Another Evolution Question.

[Avatar]

I get the point.

But the thing is, evolution has not been proven conclusively, unlike Christianity.

Evolution is assumed based on what is considered to be evidence, but it's not proven.

The evidence is to weak.

Christianity has been proven without a doubt.

Indeed Christianity has, to you and me through faith and personal revelation. Try convincing a non-Christian to accept Christ through faith. Accept Christ because of my faith and my personal revelation. It surely can be done but it's far from an easy task.

Evolution, however, was proven to me by relentless facts. Landslides of facts. A virtual tsunami of facts. Millions of intermediate species, many millions more preserved in the fossil record, genetic science that explains the biological mechanism in intricate detail, genetic change occurring daily in shorter lived organism that we can observe in our limited lifetimes, and the fact that evolution has no agenda. Adherents aren't out to destroy Christianity, the majority are Christian. And the majority of Christians believe in evolution.

No faith required.

Just the facts ma'am.

 

[Doveaman]

Evolution is about common decent. I.e. humans and apes have a common ancestor, not that one comes from the other.

Well, it's good to know we didn't come from apes as I was taught for many many many years.

But tell me, what evidence is there for our common decent with the apes?

 

[Doveaman]

Indeed Christianity has, to you and me through faith and personal revelation. Try convincing a non-Christian to accept Christ through faith. Accept Christ because of my faith and my personal revelation. It surely can be done but it's far from an easy task.

Evolution, however, was proven to me by relentless facts. Landslides of facts. A virtual tsunami of facts. Millions of intermediate species, many millions more preserved in the fossil record, genetic science that explains the biological mechanism in intricate detail, genetic change occurring daily in shorter lived organism that we can observe in our limited lifetimes, and the fact that evolution has no agenda. Adherents aren't out to destroy Christianity, the majority are Christian. And the majority of Christians believe in evolution.

"genetic change occurring daily in shorter lived organism that we can observe in our limited lifetimes"

This is about the closes you've come to convincing me. All the other supposed evidence are just speculated on.

Unfortunately, not even those genetic changes occurring daily in shorter lived organisms does not prove such genetic changes occurred with us humans. Butterflies, maybe, but not us.

 

[Mallon]

Despite all this it still ends up as a theory.

A theory suggest a possibility that may or may not be true.

Right again. But theories are as good as we can get in science. Contrary to popular belief, theories do not graduate to become facts in science. Rather, theories explain facts. For example, the fact that the earth revolves about the sun in explained by Newton's theory of universal gravitation: F = GMm/R². Would you similarly belittle Newton's insight for being "just a theory"?

'May or may not be true' is not something to base anyone's faith on.

Who here is basing their faith on the theory of evolution? No one I've seen. As Christians, our faith is rooted in Christ alone. Evolution is just something we accept, again, like gravity. My faith is no more based on evolution than it is on the theory of gravity.

When it becoems a fact I will probably be won over.

Again, theories do not become facts. Theories explain sets of facts.

 

[Avatar]

"genetic change occurring daily in shorter lived organism that we can observe in our limited lifetimes"

This is about the closes you've come to convincing me. All the other supposed evidence are just speculated on.

Unfortunately, not even those genetic changes occurring daily in shorter lived organisms does not prove such genetic changes occurred with us humans. Butterflies, maybe, but not us.

So you agree that evolution is and has occurred with insects.

But not us?

Do you think we're biologically different than other organisms?

If you accept that DNA can change in a butterfly, then you accept that DNA can change.

We are based on DNA. Well, our biology is.

If DNA can change, it can change. Regardless of species.

We aren't biologically any different from any other species at the molecular level.

Sure we're different in that we're the smartest (debatable), or at least the ones who have used their smarts to become the most dominant (not debatable).

But we are biological organisms subject to the same change as butterflies. That we also know God is glorious.

But God created us as part of this garden, not separate from it. While we live here we are animals too.

When we leave this garden we leave biology behind. But for now we're just the top of a changing pyramid of chromosomes and genes.

 

[philadiddle]

It seem to me that evolution is just a big blind guess at what might be possible, but not what actually is, since there is no actual evidence for it.

So you haven't bothered to see what it's about and you haven't read up on why it's an accepted scientific theory?

man from ape

Men are apes in the same way that tigers are cats and whales are mammals. We are classified as an ape, and we know we share a common ancestor with apes in the same way we know pitbulls and foxes have a common ancestor. Do you accept the science that relates all cats together? Or the science that relates all dogs together? It's the same thing that relates all apes together, including humans.

elephants from whales.

Whales evolved from ungulates, which is terrestrial hooved animals. We have several transitional fossils to support this, all of which were found in sequential order in the fossil record. We cannot test their DNA or the similarity of their organs, since those don't fossilize, but there are other things we can test. The inner ear of those fossils also gradually changes from intermediate to intermediate as it would need to in order to go from land to sea.

There has to be better evidence to prove this. The evolution of viruses is not good enough.

HERVs, human chromosome #2, the nested hierarchy found in morphology, paleantology, physiology, and genetics (at several levels), intermediate fossils, etc etc.

 

[sfs]

I don't know where you were at the time, but all I can say is that I'm sorry you missed it.

You didn't answer my question. When was Christianity proven without a doubt? And if it has been, why do so many people, including many sincere Christians, continue to doubt it?

 

[Doveaman]

So you agree that evolution is and has occurred with insects.

But not us?

Do you think we're biologically different than other organisms?

If you accept that DNA can change in a butterfly, then you accept that DNA can change.

We are based on DNA. Well, our biology is.

If DNA can change, it can change. Regardless of species.

We aren't biologically any different from any other species at the molecular level.

Sure we're different in that we're the smartest (debatable), or at least the ones who have used their smarts to become the most dominant (not debatable).

But we are biological organisms subject to the same change as butterflies. That we also know God is glorious.

But God created us as part of this garden, not separate from it. While we live here we are animals too.

When we leave this garden we leave biology behind. But for now we're just the top of a changing pyramid of chromosomes and genes.

When I see man become a butterfly then I'll be convinced by your line of reasoning.

 

[Doveaman]

You didn't answer my question. When was Christianity proven without a doubt?

It was proven at the cross that Christ bled to death on.

And if it has been, why do so many people, including many sincere Christians, continue to doubt it?

Because they are distracted by other nonessential issues.

 

[sfs]

It was proven at the cross that Christ bled to death on.

Lots of people have bled have bled to death in lots of places. How did Jesus bleeding to death prove that Christianity was true, beyond all doubt?

Because they are distracted by other nonessential issues.

You seem awfully certain about other people's thought processes. What is the basis for your knowledge here?

 

[Doveaman]

So you haven't bothered to see what it's about and you haven't read up on why it's an accepted scientific theory?

I’ll probable read on it when it becomes a fact and not just a theory.

man from ape
Men are apes in the same way that tigers are cats and whales are mammals. We are classified as an ape, and we know we share a common ancestor with apes in the same way we know pitbulls and foxes have a common ancestor. Do you accept the science that relates all cats together? Or the science that relates all dogs together? It's the same thing that relates all apes together, including humans.

So the scientists say I’m an ape and I’m just to accept it because they said so. Only God has that right. Modern science is filled with much folly, evolution is just one of them

elephants from whales.
Whales evolved from ungulates, which is terrestrial hooved animals. We have several transitional fossils to support this, all of which were found in sequential order in the fossil record. We cannot test their DNA or the similarity of their organs, since those don't fossilize, but there are other things we can test. The inner ear of those fossils also gradually changes from intermediate to intermediate as it would need to in order to go from land to sea.

I find some old bones that resemble each other and I conclude they evolved from each other. I don’t think so.

HERVs, human chromosome #2, the nested hierarchy found in morphology, paleantology, physiology, and genetics (at several levels), intermediate fossils, etc etc.

Can any of these show me a man actually evolving from an ape or some kind of animal, or do they just assume we did?

 

[pgp_protector]

No evolution of diseases, please. That does not count.

Why ? It's evolution.

 

[Doveaman]

Lots of people have bled have bled to death in lots of places. How did Jesus bleeding to death prove that Christianity was true, beyond all doubt?

Jesus told us personally it did without a doubt. We could not help but to believe Him.

You seem awfully certain about other people's thought processes. What is the basis for your knowledge here?

Their doubt.

That fact that they doubt means they are distracted by something that is causing the doubt.

It happens to me sometimes, but then I have to put away what is causing the distraction so as to get back my focus and remove the doubt.

It can happen very easily without us even being aware of it sometimes, so we have to be very careful.

It's probably happening to you now.

 

[Doveaman]

Why ? It's evolution.

Yeah, but it cannot prove man evolved from animals.

I need proof.

 

[Mallon]

Again, there's no such thing as proof in science, Doveaman. Science is only capable of disproving hypotheses, and the ones left standing are declared the winners (for the time being).

 

[Doveaman]

Again, there's no such thing as proof in science, Doveaman. Science is only capable of disproving hypotheses, and the ones left standing are declared the winners (for the time being).

If it's only for 'the time being' I guess it cannot be declared a fact, right?

 

[pgp_protector]

Yeah, but it cannot prove man evolved from animals.

I need proof.

Umm Man is an Animal (Animalia) as we're part of the Animalia Kingdom a sub set of the Domain Eukaryota,

we are Eukaryota,Animalia,Eumetazoa,Chordata,Vertebrata,Mammalia,Theria,Primates,Hominoidea,Hominidae,Homininae,Hominini,Hominina,Homo,H. sapiens,H. s. sapiens

AKA Human.

 

[Mallon]

If it's only for 'the time being' I guess it cannot be declared a fact, right?

That's right. I already explained that to you several posts back. But if you're going to reject evolution for being "only a theory", then to be consistent, you must also reject all other scientific theories, including quantum theory, atomic theory, germ theory, relativity theory, etc. Facts are merely what we bring to science; theories are what we derive from it. It sounds to me that your problem is not only with evolution, but with science as a whole.

Having said that, it's a fact that populations change through time... and given that evolution is minimally defined this way, it can also be considered a fact. Evolution is both a fact AND a theory. Ditto gravity, as I pointed out to your earlier.

 

[Assyrian]

So the scientists say I’m an ape and I’m just to accept it because they said so. Only God has that right. Modern science is filled with much folly, evolution is just one of them

Actually no. God gave the right to give names to all the animals to man. Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field

I find some old bones that resemble each other and I conclude they evolved from each other. I don’t think so.

You mean some old bones like these?
Can you tell which ones are human and which are really just apes? Because every stage look so similar to the ones before and after that Creationists can't even agree which skulls are clearly human and which are just an ape.

Can any of these show me a man actually evolving from an ape or some kind of animal, or do they just assume we did?

You never did reply to post 9.

 

[Doveaman]

That's right. I already explained that to you several posts back. But if you're going to reject evolution for being "only a theory", then to be consistent, you must also reject all other scientific theories, including quantum theory, atomic theory, germ theory, relativity theory, etc. Facts are merely what we bring to science; theories are what we derive from it. It sounds to me that your problem is not only with evolution, but with science as a whole.

Not with science. Just bad science.

No problem with theories either. Theories are developed then they are demonstrated to be true.

Evolution does not do this. All evolution has is what is considered to be 'evidence' and a speculative explanation of that 'evidence', but evolution is not observable in actual time.

We can only assume what we think happened based on the 'evidence', but can never know for sure if man did evolve from some ancient animal.

Biochemical similarity and bones does not prove this.

We cannot assume that because something resembles something that one evolved from the other, no matter how close the resemblance.

All we can do is speculate based on so called 'evidence'.