Re: Lack of wing diversity disproves evolution...

On Feb 19, 5:55 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_fo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<<"Godless presumption?" Are you under the impression that religion
and
evolution are incompatible? If so, you're sadly mistaken.>>

Yes, they are in fact, incompatible. You cannot have both. Evolution
teaches random mutations. In other words, not from design. There is a
conflict. I can't see God using replication errors as a process of
design. Can you? What the evidence demonstrates to me is a trickle up
type of creation scenario. From beyond the material universe,
information is transmitted via sub atomic channels, certain electronic
charges in electrons dictate the chemicals and their attractions,
which dictate the organic products and their attractions and roles and
so on. That's what science appears to show (not just in chemistry or
biology, but notice how the magnetic and gravitational forces as well
as the energy source, the sun are all in place to allow these
chemicals and organisms to interact).

A few of the mechanisms attributed to evolution/creation are accurate
however, (refer to the bible, where God commands life to be fruitful
and mutliply) sexual selection plays a major part, as does genetic
drift and migration, in populating the earth and diversifying God's
magnificant creation. Random mutations or natural selection played no
part in creation.

But we cannot attribute creation to randomness. All mutations are now
detrimental in most species, except for those who's roles are to bring
about death and disease, or work in the life/death balance in nature
which is designed to be just that. We cannot take evidence which
validates the bible and twist it around to refute the bible. We cannot
adhere to secular documentation in a compromising way, because it
directly challenges or distorts the creators' documentation (which was
not detailed in explaining what modern science attempts to
understand), but which addressed roles in creation. Once you play on
their terms, you play by their rules. And their rules are scientific
or demonstrable, while God's are inuitively inclined, spiritually
instinctive and related to more simplistic and relevant-to-human-
behaviour type teachings. The bible and church address WHY we are
here, while science attempts to address how we got here, and errors in
doing so.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lack of wing diversity disproves evolution...
    ... evolution are incompatible? ... type of creation scenario. ... Genetics tells us about random mutations. ... not detailed in explaining what modern science attempts to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • A look at "Explore Evolution" -- EXTREMELY LONG !!!!!!!!!!
    ... "Evolution is a tautology". ... is all about "Intelligent Design Theory", ... "Problems with evolution are evidence for creation" ... That word "origins" is significant. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Has talk.origins convinced any creationists?
    ... creationists about evolution. ... Evolution was really my religion, ... friends who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Young Earth Creationist Arguments. Do they realize how they look?
    ... scientists though, ... I don't 'believe' in evolution, I merely accept it as the best ... I suppled a SCIENTIST who believes in the Creation. ... then show that there indeed are true scientists who do ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... Trying to redefine evolution as a "word game" is.... ... For over a decade Michael Ruse has been a prominent figure in the ... It is the belief in that doctrine that permits scientists ... publication of The Genesis Flood and the Creation Research Society's ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading