Both Evolution and Christianity?

[LoricaLady]

There is plenty of proof of evolution. Try reading a scientific journal sometime.

I have read, & debunked, a large number of "scientific" journals on evolution. You will always find exactly the same thing. Check it out for yourself and see. Commonly right up front, but if not, later in the article you will read words like "Likely...probably....must have...could have...see our computer simulatino since we have no evidence at all...millions of unobservablel l& unverifiable years ago..." This is all presented as if it is evidence!

For example they will tell you that you as absolutely scientific fact, that legs turned into wings, fins into feet, etc. though there are countless billions of fossils that don't show anything but 100% legs, wings, fish, tetrapods, apes, etc. etc. & no inbetweeners whatsoever.

They tell you as indisputabl3e fact that they know how this or that fossil's invisible descendants' invisible descendats' reproduced when they don't even know if that fossil reproduced at all! It ain't science. It's pseudo science. It's a scam.

What else you will find in evolutionary defending articles is a bunch of logical fallacies, references that don't show anything but the aforementioned ""Plausible...likely....probably...." and a bunch of b.s. sophistry that means nothing.

Evolution is a con game. You're being conned, friend.

 

[seeingeyes]

Wow. You've got "seeing eyes." Howzabout YOU answering the Qs I posed to them. I notice you are evading them too. Answer those Qs. Enlgihten me. Your comment, above, says abosllutely nothing.

In simplest terms: here is the argument: "For X to happen, Y has to happen, but X is impossible because Y could never happen".

In order to counter that argument, all one would have to do is show that Y could happen.

So if someone answers that Y could happen in a certain fashion, they are not 'evading Qs' or 'failing to present evidence', they are answering directly.

It is then incumbent on the defender of the original argument to show that Y could not happen in the way described.

 

[wmpratt]

In simplest terms: here is the argument: "For X to happen, Y has to happen, but X is impossible because Y could never happen".

In order to counter that argument, all one would have to do is show that Y could happen.

So if someone answers that Y could happen in a certain fashion, they are not 'evading Qs' or 'failing to present evidence', they are answering directly.

It is then incumbent on the defender of the original argument to show that Y could not happen in the way described.

Y happening doesn't mean Y did happen either.

 

[LoricaLady]

In simplest terms: here is the argument: "For X to happen, Y has to happen, but X is impossible because Y could never happen".

In order to counter that argument, all one would have to do is show that Y could happen.

So if someone answers that Y could happen in a certain fashion, they are not 'evading Qs' or 'failing to present evidence', they are answering directly.

It is then incumbent on the defender of the original argument to show that Y could not happen in the way described.

You are still evading my Qs. You are showing you do not have a basic understand of the rules of logic, also. First of all, you have not show in anyway shape or fashion that Y could happen. Show me, show me, show me how and why evolution could drive the whip, and its rotary motor beneath it, to completion, and hold them in limbo while they "evolve" for aeons.

"All one would have to do is show that it could happen." But! You can't SHOW any such thing! Where's your data, your facts? Science requires something observable & testable. You don't present any data because you are operating under the delusion that you don't need any in science.

2nd of all you are using the logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. So many people spouting off, acting like they are some kinds of experts when they haven't got a clue.

3rd of all, do you still not "get it" that "could happen" is not evidence! This seems so obvious, but apparently to some it is not. I could say "It could happen that a mountain sized astroid will flatten your home in the next 2 seconds." So what? Is that a scientific statement? Absolutely not! Where's the evidence?That was not a rhetorical Q. Again, cite your ev-i-dence that "Y" can happen. I'm waiting. Cite it. But you never will, just as you will never answer those ealier Qs because you have no evidence whatsoever at all of any kind whatsoever at all.

Since you seem to be struggling greatly with the concept of what is evidence & what is not, I'll go over this for you again. "Plausible....possible...might have....could have...millions of unobservabel & unverifiable years ago....likely....probably...could happen" are not and never will be evidence but are simply someone's (frequently quite biased) opinions. Once more with feeling....science requires evidence, or all you have is an empty hypothesis. Evidence requires data.That's why we need to use the full sceintific method, not just stop with "It could happen, therefore it's true." You presented no data, you have no evidence, you have no science, just "It could happen!" Oh puhleeze!

You will always be the dupe of evolutionary thinking as long as you believe you can divorce evidence from science.

Learn logic, learn science (especially the scientific method), learn to think!

 

[MZS]

Back to my original point: Not believing in an all-powerful God that can Create from nothing is going to negate much of the scriptures. Jesus didn't feed the 5000? Lazarus was not brought back from the stench of death? Basically, we downgrade the scriptures to a tale or myth if we do not believe in such creating power. And we might as well then spend our day Sunday at the mall or watching football. But if we DO believe in such a Creation ability, why is it far-fetched to believe in a Supernatural time-frame? Jesus, after-all, did not need to build a bakery and wait for baking supplies to arrive in order to feed the 5000.

With respect to life just "happening" - that is something I find far-fetched! For a really good contemporary book on this, read Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer.

 

[GenetoJean]

Back to my original point: Not believing in an all-powerful God that can Create from nothing is going to negate much of the scriptures. Jesus didn't feed the 5000? Lazarus was not brought back from the stench of death? Basically, we downgrade the scriptures to a tale or myth if we do not believe in such creating power. And we might as well then spend our day Sunday at the mall or watching football. But if we DO believe in such a Creation ability, why is it far-fetched to believe in a Supernatural time-frame? Jesus, after-all, did not need to build a bakery and wait for baking supplies to arrive in order to feed the 5000.

With respect to life just "happening" - that is something I find far-fetched! For a really good contemporary book on this, read Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer.

And at the same time God has always been and will always be, so it isnt hard for me to believe He chose to take thousands of years which would be as a blink of an eye to Him.

 

[seeingeyes]

You are still evading my Qs. You are showing you do not have a basic understand of the rules of logic, also. First of all, you have not show in anyway shape or fashion that Y could happen. Show me, show me, show me how and why evolution could drive the whip, and its rotary motor beneath it, to completion, and hold them in limbo while they "evolve" for aeons.

What question am I evading? I haven't 'shown' anything. But Assyrian did in post #65. He said that: "there is a Type III Secretion System made up of some of the parts of the flagellum which us shows the flagellum is not irreducibly complex."

Now I wouldn't know a 'Type III Secretion System" from a hole in the ground, but I do know that it is your turn to describe how a Type III Secretion System could not be an intermediary step on the way to flagellum (hence, an insufficient argument against "irreducible complexity").

2nd of all you are using the logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance.

Can you point to where someone used an argument from ignorance?

So many people spouting off, acting like they are some kinds of experts when they haven't got a clue.

Who is acting like an expert? Perhaps it's the one who has "read, & debunked, a large number of "scientific" journals on evolution".

3rd of all, do you still not "get it" that "could happen" is not evidence! This seems so obvious, but apparently to some it is not. I could say "It could happen that a mountain sized astroid will flatten your home in the next 2 seconds." So what? Is that a scientific statement? Absolutely not! Where's the evidence?That was not a rhetorical Q. Again, cite your ev-i-dence that "Y" can happen. I'm waiting. Cite it. But you never will, just as you will never answer those ealier Qs because you have no evidence whatsoever at all of any kind whatsoever at all.

Since you seem to be struggling greatly with the concept of what is evidence & what is not, I'll go over this for you again. "Plausible....possible...might have....could have...millions of unobservabel & unverifiable years ago....likely....probably...could happen" are not and never will be evidence but are simply someone's (frequently quite biased) opinions. Once more with feeling....science requires evidence, or all you have is an empty hypothesis. Evidence requires data.That's why we need to use the full sceintific method, not just stop with "It could happen, therefore it's true." You presented no data, you have no evidence, you have no science, just "It could happen!" Oh puhleeze!

You will always be the dupe of evolutionary thinking as long as you believe you can divorce evidence from science.

Learn logic, learn science (especially the scientific method), learn to think!

You brought up the argument of irreducible complexity of the flagellum, and when someone pointed out evidence of one way in which the 'complexity' can in fact be 'reduced', you didn't debunk it, you just started yelling and insulting and carrying on.

But this ain't YouTube.

 

[seeingeyes]

Y happening doesn't mean Y did happen either.

Do you mean that just because Y could happen doesn't mean that it did happen?

That's true.

It would just mean that X is not impossible.

 

[Adaephon]

I have read, & debunked, a large number of "scientific" journals on evolution. You will always find exactly the same thing. Check it out for yourself and see. Commonly right up front, but if not, later in the article you will read words like "Likely...probably....must have...could have...see our computer simulatino since we have no evidence at all...millions of unobservablel l& unverifiable years ago..." This is all presented as if it is evidence!

For example they will tell you that you as absolutely scientific fact, that legs turned into wings, fins into feet, etc. though there are countless billions of fossils that don't show anything but 100% legs, wings, fish, tetrapods, apes, etc. etc. & no inbetweeners whatsoever.

They tell you as indisputabl3e fact that they know how this or that fossil's invisible descendants' invisible descendats' reproduced when they don't even know if that fossil reproduced at all! It ain't science. It's pseudo science. It's a scam.

What else you will find in evolutionary defending articles is a bunch of logical fallacies, references that don't show anything but the aforementioned ""Plausible...likely....probably...." and a bunch of b.s. sophistry that means nothing.

Evolution is a con game. You're being conned, friend.

Considering science is my job, and I have friends who are evolutionary biologists, I feel pretty comfortable saying that's a load of bull excrement. You have no idea what you are talking about. Please read a biology textbook.

Next time, before attempting to condescendingly tell us how those nasty, evil scientists are conning us, you might want to consider that we may actually BE those scientists and don't have much patience for the ugly slander you post about us.

 

[LoricaLady]

AEDAPHONE: Great. You're so informed. Gee, I wonder why you evaded answering those Qs? You had such a wonderful opportunity to clear things up for me and any readers. Do answer those Qs. I don't want to live in confusion or anything!

Answer these too: We are told "Tiktaalik is as good as it gets for a transitional form." It is 100% lobe finned FISH. How do they know it "transitioned" into anything? How do they know it even reproduced, much less that they can tell you what happened to its invisible descendants' invisible descenants down through the aeons? What EVIDENCE do they have that it turned into a tetrapod? Don't just spout off and insult me, enlighten me. Show me their evidence for what they claim!

We were told as absolute scientific FACT that fins became feet, feet turned into wings, scales into feathers, etc. etc. etc. Why is it then, with countless billiions of fossils, all the EVIDENCE is in the exact opposite direction? 100% fish, 100% tetrapods, 100% wings, feet, scales, feathers, etc. Don't evade these Qs, don't make grandiose statement like Long live the Praxis. Use science. Give your DATA! And oh yeal, don't bother with archaeopteryx. Many evolutionists admit it was just "a perching bird." And oh yeal, tell me why it is that there is not one single "transitional" form that all evolutionists agree on? Don't forget that one. I mean, you want me to agree with them, but gee, how can I when they don't even agree with one another???

Evolutionists tell us that nylon eating bacteria are examples of evolution. But, but...they are still bacteria. No climb up Darwin's "Tree" whatsoever. They didn't even change their species. They go back to their regular eating habits in regular ponds. Why are your evolutionary biologists telling us they are evolving? What DATA shows that?

Oh, and here's a good one. We are told that mutations are engineers of evolution. 'Scuze me but where do we ever see a single example of that? Where do we ever see them building on one another like leggos? Aren't they just random,usually harmful, isolated events? But if you have some evidence that they lead to evolution - not "probably...likely...." now, but evidence - do share it.

Well, the list of Qs just goes on and on. Enlilghten me with the ones I asked previously that you conveniently never even addressed. Enlighten me on the ones here. Give real data now. You know, science requires EVIDENCE, and words like "Might have...could have...plausible...millions of unobservable & unverifiable years ago...similar homology [correlation does not imply causation logical fallacy]" if presented as evidence shows nothing but pseudo science.

Here's your chance. Be a teacher! Answer the Qs. Don't evade them the way everyone else has and always does.

My prediction...you will never answer any of those questions because there are no answers that fit evolution. You may spout off some more, you may say "Read science journals", but you won't use YOUR words & YOUR mind to answer those Qs! (Which, btw, aren't in the "science journals" either as I know from having read scores of them.)

And oh yeal, here's a thought. If you haven't got what it takes to answer those Qs, if you simply want to play dodge ball again, hey why not get your "evolutionary biologist friends" to answer them for you? Right here.

And oh yeal, I'll tell you what's being slandered, and by nothing but pseudo science: the Word of the Almighty. Sorry, you're not going to get me to buy it that the "experts" know more than Him, especially since I've been reading their literature and discovering the REAL evidence totally conflicts with it.

But! Save them from slander! Answer those Qs!

 

[LoricaLady]

In simplest terms: here is the argument: "For X to happen, Y has to happen, but X is impossible because Y could never happen".

In order to counter that argument, all one would have to do is show that Y could happen.

So if someone answers that Y could happen in a certain fashion, they are not 'evading Qs' or 'failing to present evidence', they are answering directly.

It is then incumbent on the defender of the original argument to show that Y could not happen in the way described.

I don't know if you really don't get it that my Qs weren't answered, if you really don't get it that science needs evidence & not just speculation, if you really don't get it what the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance is, or if you are just playing games. Tell you what, since you are so "knowledgeable," I'll give you another chance, your last chance. I just left a bunch of new Qs in the post right before this one, to Aedophon. Answer them. Show how much you know. If you keep evading, which you very likely will, I will simply ignore you. I don't have time for your games.

"All you have to do is show Y could happen." Once again, don't you get this at all? You TOLD me it could happen. You didn't SHOW it could happen, you didn't SHOW anything. If you don't even know the difference between show and tell, how can I communicate with you?

Answer the Qs to Aedephon that I just left. Redeem yourself. Show how wonderfully logical and scientific you are. Or go on ignore.

 

[seeingeyes]

I don't know if you really don't get it that my Qs weren't answered, if you really don't get it that science needs evidence & not just speculation, if you really don't get it what the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance is, or if you are just playing games. Tell you what, since you are so "knowledgeable," I'll give you another chance, your last chance. I just left a bunch of new Qs in the post right before this one, to Aedophon. Answer them. Show how much you know. If you keep evading, which you very likely will, I will simply ignore you. I don't have time for your games.

"All you have to do is show Y could happen." Once again, don't you get this at all? You TOLD me it could happen. You didn't SHOW it could happen, you didn't SHOW anything. If you don't even know the difference between show and tell, how can I communicate with you?

Answer the Qs to Aedephon that I just left. Redeem yourself. Show how wonderfully logical and scientific you are. Or go on ignore.

Then I'll go on ignore.

I haven't made any claim about any scientific knowledge, nor even about evolution being true or false.

I just don't like the way you treat others. What difference does it make if the world was created in seven days if we ignore the teachings of Christ?

Again, this is not YouTube.

 

[seekingsister]

I just don't like the way you treat others. What difference does it make if the world was created in seven days if we ignore the teachings of Christ?

 

[LoricaLady]

Then I'll go on ignore.

I haven't made any claim about any scientific knowledge, nor even about evolution being true or false.

I just don't like the way you treat others. What difference does it make if the world was created in seven days if we ignore the teachings of Christ?

Again, this is not YouTube.

YOU are "ignoring the teachings of" Messiah and trying to lead others to do so also. He upheld every word in the Bible. He talked about Adam & Eve, Noah and the Ark, Soddom & Gomorrah as absolutely true stories. Not only did He never take exception with anything in the Torah (1st five books in the Bible) but he said "Not one jot or tittle will pass away until Heaven and earth pass away."

People who are deceived into believing Genesis is not true, based on eolutionary pseudo science, will naturally start thinking, "Well! If that's not true, then how do I know what, if anything is true or not? Guess I'll just pick and choose."

I just "love" the way you treated me, someone who is trying to defend the Bible from pseudo science. I just "love" the way you have evaded answering all my Qs while trying to take an attitude that you are spreading truth, that evolution might be true. You're not spreading truth. You're spreading things that are not true and have been serious faith busters for many people (including me, in the past.)

Your responses have been EXACTLY like those on Youtube because they're all evo fans have got. You make claims you can't support, use faulty logic, refuse to answer scientific Qs, take an sarcastic attitude and generally try to create an image of the Bible as doubtful in its reliability.

As predicted, you have no answers to the Qs. I posed. You're now on ignore.

 

[COG2013]

I am running into more and more people that believe in both the theory of evolution and Christianity, or at least a form of Christianity. But I am having a difficult time seeing how the two coexist. It is almost a logical conclusion that Genesis is discarded, for the most part, in an evolutionary mindset. So then where does Original Sin come from? And what about the many New Testament references to Genesis?

It is not difficult to adopt this mindset. We are bombarded with evolutionary teaching at every turn, including children's programming on TV. In fact I even had my doubts. But then I started looking into the origin of life itself. What I discovered was that to believe in life "just happening" in millions, billions, or even trillions of years takes a lot more faith than I could ever muster. Google "Intelligent Design" and "The Discovery Institute" for more info. Then, I found many difficulties with Darwin's Theory itself. It was eye-opening to learn that the very man that co-discovered the structure of DNA, Francis Crick, believed that the first life arrived to earth from outer space (Theory or Panspermia)! My final conclusion was that if God can create from nothing (which I believe), then God is not under any time constraints. Thus a 6-day period is not unreasonable. Evolutionists will scoff at this last statement and ridicule it - but I am finding more and more that it is not science that fuels this scoffing, but rather the principalities we read about in Ephesians 6:12. Here is an interesting tidbit: The book "In Six Days" documents how 50 scientists with advanced science degrees from secular universities believe in 6-day creation!

No, Thats like water and oil. Scientists have been trying to push evolution down our throats for too long. I was watching an episode of "Friends" one night when Ross, the paleontologist, stated "EVOLUTION IS A PROVEN FACT!' I said BS. His reasoning was a similarity in bone structure between birds and mammals. The obvious answer is 'SAME DESIGNER!" LOL Scientists can not understand anything supernatural, so they come up with scenerios that make sense to them.

One issue that confuses the whole issue is proof that there were species of man-like creatures prior to the Garden. There is no biblical reference to these three species of man, so christianity has no explanation of them and thus remains silent. The answer to this mystery is that those were created by God as prototypes prior to His creation of Adam. The creation of man has been en experiment from day one due to the free will of man. Those three early versions did not have souls.

Creation is real and the absolute truth.

 

[seeingeyes]

I have to admit that there are times when it is very tempting to believe that humanity isn't even specially created.

Ever had one of those days when you find yourself or someone else making an incredibly stupid mistake? Then you find yourself saying unconsciously "wow we're useless junk!"?

Even useless junk is not useless in the hands of the living God:

"Blessed be the Lord, my rock,
who trains my hands for war,
and my fingers for battle;
he is my steadfast love and my fortress,
my stronghold and my deliverer,
my shield and he in whom I take refuge,
who subdues peoples under me."

"O Lord, what is man that you regard him,
or the son of man that you think of him?
Man is like a breath;
his days are like a passing shadow."

"Bow your heavens, O Lord, and come down!
Touch the mountains so that they smoke!
Flash forth the lightning and scatter them;
send out your arrows and rout them!
Stretch out your hand from on high;
rescue me and deliver me from the many waters,
from the hand of foreigners,
whose mouths speak lies
and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood."

"I will sing a new song to you, O God;
upon a ten-stringed harp I will play to you,
who gives victory to kings,
who rescues David his servant from the cruel sword.
Rescue me and deliver me
from the hand of foreigners,
whose mouths speak lies
and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood."

"May our sons in their youth
be like plants full grown,
our daughters like corner pillars
cut for the structure of a palace;
may our granaries be full,
providing all kinds of produce;
may our sheep bring forth thousands
and ten thousands in our fields;
may our cattle be heavy with young,
suffering no mishap or failure in bearing;
may there be no cry of distress in our streets!
Blessed are the people to whom such blessings fall!
Blessed are the people whose God is the Lord!" (Psalm 144)

 

[Assyrian]

2nd of all you are using the logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. So many people spouting off, acting like they are some kinds of experts when they haven't got a clue.

Who is using the argument from ignorance here? We have shown you the Behe's irreducible complexity is contradicted by the known structure of the Type III Secretion System. Your response is to keep asking questions you know there aren't answers for and think that this some how this shows our evidence based arguments are wrong. That sounds to me like you are the one basing your argument on ignorance.

 

[LoricaLady]

You are not telling the truth and you know it. "Plausible pathways....we don't have to show proof" then evading my Qs over & over is what you did to disprove...nothing!

Your handle, Assyrian, is the name for the enemies of the children of the Almighty in the Bible. The icon/picture you show is either of a pagan Assyrian "god" or one of the rulers who worshipped Assyrians "gods" and generally declared themselves to be gods, and you no doubt know that well. I don't think you are here to give "Christian" advice at all. Never did for a minute.

I don't have time for your games. Hope you come out of the matrix though. BYE!

 

[good brother]

2. God normally works through rational laws. Everyone agrees with that. Creationism says that in this specific case he chose to ignore that.

God normally works through rational laws." God loves to show off the fact that He is not bound under the laws that we are bound to. Here is but a small (and far from complete) list of the times recorded in the Bible where God broke the laws.

He:
Made the world out of nothing.
Flooded the world.
Spoke through a bush that burned but did not burn up.
Parted the sea.
Made the Earth stand still for a day.
Poured out fire from heaven to ignite and consume a water logged alter.
Assisted unarmed men to destroy kingdoms.
Caused a virgin to give birth.
Turned water into wine instantaneously.
Fed thousands with one boy's lunch.
Healed lepers.
Healed the blind.
Raised the dead.
Walked on water.
Raised Himself back to life.


Almost every single time God moves in this world He does so outside and beyond the realm of our physical laws.

 

[Assyrian]

You are not telling the truth and you know it. "Plausible pathways....we don't have to show proof" then evading my Qs over & over is what you did to disprove...nothing!

Why can't you address any of our points? All you have are these question you ask over and over again, yet all they give you is an argument from ignorance, which you know is a fallacy. If people keep challenging you and pointing out the flaws you arguments, you make up excuses to ignore them.

Your handle, Assyrian, is the name for the enemies of the children of the Almighty in the Bible. The icon/picture you show is either of a pagan Assyrian "god" or one of the rulers who worshipped Assyrians "gods" and you no doubt know that well. I don't think you are here to give "Christian" advice at all. Never did for a minute.

I don't have time for your games. Hope you come out of the matrix though. BYE!

Don't underestimate the power of the God LoricaLady, or his work of redemption among the nations. God used the Assyrian church amazingly during the middle ages when they spread out from Mesopotamia and brought the gospel down into India and across the Silk road to plant churches as far away as China. Isaiah_19:23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and Assyria will come into Egypt, and Egypt into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. 24 In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth.