Jump to content


Photo

Natural Selection


  • Please log in to reply
173 replies to this topic

#81 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 February 2009 - 04:56 AM

Although the issue hasn't come up in this thread, it does surface from time to time. I think this is the most on-topic place to submit evidence. 'Selection' is evolutionese for 'death'.

The cause of the original variability of these characters is not manifest; but we can see why they should not have been rendered as constant and uniform as others, for they are accumulated by S@xual selection, which is less rigid in its action than ordinary selection, as it does not entail death, but only gives fewer offspring to the less favoured males.

That's the false prophet himself. Chapter 5, The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or,
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
subheading "SECONDARY S@xual CHARACTERS VARIABLE. "


http://www.literatur...chapter-05.html

*** And since Darwin mentions it, I'll just add that so far we have not received any answer about why "less offspring" has any meaning beyond an evolutionist defining a handful of terms as synonymous.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1937

#82 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 February 2009 - 02:56 PM

I was relieved to read this.

Darwin Admitted No Evidence for Natural Selection

Wells says Darwin admitted he had no evidence for natural selection, a cornerstone of his ideas. Darwin provided, in his own words, "imaginary illustrations."

from
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/539696.aspx

It is good to see some evidence of creationists coming around.

With some members of the Altenberg 16 talking of abandoning 'natural selection', I was concerned the evolutionists just might get ahead of the curve on this issue.

I do appreciate the history involved. I also note that the "geologic column" idea was started by creationists and abandoned. I suggest that loyalty isn't a concern we can apply consistently. And I think it's misapplied somewhat. Would Newton insist that those who respect him should cling to his corpuscular concept of light? My guess is that he'd be disappointed in any who refuse to logically follow evidence.

As a predictive principle, any version of 'natural selection' fails. It only works as a past-tense tautological device for generating explanations. Such devices are superfluous, if not counterproductive.

#83 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 February 2009 - 03:10 PM

Incredible how history gets distoted to promote a dogma.

Look at this gallop poll taken on Darwin's birthday.


Gallup 'Darwin's Birthday' Poll: Fewer than Four in Ten Believe in Evolution


Charles Darwin would have been 200 tomorrow, an event that Gallup is marking with a new poll showing that 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. A quarter say they don't believe in evolution, and 36 percent say they have no opinion.

The strongest predictor of respondents' views on evolution? Church attendance.

In fact, Gallup's analysis says religiosity outweighs educational level in shaping views on evolution, even though those with the most education are far more likely to support evolution than those with the least. Just 21 percent of respondents who had up to a high school level of education believe in evolution, compared with 74 percent of those with postgraduate degrees.

But Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief, says religion is the determining factor:

Previous Gallup research shows that the rate of church attendance is fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that this relationship is not owing to an underlying educational difference but instead reflects a direct influence of religious beliefs on belief in evolution.

Among weekly churchgoers, 24 percent believe in evolution, while 41 percent do not and 35 percent have no opinion. Among those who seldom or never attend church, 55 percent belief in evolution, while 11 percent do not, and 34 percent have no opinion.

Look to the question of how many Americans believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection, and the numbers shrink further. Gallup puts that number at 14 percent, while the Pew Research Center puts it at 26 percent. Both organizations put the number of Americans who favor creationism at about 43 percent, higher than the proportion than believes in evolution, according to a recent Pew report.

http://www.usnews.co.....p-darwins-bir...


Only 14% believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection.Remeber that the next time someone on this forum says no body doubts if Darwin was right.







Enjoy.

#84 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 February 2009 - 04:20 PM

Wow! Common sense appears to be more common than I thought. Of course the details might be somewhat disappointing.

But thanks. Thank you very much!

It's somewhat depressing to see creationists buy into 'ns'... I know it's not the same, but it just opens the door to nonsense. Occam's razor, anyone?

Edit:
Link's not working for me.

http://www.usnews.co.....p-darwins-bir...

Edited by CTD, 12 February 2009 - 04:24 PM.


#85 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 25 February 2009 - 02:19 AM

Evolution is really becoming a joke :lol: :lol: :lol:

Survival Of The Weakest? Cyclical Competition Of Three Species Favors Weakest As Victor

ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2009) — The extinction of species is a consequence of their inability to adapt to new environmental conditions, and also of their competition with other species. Besides selection and the appearance of new species, the possibility of adaptation is also one of the driving forces behind evolution. According to the interpretation that has been familiar since Darwin, these processes increase the “fitness” of the species overall, since, of two competing species, only the fittest would survive.

LMU researchers have now simulated the progression of a cyclic competition of three species. It means that each participant is superior to one other species, but will be beaten by a third interaction partner. “In this kind of cyclical concurrence, the weakest species proves the winner almost without exception,” reports Professor Erwin Frey, who headed the study. “The two stronger species, on the other hand, die out, as experiments with bacteria have already shown. Our results are not only a big surprise, they are important to our understanding of evolution of ecosystems and the development of new strategies for the protection of species.”

Ecosystems are composed of a large number of different species, which interact and compete with one another for scarce resources. This competition between species in turn affects the probability with which the individual can reproduce and survive – a matter of life and death, as it were. All of these processes are also largely probabilistic and lead to fluctuations that ultimately lead to the extinction of species. We know that up to 50 species become extinct every day on Earth, which at this high rate can be attributed to the influence of man.

Yet, the phenomenon of extinction of species itself cannot be avoided altogether – and is still only barely understood. Theoretical ecologists and biophysicists are therefore intensively researching conditions and mechanisms that affect the biodiversity of Earth. Cyclic dominance is a particularly interesting constellation of species competing with each other. It means that each participant is superior to one other interaction partner, but will be beaten by a third. In ecosystems, this would be three subpopulations – in the simplified model – which dominate in turn. In fact, communities of subpopulations following such rules have been identified in numerous ecosystems, ranging from coral reef invertebrates to lizards in the inner Coast Range of California.

Such cyclical interaction is also familiarly termed “rock-paper-scissors” interaction. This is where the rock blunts the scissors, which cut the paper, which in turn wraps around the rock. Together, these non-hierarchical relationships form a cyclical motion. “The game can help describe the diversity of species,” explains Frey. “The background is a branch of mathematics called game theory, and in this case evolutionary game theory. It helps analyze systems that involve multiple actors whose interactions are similar to those in parlor games.”

Using game theory, one can also study the collective development of populations. In their study, the scientists working with Frey developed elaborate computer simulations in order to calculate the probabilities with which species in cyclical competition will survive. The games started off with three species coexisting in the systems, and ran until two species became extinct – with the third being the only remaining survivors. “What we saw was that in large populations, the weakest species would – with very high probability – come out as the victor,” says Frey.

This “law of the weakest” even held true when the difference between the competing species was slight. “This result was just as unexpected for us,” reports Frey. “But it shows once more that chance plays a big part in the dynamics of an ecosystem. Incidentally, in experiments that were conducted a couple of years ago on bacterial colonies, in order to study cyclical competition, there was one clear result: The weakest of the three species emerged victorious from the competition.”

The project was supported by the cluster of excellence “Nanoinitiative Munich (NIM)”, of which Professor Erwin Frey is a principal investigator.

Survival Of The Weakest?

#86 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 February 2009 - 03:59 AM

I'm guessing they won't label this one "counter-intuitive".

#87 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 25 February 2009 - 04:55 AM

Incredible how history gets distoted to promote a dogma.

Look at this gallop poll taken on Darwin's birthday.
Gallup 'Darwin's Birthday' Poll: Fewer than Four in Ten Believe in Evolution
Charles Darwin would have been 200 tomorrow, an event that Gallup is marking with a new poll showing that 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. A quarter say they don't believe in evolution, and 36 percent say they have no opinion.

The strongest predictor of respondents' views on evolution? Church attendance.

In fact, Gallup's analysis says religiosity outweighs educational level in shaping views on evolution, even though those with the most education are far more likely to support evolution than those with the least. Just 21 percent of respondents who had up to a high school level of education believe in evolution, compared with 74 percent of those with postgraduate degrees.

But Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief, says religion is the determining factor:

Previous Gallup research shows that the rate of church attendance is fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that this relationship is not owing to an underlying educational difference but instead reflects a direct influence of religious beliefs on belief in evolution.

Among weekly churchgoers, 24 percent believe in evolution, while 41 percent do not and 35 percent have no opinion. Among those who seldom or never attend church, 55 percent belief in evolution, while 11 percent do not, and 34 percent have no opinion.

Look to the question of how many Americans believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection, and the numbers shrink further. Gallup puts that number at 14 percent, while the Pew Research Center puts it at 26 percent. Both organizations put the number of Americans who favor creationism at about 43 percent, higher than the proportion than believes in evolution, according to a recent Pew report.

http://www.usnews.co.....p-darwins-bir...
Only 14% believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection.Remeber that the next time someone on this forum says no body doubts if Darwin was right.
Enjoy.

View Post

*
Beloved brother these stats are horrific and yes I do believe them a QUARTER 24 per cent of CHURCH ATTENDEES believe in evolution? a further 35 per cent could not say yes or no and less than a half reject evolution outright, thats apalling.

#88 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 February 2009 - 06:55 AM

Beloved brother these stats are horrific and yes I do believe them a QUARTER 24 per cent of CHURCH ATTENDEES believe in evolution? a further 35 per cent could not say yes or no and less than a half reject evolution outright, thats apalling.

View Post


Don't lose heart. You and I were made for such a time as this. We get to live the blessing of understanding and sharing the truth, not only with the world, but with our brothers and sisters as well.

#89 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 25 February 2009 - 09:33 AM

Don't lose heart. You and I were made for such a time as this. We get to live the blessing of understanding and sharing the truth, not only with the world, but with our brothers and sisters as well.

View Post

*
I never lose heart, but I like C.H.Spurgeon am one who believes that those who make up the ranks of the saved will not be a tiny few, this would have the appearance of contradicting scripture I know and perhaps even what our eyes and ears tell us. I read from a saint of a previous generation who said "how many were those who rejected the preaching of Christ's love through the Salvation army but found Him on the wires of Ypres and Flanders [ww1] we will not know until the day reveals it," but it is so sad that people have to go through such horrors and suffering before they are desperate enough to cry to the Lord to save them.
I believe the light shines brightest in the darkest hour.

#90 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 February 2009 - 09:47 AM

Amen!

#91 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 25 February 2009 - 11:44 AM

Evolution is really becoming a joke  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Survival Of The Weakest? Cyclical Competition Of Three Species Favors Weakest As Victor

ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2009) — The extinction of species is a consequence of their inability to adapt to new environmental conditions, and also of their competition with other species. Besides selection and the appearance of new species, the possibility of adaptation is also one of the driving forces behind evolution. According to the interpretation that has been familiar since Darwin, these processes increase the “fitness” of the species overall, since, of two competing species, only the fittest would survive.

LMU researchers have now simulated the progression of a cyclic competition of three species. It means that each participant is superior to one other species, but will be beaten by a third interaction partner. “In this kind of cyclical concurrence, the weakest species proves the winner almost without exception,” reports Professor Erwin Frey, who headed the study. “The two stronger species, on the other hand, die out, as experiments with bacteria have already shown. Our results are not only a big surprise, they are important to our understanding of evolution of ecosystems and the development of new strategies for the protection of species.”

Ecosystems are composed of a large number of different species, which interact and compete with one another for scarce resources. This competition between species in turn affects the probability with which the individual can reproduce and survive – a matter of life and death, as it were. All of these processes are also largely probabilistic and lead to fluctuations that ultimately lead to the extinction of species. We know that up to 50 species become extinct every day on Earth, which at this high rate can be attributed to the influence of man.

Yet, the phenomenon of extinction of species itself cannot be avoided altogether – and is still only barely understood. Theoretical ecologists and biophysicists are therefore intensively researching conditions and mechanisms that affect the biodiversity of Earth. Cyclic dominance is a particularly interesting constellation of species competing with each other. It means that each participant is superior to one other interaction partner, but will be beaten by a third. In ecosystems, this would be three subpopulations – in the simplified model – which dominate in turn. In fact, communities of subpopulations following such rules have been identified in numerous ecosystems, ranging from coral reef invertebrates to lizards in the inner Coast Range of California.

Such cyclical interaction is also familiarly termed “rock-paper-scissors” interaction. This is where the rock blunts the scissors, which cut the paper, which in turn wraps around the rock. Together, these non-hierarchical relationships form a cyclical motion. “The game can help describe the diversity of species,” explains Frey. “The background is a branch of mathematics called game theory, and in this case evolutionary game theory. It helps analyze systems that involve multiple actors whose interactions are similar to those in parlor games.”

Using game theory, one can also study the collective development of populations. In their study, the scientists working with Frey developed elaborate computer simulations in order to calculate the probabilities with which species in cyclical competition will survive. The games started off with three species coexisting in the systems, and ran until two species became extinct – with the third being the only remaining survivors. “What we saw was that in large populations, the weakest species would – with very high probability – come out as the victor,” says Frey.

This “law of the weakest” even held true when the difference between the competing species was slight. “This result was just as unexpected for us,” reports Frey. “But it shows once more that chance plays a big part in the dynamics of an ecosystem. Incidentally, in experiments that were conducted a couple of years ago on bacterial colonies, in order to study cyclical competition, there was one clear result: The weakest of the three species emerged victorious from the competition.”

The project was supported by the cluster of excellence “Nanoinitiative Munich (NIM)”, of which Professor Erwin Frey is a principal investigator.

Survival Of The Weakest?

View Post


Great citation! But evolution isn't a joke, it really happens. It just happens as devolution which is what the creation model predicts. That's why the monsters of the past didn't survive (dinos). Thats why various creatures were much more robust in the past. God created those kinds, and over time, the weakest have survived. The same applies to Neanderthals. They are evidence of early man who lived longer, had a larger brain, and was more fit, but they didn't survive.

We are the poodles of mankind!

#92 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 February 2009 - 01:39 PM

*
Beloved brother these stats are horrific and yes I do believe them a QUARTER 24 per cent of CHURCH ATTENDEES believe in evolution? a further 35 per cent could not say yes or no and less than a half reject evolution outright, thats apalling.

View Post


Hi totten linnet,

You might think this is odd,but I never believed the Bible and I thought science had proven it wrong.One day in church I finally gave my full attention and belief and I felt a rush of the Holy Spirit shoot strait up my spine.It just goes to show you that Jesus want's you the way you are so that he can change you along the way.After that I started criticising science and found out the Bible actually was more scientificly accurate.





Enjoy.

#93 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 February 2009 - 01:43 PM

Evolution is really becoming a joke  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Survival Of The Weakest? Cyclical Competition Of Three Species Favors Weakest As Victor

ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2009) — The extinction of species is a consequence of their inability to adapt to new environmental conditions, and also of their competition with other species. Besides selection and the appearance of new species, the possibility of adaptation is also one of the driving forces behind evolution. According to the interpretation that has been familiar since Darwin, these processes increase the “fitness” of the species overall, since, of two competing species, only the fittest would survive.

LMU researchers have now simulated the progression of a cyclic competition of three species. It means that each participant is superior to one other species, but will be beaten by a third interaction partner. “In this kind of cyclical concurrence, the weakest species proves the winner almost without exception,” reports Professor Erwin Frey, who headed the study. “The two stronger species, on the other hand, die out, as experiments with bacteria have already shown. Our results are not only a big surprise, they are important to our understanding of evolution of ecosystems and the development of new strategies for the protection of species.”

Ecosystems are composed of a large number of different species, which interact and compete with one another for scarce resources. This competition between species in turn affects the probability with which the individual can reproduce and survive – a matter of life and death, as it were. All of these processes are also largely probabilistic and lead to fluctuations that ultimately lead to the extinction of species. We know that up to 50 species become extinct every day on Earth, which at this high rate can be attributed to the influence of man.

Yet, the phenomenon of extinction of species itself cannot be avoided altogether – and is still only barely understood. Theoretical ecologists and biophysicists are therefore intensively researching conditions and mechanisms that affect the biodiversity of Earth. Cyclic dominance is a particularly interesting constellation of species competing with each other. It means that each participant is superior to one other interaction partner, but will be beaten by a third. In ecosystems, this would be three subpopulations – in the simplified model – which dominate in turn. In fact, communities of subpopulations following such rules have been identified in numerous ecosystems, ranging from coral reef invertebrates to lizards in the inner Coast Range of California.

Such cyclical interaction is also familiarly termed “rock-paper-scissors” interaction. This is where the rock blunts the scissors, which cut the paper, which in turn wraps around the rock. Together, these non-hierarchical relationships form a cyclical motion. “The game can help describe the diversity of species,” explains Frey. “The background is a branch of mathematics called game theory, and in this case evolutionary game theory. It helps analyze systems that involve multiple actors whose interactions are similar to those in parlor games.”

Using game theory, one can also study the collective development of populations. In their study, the scientists working with Frey developed elaborate computer simulations in order to calculate the probabilities with which species in cyclical competition will survive. The games started off with three species coexisting in the systems, and ran until two species became extinct – with the third being the only remaining survivors. “What we saw was that in large populations, the weakest species would – with very high probability – come out as the victor,” says Frey.

This “law of the weakest” even held true when the difference between the competing species was slight. “This result was just as unexpected for us,” reports Frey. “But it shows once more that chance plays a big part in the dynamics of an ecosystem. Incidentally, in experiments that were conducted a couple of years ago on bacterial colonies, in order to study cyclical competition, there was one clear result: The weakest of the three species emerged victorious from the competition.”

The project was supported by the cluster of excellence “Nanoinitiative Munich (NIM)”, of which Professor Erwin Frey is a principal investigator.

Survival Of The Weakest?

View Post

Thanks for sharing,

When selective pressure is put on an organism they almost always go extinct,or they adapt at a cost.Either way,evolution and natural selection is never the result.

#94 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 February 2009 - 01:44 PM

After that I started criticising science and found out the bible actually was more scientificly accurate.

View Post

Pardon me, but I haven't seen you criticize any science yet.

#95 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 February 2009 - 01:46 PM

Pardon me, but I haven't seen you criticize any science yet.

View Post

Maybe I should rephrase that.One day I stopped criticizing the Bible. :lol:

#96 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 February 2009 - 01:52 PM

Maybe I should rephrase that.One day I stopped criticizing the Bible. :lol:

View Post

Praise the Lord!

:lol:

I knew what you were saying. I just wanted to give you a hard time. You know an evolutionist may jump on that statement through pedantic interpretations... :lol:

#97 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 25 February 2009 - 05:31 PM

Amen!

View Post


Watch out Adam, that's a one-liner :lol:

You should have said: Amen... Brother! Amen!!!

(Or sister.. Which ever is applicable)

#98 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 February 2009 - 07:27 PM

Watch out Adam, that's a one-liner  :lol:

You should have said: Amen... Brother! Amen!!!

(Or sister.. Which ever is applicable)

View Post

:lol:

I have to give you a correction though. In that case it would have been Amen...Sister. ;)

#99 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 18 March 2009 - 10:55 AM

I have become aware of another problem.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

'Natural selection' is an euphemism for death.

Shall we say the wages of sin systematically produce good results? I vote no.

#100 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 18 March 2009 - 11:38 AM

I have become aware of another problem.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

'Natural selection' is an euphemism for death.

Shall we say the wages of sin systematically produce good results? I vote no.

View Post


I would assume so, since the obverse is non-survival of the un-fittest.

This brings up an interesting point (that I have introduced on several occasions, but has yet to be answered). If the materialist believes in survival of the fittest, why does the materialist then turn around and attempt to save species on the brink of extinction? If they are on the brink of inhalation, does this not mean that they aren’t fit to live, under that evolutionary model?

Why does the materialist care?

If we are all but animals, nothing but matter in motion, if a thought is nothing more than electrons firing across the brain, if we are reduced to nothing more than bags of biological stuff, and this bag of biological stuff is asserting its evolutionary right to dominate, why save the whale, if the whale (under the evolutionary model) is not fit to survive?

Why save the spotted owl, if the spotted owl, (under the evolutionary model) is not fit to survive? After all, saving the spotted owl only took away jobs from man, and man has proven his survivability and dominance!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users