Viewing Thread:
"Man did not evolve from monkeys!"

I had started the same topic in "Life & Everything" forum. There, I am posting and discussing on this topic in detail. But, my intention to start the same topic here, is to post succinct, less detailed and to the point arguments, and at the same time have more feedback. If you like the matter here, you can read it all in detail in the "Life & Everything" forum.

Some years ago, Father William A. Williams ha written a book named "Evolution of Man Scientifically disproved". I'd try to discuss the follies of this book as epigrammatically as possible, and if you want to read every fact in detail with illustrations, you can always check out the above said forum.

Below is the summary of the summary of the introduction of this book I had made earlier

Succinct Summary of the introduction of Evo. Of Man disproved

This book is designed,
(1) As an up-to-date text book, and a companion to all other text books on evolution; and

(2) As an antidote to books in libraries teaching evolution, infidelity and atheism.

Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of science is to be accepted. Only the most intense prejudice and the maddest folly would lead any one to reject the proved conclusions of science. Every theory to which mathematics can be applied will be proved or disproved by this acid test.

Any scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must be reconcilable with many facts; to be a probable theory, it must be reconcilable with many more; to be a certain and proven theory, it must be reconcilable with all the facts. Every true theory passes through these three stages,--possibility, probability, and certainty.

All the arguments against evolution in general are valid against the evolution of man. There are many other arguments, that prove the evolution of man impossible, even if the evolution of plants and animals can be proved possible.

Even if every argument in this book were invalid, save one, that one valid argument would overthrow evolution, since every true theory must be reconcilable with all the facts (Note how Father is reacting to the authenticity of his own facts. Guilty conscience – Added by The Winster). One irreconcilable fact is sufficient to overthrow evolution.

The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing (!) arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory.

See it's all beliefs. The Bible doesn't prove anything. The website you gave is biased merely because the people who created it believe in God, and so can't see any other side of things. If you take the Bible as symbolic in places, as I do (think bout it - if God appeared to whoever wrote Genesis with complex laws of evolution, biochemistry and physics, they wouldn't understand it - normal people wouldn't understand it. Surely God would know this and attempt to communicate the truth in a simpler, more easily understandable way?), then you can easily fit in Evolution. If God knows what will happen, then he could have created the first life on earth, set things in motion, as he knew where it would lead. There are times when he intervenes, without disrupting the free will of his creation, with Jesus and so forth. If you take the Bible literally you have trouble explaining modern life at all, especially the old testament. If you take it literally are you virginal, do you refrain from contraception? In essence, are you a fundamentalist? Of course it's ok to take some parts of the Bible as the written word that you must obey, and others as guidelines, or whatever, it's all about interpretation. But if that is what you do, then yuo can't discount other people's interpretations.

I think thats it

I am just throwing my idea of what I believe is and happened.

You will have other ideas I am sure

I think that evolution is a theory - others will feel the bible is not scientific proof and account this as a theory.

But these are my opinions and in faith its what I strongly believe

Malaktix wrote:
> Lil Ginge wrote:
> There would be problems in believing in both
>
> No. It all comes down to personal beliefs. You must remember that not
> all christians take the bible literally, and so a lot of christians
> can believe in both. They can believe that God created primitive
> life, to evolve.

Yes but I am saying there would be problems in believing both - If you dont take the bible literally and disregard parts as being old or something then your faith that it is the truth and word of god is going to be tested if secular ideas that oppose Gods creation

I think it is very difficult for a christian to believe evolutionary theories with the many ways in which the bible or what i believe to be gods word shows as to be the way we came about.

Yes I am sure you could take quotes from the bible and try see how evolution could fit in somehow to make both work.. but really they oppose each other

Lil Ginge wrote:
> Having being baffled by reading all of that in its 'oxford student'
> >
> The design, the way this earth moves - the way the atmosphere is.
> Isnt it amazing how the earth manages to produce and stabalise just
> the right air - atmosphere - gravity so we all live? The earth is
> living. It is an amazing thing
>
> Look at our human bodies, how intricate we are and work. My intricate
> body all its flesh, the make up the way cells die and re produce
> EVERYTHING points me to believe i have been made by a genius
> architect.

Or perhaps the body grew over the years, discarded the useless and kept the useful? Why do we have appendixesssesess?

No Bang could make everything so exact for us to just 'be'
> as we are. Thats a start of what I believe, Being adapted from
> monkeys? Evolution points out that a dolphin may have evolved from a
> cow - um, if you take all the stages of how it would evolve even over
> thousands of years.. Uh it just doesnt rest right with me. if we
> evolve why are there still the creatures we evolved from.. I dont
> understand evolution fully, I havent studied it either but I sure do
> not hold it as fact.
>
>

But, is it not just as arguable that things are like they are because theats the way it works best?

Why would it be so hard to imagine a world where things work as they do because that's the best way, not the way they were designed? You say evolution is pretty hard to imagine. I find the creationist story pretty much impossible to believe, especially when it's so human centred. But still, I do not attempt to disprove it - I simply couldn't believe in it in a thousand years.

But still, enough. You think what you want, I will think what I want.

Lil Ginge wrote:
> There would be problems in believing in both

No. It all comes down to personal beliefs. You must remember that not all christians take the bible literally, and so a lot of christians can believe in both. They can believe that God created primitive life, to evolve.

It depends how you interpret the Bible as to whether you can believe in evolution as well. If you take every word as a complete and perfect history then thats fine but its also possible to take it as more of a symbolic story (think like the parables of Jesus) than an actual historical account.

And as far as finding fossils that did not evolve goes, explain how that DISPROVES evolution. Could it not be that this organism was perfectly suited to its environment, so no natural selection occured and so it did not evolve?

That website is flawed in it's entire concept:
"it it more logical, rational, and scientific to believe that , "In the beginning God created?" Lets look at the evidence."

There is no "evidence" for the creation of man by God other than faith and the bible. You cannot believe in God because it is "rational, logical and scientific". If you disprove evolution that doesn't prove the existence of God. You cannot disprove evolution any way you look at it, so all you have to do is accept that either is a possibility, and respect people for choosing to believe in one or the other, or something else.

Evolution doesn't go against the laws of thermodynamics though.

mermoid wrote:
> Lil Ginge wrote:
> Evolution
> goes against the laws of thermodynamics
>
> Forest Fan already tried that one, and was well and truly smacked
> down by people who actually knew what they were talking about...

exactly so I am not going to argue a case I am just explaining that I strongly disagree with the theory and these are my reasons for my disagreements.. and a web site that can explain much better than I can why I disagree

gerrid wrote:
> Often people who dispose of evolution as "Science making thngs
> up" are just afraid because they think it disproves God. It's
> perfectly clear that you can believe in both god and evolution
> without any problems at all.

No the evolutionary theory and the bible are completely seperate.

If you read through genesis it explains that creation was begun and done. Also that god made us with the dust from the earth - scientists have proved we have the same matter as that of the earth.

Evolutionists do not agree and believe in new creations from original life.

"The theory that all forms of plant and animal life are descended from earlier and simpler forms of life whose existence can be explained without reference to a Supernatural Creator."

They go against each other bible verses completely outline a strong difference between the 'christian view of creation' and the darwinist theory.

There would be problems in believing in both

Lil Ginge wrote:
> Evolution
> goes against the laws of thermodynamics

Forest Fan already tried that one, and was well and truly smacked down by people who actually knew what they were talking about...