Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not all "fundamentalist Christians" claim what you state.
Many informed Christians who believe in creation by God do not believe what you state, that which I have bolded in your post, and still reject molecules-to-man, Darwinian evolution.
Not to be a fly in the ointment but just where exactly has anyone claimed molecules-to-man?
It is only in the erroneous 6k YEC model that to reach Homo Sapiens today that anyone would suggest a transition of molecules-man.
I admit up front my almost complete ignorance of evolution, but there is one question (or set of questions) I have in mind. Before I ask, let me make it clear that I am an agnostic and not a supporter of the "goddidit" community.
I often hear the expression "they evolved" or "it evolved" and it is said so often you just take it for granted that everything we see, evolved. This may or may not apparent to some, but what sparks evolution and what is the magic that makes it happen? I understand it is about survival, but what if I was creature that crawled around on my stomach and what I needed to survive lived in trees at the top of a rain forest canopy? I can wish to get to it all I want but all my wishing is not going to magically produce legs, wings or powerful muscles to leap, will it??? I can need all I want, it's not going to get me any closer to the top of the tree whether it takes 2 days or 2 billion years.
This is my very basic, albeit, ignorant understanding of evolution. I'm clearly missing something, but I am more concerned about the "magic." Can someone explain this for me?
I think the simple answer is that nobody knows yet.
There are theories that DNA has some kind of intelligence, similar to a computer chip, and evolves with it's own "intelligence".
There are theories that species mental energy somehow makes them evolve. This is more of a metaphysical theory.
And then some people think the God is at work in evolution in some way.
There are lots of other theories too. But we havn't really found out yet. I think we will have some scientific breakthroughs coming soon though.
.
Not to be a fly in the ointment but just where exactly has anyone claimed molecules-to-man?
It is only in the erroneous 6k YEC model that to reach Homo Sapiens today that anyone would suggest a transition of molecules-man.
But then in genesis God makes man out of dirt.
"Molecules-to-man" evolution is the ultimate, logical conclusion if one subscribes to Darwinian evolution aka the ToE. The ToE states all life came from a single, common ancestor. So, logically, following the framework of the ToE from today backwards to the single common ancestor, the question arises, where did that single, common ancestor come from? If they don't believe in "creation" by God in any form, then the single common ancestor had to arise from the "primordial soup" -- hence the phrase "molecules-to-man".
IMHO it is not the YEC that mis-use the phrase/term, but the evolutionist who can't or won't admit where the ToE truly begins. As a YEC I readily admit in the beginning God created. Will those who support the ToE readily admit that their alleged single common ancestor had to begin as non-living molecules that eventually formed the first living cell (abiogenesis)? I doubt it.
I understand it is about survival, but what if I was creature that crawled around on my stomach and what I needed to survive lived in trees at the top of a rain forest canopy? I can wish to get to it all I want but all my wishing is not going to magically produce legs, wings or powerful muscles to leap, will it??? I can need all I want, it's not going to get me any closer to the top of the tree whether it takes 2 days or 2 billion years.
I can't believe nobody has said this yet.
Evolution doesn't work that way!
If you're an animal stuck on it's stomach, and the things you need to survive are in a tree, you're going to become extinct. End of story.
Now, lets say you have a long haired animal... a woolly mammoth for example. The woolly mammoth is suited for living in an area where temperatures are outrageously cold because they have plenty of fur to keep them warm. One group of mammoths split off from the parent group and travel a distance in search for more food. But something happens.. the temperatures in the new area they live in begin to become increasingly warmer. This is normal as the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. Eventually it's warm enough to where the mammoth's hair is no longer helpful in protecting from the cold, but rather causing them to overheat. As the temperatures get warmer and warmer, the animals with thicker, longer hair are going to perish - removing the DNA for thicker, longer hair from the gene pool. The animals with shorter, finer hair survive and reproduce, passing on genetic mutations for shorter and shorter hair. In addition to the mutation for hair, they're now forced to adapt to a different food source that the warmer temperatures have brought. It'll be the animals that can adapt to digest these new food sources that survive, and reproduce. Eventually, enough mutations and adaptations will occur to the point that you have a whole new species.
It's not about wishing for what's in the tree, but changing to live with what you can reach on the ground.
This came up in another thread- here was my reply (edited)
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Insta Poof. = Big Bang - two theories but both insta poof.
All the And God said.. = insta poof in each case
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.
Seeing No one has seen God (because if we see Him face to face we will die) - who is invisible, there is your answer for making something out of nothing.
Now if we are to default to a godunnit, seeing he made man from dirt, then I guess the primordial ooze theory is just as plausible. Difference is, the ooze can be replicated.
How it got this far is still many unknowns but it sure did not happen 6000 years ago.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Here it seems like He had already a ready made planet to work with. Aka the great flood by YEC (not Noah's flood).
In reality, evolution says much the same as genesis in terms of origins, the genesis account is a mere summary except for YEC who take "And the evening and the morning were.." to represent a 24 hour day.
Or maybe we are all just plugged into an alien matrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
"Molecules-to-man" evolution is the ultimate, logical conclusion if one subscribes to Darwinian evolution aka the ToE.
The likes of Ken Hovind like to subscribe to dead scientists. I am sure the ToE has advanced somewhat since Darwin
Quote:
The ToE states all life came from a single, common ancestor. So, logically, following the framework of the ToE from today backwards to the single common ancestor, the question arises, where did that single, common ancestor come from?
That is why it is called a Theory
Quote:
If they don't believe in "creation" by God in any form, then the single common ancestor had to arise from the "primordial soup" -- hence the phrase "molecules-to-man".
And this soup can be replicated.
Quote:
IMHO it is not the YEC that mis-use the phrase/term, but the evolutionist who can't or won't admit where the ToE truly begins.
The problem arises basically between 4.5Bn years vs 6k years. The YEC model requires a godunnit and in fact the whole shedangle is more like 4k if you hold to a global flood.
Quote:
As a YEC I readily admit in the beginning God created. Will those who support the ToE readily admit that their alleged single common ancestor had to begin as non-living molecules that eventually formed the first living cell (abiogenesis)? I doubt it.
While the differences seem far they are not, one is soup, one is dirt, one is insta poof and one is big bang.
The evidence for ToE far outweighs the YEC model and if you have been following the other thread, I have posted five differing disciplines proving an old earthy that AiG or Kent Hovind cannot refute - the challenge is there for any YEC to offer an alternate hypothesis - no takers yet.
I admit up front my almost complete ignorance of evolution, but there is one question (or set of questions) I have in mind. Before I ask, let me make it clear that I am an agnostic and not a supporter of the "goddidit" community.
I often hear the expression "they evolved" or "it evolved" and it is said so often you just take it for granted that everything we see, evolved. This may or may not apparent to some, but what sparks evolution and what is the magic that makes it happen? I understand it is about survival, but what if I was creature that crawled around on my stomach and what I needed to survive lived in trees at the top of a rain forest canopy? I can wish to get to it all I want but all my wishing is not going to magically produce legs, wings or powerful muscles to leap, will it??? I can need all I want, it's not going to get me any closer to the top of the tree whether it takes 2 days or 2 billion years.
This is my very basic, albeit, ignorant understanding of evolution. I'm clearly missing something, but I am more concerned about the "magic." Can someone explain this for me?
According to current historical scientists (evolutionists, or those scientist who practice the art of telling stories about the untestable, unrepeatable past), say that evolution occurs so fast that it is undetectable. While others of their group say that it happened so slowly that it is undetectable. While others say it happened in incremental steps. While some are now rejecting that 150 year old hypothesis. The fossil reccord appears to not have any evidence of this supposed ToE. But many are insistent it did happen.
So, InsaneInDamembrane you can pick whatever just so story you want. You have already rejected God's involvement so it doesn't matter the answers we give, all you have to do is pick the most appealing story you like and believe that one.
According to current historical scientists (evolutionists, or those scientist who practice the art of telling stories about the untestable, unrepeatable past)
This makes no sense. TMK, it is the AiG folk and Kent Hovind that like quoting dead scientists or using 19th century folklore as their proofs. While the ToE has not answered all the Q's yet, they are still discovering.
SeekerSA ... This is not the thread to debate YEC vs ToE. It's getting too far off the OP. I was merely correcting what I viewed as a blanket statment. Then my next post was to provide clarification to you. If you want to debate YEC and ToE, we'll go to that thread.
The OP is really asking something quite different. S/He's asking evolutionists to answer the question of how something develops into a completely different something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
