by itself. This view and theory got mainly its beginning from the thoughts of Charles Darwin and from the book, "The Origin of Species", which he published in1859 and in which this matter is brought out.

But how to take a stand towards this matter and is it reasonable to believe in it?

We are going indeed to examine this matter and we try to indicate, that in this theory there are still a lot of enigmas, obscurities and question-marks – these problems we will try to bring out. In addition to this, this writing has been directed namely towards such persons, who struggle with this matter and who sincerely want to understand this area. Such kinds of people, who already beforehand are sure of this matter, hardly benefit from the writing. They probably move soon to other different subjects, because they simply don’t believe, that the theory of Charles Darwin could be wrong.

In any case, a good picture of that, how there are weaknesses in this theory, give often the own statements of the supporters of this theory. For when they often assure, how the aforesaid evolution is a sure and proved fact, so they elsewhere deny this all.

Among other things the next honest examples, which are from the same book, indicate this well. To the text has been added italics so that the matter would be clearer.



After having started once, the story of life becomes a logical, absolutely unavoidable chain of reasons and consequences. Its links with all fascinating details science can clarify, but still is a considerable mystery how life started. There is not any convincing explanation for it. The chemical components of living organisms are known, and biochemical reactions, which maintain life are known very accurately, but decisive initial spark of life still waits accurate definition. Life: so self-evident and simple phenomenon, and in any case so difficult to explain...

There is not even one suspicion, that life was born from the material of the globe, stars and universe. From these same materials, which have over and over again circulated in the timeless space. We all are basically star dust. Such as life evolved from the one cell more and more complicated and endlessly varied, so in the globe there has been its evolution. It has condensed from the dust cloud, which was between the stars, and it has cooled almost four billion years ago to a compact ball, but it is also this day under its own internal heat and those powers, which it has created. (John Reader: Alkumerestä maalle, p. 9,25,26 / THE RISE OF LIFE)

JPD

Hi

This is in the wrong thread but are you posting it as a joke in any case or as a serious point for discussion? If so, you haven't enclosed the quote or given your view on what it claims.

JPD

Hate to have to tell you this but evolutionary theory has shifted quite a bit since then. All this demonstrates is the lack of awareness of the author not to mention an inability to differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution.

Since when does "Goddidit" serve as an explanation in the real world when there is no direct evidence to support God's existence in the first place? Would it not be more sensible to comprehend life on a physical basis? Anything "beyond" that must necessarily remain shrouded in mystery and is inadmissible as "evidence" unless your argument is so convincing that we have to take a step back and reevaluate our entire view.

JPD

As opposed to an alternative "theory" which isn't even that, ie. God created all and despite having elected to provide no direct evidence for his existence, is a superior explanation?


Let's go for a ramble. Let me know when a point is being made lest I should wander off and look for something more compelling, ie. the challenge of matching my socks.

Chris Weimer

This belongs in E/C not BC&H.

Amaleq13

I agree. swoosh. -Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Killer Mike

I looked thru this silly website. Its simply a summary of the old creationism of Duane Gish and Henry Morris. Australopithecus was an ape, nebraska man, peppered moths are not evolution, etc..

I would refer you to "Science and Earth History. The Creationism/Evolution Controversy" by geologist Arthur Strahler. For example, the claim Lucy was mearly an ape is not true. Every scientists who has studied Lucy's hip, knee anatomy concludes she walked upright. Apes walk on all fours. No Lucy was not an ape, rather an apelike creature that walked bipedally, like us human.

Next Case!

Peez

It is hard to know where to begin. First, it is rude to just present text that has simply been copied from somewhere else. By all means give us a link, perhaps quote some particularly interesting passage, and then offer some sort of comment.

That being said:

1) I suggest Do You Believe in Evolution.

2) I will not criticize someone for not writing English very well, but I suggest that the author obtain some help if they wish to communicate clearly in this language.

3) There seems to be confusion between the theory of evolution and theories regarding the early moments of the universe, the origin of life, and perhaps other areas of science.

4) I also suggest Quotations and Misquotations.

5) There are obviously false statements, numerous blatant misunderstandings of science in general and evolution in particular, and the same old creationist drivel.

If the thread-starter has something specific to say, perhaps they can post something more explicit.

Peez

Oolon Colluphid

Awww shit, I've got to go home, and this turns up. Bet there'll be nothing left by tomorrow morning GMT!

FatherMithras

Laughable. Abiogenesis anyone? PetriFB, do you even read what you post? It's so ridiculously disproven and fallacious it makes me snicker.