evolution question

[RickG]

That's like saying that rainbows are consistent with fun loving Leprechauns. Just because you believe that God created the universe does not make it true.

Most people don't realize, but rainbows are actually round when viewed from above.

 

[Loudmouth]

Most people don't realize, but rainbows are actually round when viewed from above.

Obvious evidence for Leprechauns.

 

[TheMadnessInMe]

This gets said all the time, but, there are many, many Christian scientists who accept evolution and some form of abiogenesis, but think God is the one behind the laws of physics and random events that makes it all possible.

As a Christian I also accept evolution....microevolution. In fact, almost all the findings today that are based on evolution as observable, predictable, and repeatable are all, in fact, examples of microevolution. About 90% of all evolution that's talked about in textbooks and what's being conducted in science today is considered microevolution.

It's the macroevolution that Christians cannot support. The molecules-to-man theory is simply lacking logical scientific evidence. In fact, I believe that the Christians that call themselves theistic evolutionists simply do not take the Bible as the infallible Word of God and thus may be at a different level or maturity in their spirituality. When Christians or Christian scientists call themselves theistic evolutionists, there's a faith problem and perhaps even a conflict in their own worldviews. Microevolution is something that is, indeed, observable, measurable, repeatable, and predictable. Creationists/ID theorists don't have a problem with that because that's fact. We have a difference in worldviews of what we consider evolution and origins. Historical science are assumptions no different than what the Creationist/ID theorist has. As a result of these differences in opinions, Creation scientists approach their predictions differently than a Darwinistic/Neo-Darwinist's approach for basing his/her predictions on evolutionary findings. Creation scientists, too, have been able to contribute towards science using the same scientific methods as secular scientists. In addition, Creation scientists have also been able to make successful findings using their worldview of Creation. They used predictability based off of what the Scriptures have stated and have had success as well. So why can't evolutionists co-exist with Creationists and ID theorists? Why can't they both use their respective worldviews to both contribute towards science, and indeed, it IS science.

But back to this whole notion of "christians accepting evolution." I believe the term evolution has been hijacked by secularists. Evolution is marketed as used for observable changes and then used for unobservable changes such as molecules to man. Secularists have used bait and switch to indoctrinate students to accept evolutionary belief as observable science, yet historical science is just not observable. The terms science and evolution are currently being hijacked to impose an anti-God religion on generations of unsuspecting students.

Here's just a very VERY recent example of this sort of bullying and indoctrination in America today....

http://www.khou.com/story/news/loca...nt-says-teacher-taught-god-not-real/74723050/

 

[Loudmouth]

It's the macroevolution that Christians cannot support. The molecules-to-man theory is simply lacking logical scientific evidence.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[bhsmte]

As a Christian I also accept evolution....microevolution. In fact, almost all the findings today that are based on evolution as observable, predictable, and repeatable are all, in fact, examples of microevolution. About 90% of all evolution that's talked about in textbooks and what's being conducted in science today is considered microevolution.

It's the macroevolution that Christians cannot support. The molecules-to-man theory is simply lacking logical scientific evidence. In fact, I believe that the Christians that call themselves theistic evolutionists simply do not take the Bible as the infallible Word of God and thus may be at a different level or maturity in their spirituality. When Christians or Christian scientists call themselves theistic evolutionists, there's a faith problem and perhaps even a conflict in their own worldviews. Microevolution is something that is, indeed, observable, measurable, repeatable, and predictable. Creationists/ID theorists don't have a problem with that because that's fact. We have a difference in worldviews of what we consider evolution and origins. Historical science are assumptions no different than what the Creationist/ID theorist has. As a result of these differences in opinions, Creation scientists approach their predictions differently than a Darwinistic/Neo-Darwinist's approach for basing his/her predictions on evolutionary findings. Creation scientists, too, have been able to contribute towards science using the same scientific methods as secular scientists. In addition, Creation scientists have also been able to make successful findings using their worldview of Creation. They used predictability based off of what the Scriptures have stated and have had success as well. So why can't evolutionists co-exist with Creationists and ID theorists? Why can't they both use their respective worldviews to both contributions towards science, and indeed, it IS science.

But back to this whole notion of "christians accepting evolution." I believe the term evolution has been hijacked by secularists. Evolution is marketed as used for observable changes and then used for unobservable changes such as molecules to man. Secularists have used bait and switch to indoctrinate students to accept evolutionary belief as observable science, yet historical science is just not observable. The terms science and evolution are currently being hijacked to impose an anti-God religion on generations of unsuspecting students.

Here's just a very VERY recent example of this sort of bullying and indoctrination in America today....

http://www.khou.com/story/news/loca...nt-says-teacher-taught-god-not-real/74723050/

The majority of Christian accept the theory of evolution, so they also accept, macro evolution.

You may not accept it, but it doesn't mean it applies to all Christians.

 

[TheMadnessInMe]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

1) I never said "evidences"
2) Fair enough....PROVE, through scientific observation, that macroevolution happened; that we all came from 1 species. Do you even know the supposed species we came from?

 

[Loudmouth]

1) I never said "evidences"
2) Fair enough....PROVE, through scientific observation, that macroevolution happened; that we all came from 1 species. Do you even know the supposed species we came from?

If your position is impervious to evidence, the problem doesn't lie with me.

 

[Shemjaza]

As a Christian I also accept evolution....microevolution. In fact, almost all the findings today that are based on evolution as observable, predictable, and repeatable are all, in fact, examples of microevolution. About 90% of all evolution that's talked about in textbooks and what's being conducted in science today is considered microevolution.

It's the macroevolution that Christians cannot support. The molecules-to-man theory is simply lacking logical scientific evidence. In fact, I believe that the Christians that call themselves theistic evolutionists simply do not take the Bible as the infallible Word of God and thus may be at a different level or maturity in their spirituality. When Christians or Christian scientists call themselves theistic evolutionists, there's a faith problem and perhaps even a conflict in their own worldviews. Microevolution is something that is, indeed, observable, measurable, repeatable, and predictable. Creationists/ID theorists don't have a problem with that because that's fact. We have a difference in worldviews of what we consider evolution and origins. Historical science are assumptions no different than what the Creationist/ID theorist has. As a result of these differences in opinions, Creation scientists approach their predictions differently than a Darwinistic/Neo-Darwinist's approach for basing his/her predictions on evolutionary findings. Creation scientists, too, have been able to contribute towards science using the same scientific methods as secular scientists. In addition, Creation scientists have also been able to make successful findings using their worldview of Creation. They used predictability based off of what the Scriptures have stated and have had success as well. So why can't evolutionists co-exist with Creationists and ID theorists? Why can't they both use their respective worldviews to both contribute towards science, and indeed, it IS science.

But back to this whole notion of "christians accepting evolution." I believe the term evolution has been hijacked by secularists. Evolution is marketed as used for observable changes and then used for unobservable changes such as molecules to man. Secularists have used bait and switch to indoctrinate students to accept evolutionary belief as observable science, yet historical science is just not observable. The terms science and evolution are currently being hijacked to impose an anti-God religion on generations of unsuspecting students.

Here's just a very VERY recent example of this sort of bullying and indoctrination in America today....

http://www.khou.com/story/news/loca...nt-says-teacher-taught-god-not-real/74723050/

Can you explain what you define as macro evolution?

I'll grant that molecules to man isn't well defined, it isn't even a clear hypothesis.

However "ape" to man is extremely well supported and I'd be shocked if anyone thought an animal splitting into chimps and humans wasn't macro.

 

[TheMadnessInMe]

If your position is impervious to evidence, the problem doesn't lie with me.

Literally hundreds of physical processes that set limits on the age of the universe and over 90% of them give an age less than billions of years old. Darwinism orthodoxy is a faith! For heaven's sake, secular scientists can't even get their dating right! With this kind of...evidence....it would be inadmissible in court. Conflicting data is never good for science and it does take a remarkable amount of faith to also believe in the incalculable odds.

"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; a faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories - one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." - R.L. Wysong The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981) p. 455.

"...evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." - L.H. Matthews "Introduction to Origin of the Species, By Charles Darwin"

"evolution is a dying religion surviving on tax dollars." <---- My personal favorite

 

[Loudmouth]

Literally hundreds of physical processes that set limits on the age of the universe and over 90% of them give an age less than billions of years old.

We have seen those lists on creationist websites, and they have all been thoroughly refuted.

Darwinism orthodoxy is a faith!

It always makes me laugh when theists use "faith" as a term of derision. It really shows you how little respect they have for their own faith.

Also, we have the evidence. We don't need faith.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

For heaven's sake, secular scientists can't even get their dating right!

They do have it right.

http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium;

Right away you have demonstrated that your sources don't understand what evolution is. In evolution, DNA is produced by biological reproduction. It doesn't form spontaneously.

When you learn what evolution is, perhaps then you can criticize it.

 

[TheMadnessInMe]

However "ape" to man is extremely well supported and I'd be shocked if anyone thought an animal splitting into chimps and humans wasn't macro.

That's interesting because doesn't Dr. Stephen Hawking say, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: it must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He adds the "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories and says, "you can disprove a theory by finding even a SINGLE observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." Fossils are not "evidence" of making a connection between man and ape. In fact, Dr. Jerry Bergman wrote about Darwin's ape-men and the exploitation of deformed humans. If this is true, there is enough doubt to make the case that there is reasonable evidence to prove there is no empirical evidence or observational science that can take place here. Here again, we have a conflict in worldviews. Historical science is not observable....unless scientists are now claiming that they've seen, with their own eyes, man evolve from an ape. Doctors have also examined these putative "missing links" and have CONFIRMED that these fossils were "diseased but otherwise normal humans." Again, if this is true, then Dr. Stephen Hawkins is right, we should file this theory, at least, as "unprovable but falsifiable"....in other words....evolution will never be fact.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fossils are not "evidence" of making a connection between man and ape.

Why not? The theory of evolution predicts that there were species that had a mixture of human and ancestral ape features. Why isn't the discovery of those fossils evidence in support of the theory?

To disprove the theory, all you need to find is combinations of features that evolution predicts you should see, such as fossils with a mixture of bird and mammal features.

In fact, Dr. Jerry Bergman wrote about Darwin's ape-men and the exploitation of deformed humans. If this is true, there is enough doubt to make the case that there is reasonable evidence to prove there is no empirical evidence or observational science that can take place here. Here again, we have a conflict in worldviews. Historical science is not observable....unless scientists are now claiming that they've seen, with their own eyes, man evolve from an ape. Doctors have also examined these putative "missing links" and have CONFIRMED that these fossils were "diseased but otherwise normal humans." Again, if this is true, then Dr. Stephen Hawkins is right, we should file this theory, at least, as "unprovable but falsifiable"....in other words....evolution will never be fact.

How are fossils not observable?

 

[[serious]]

The problem is exactly of how much chemistry will produce biology. Hoping that this can happen without deliberate input is a belief in a form of information perpetuity

Real quick here, the information thing is nonsense. For any definition of information, it is either able to naturally increase or irrelevant to evolution.

I'll take a moment to spell out one possible origin to life and we can use that as a basis to jump into the information question:

Let's look around deep sea vents.

Naturally occurring lipids can form membranes under these natural conditions.
Those bubbles tend to merge with other lipids and other bubbles to form larger bubbles
Agitation from the previously mentioned vents can split large bubbles into smaller ones (simplified reproduction)
Small bits of RNA can naturally form and can pass through such bubbles
These small bits of RNA can spontaneously link into larger bits that don't move through the bubbles easily
The presence of these larger bits of trapped RNA let the bubble "eat" other lipids and bubbles faster
sequences that extend more readily will help expand their lipid bubble faster leading it to split faster. As soon as you have heritable differences in those bubbles, you have a foothold for evolution to take over.

define what you mean by information (in a measurable way)and explain which set requires information increase.

 

[TheMadnessInMe]

They do have it right.

http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

And this single method of dating conflicts with:

1)Helium in the atmosphere
2) Helium in the ground
3) Meteor Dust
4) Buildup of carbon 14
5) Natural plutonium
6) Sodium in sea
7) Sediment in sea
8) Erosion of continents
9) Earth's magnetic field
10) Oil leaks in Earth
11) Natural gas in Earth
12) Coral reef growth
13) Oldest living plants
14) River Delta growth
15) Neutrons and lead
16) Rotation of spiral galaxies
17) Carbon 14 in meteorites

it goes on and on and on......and again, over 90% of them conflict with the bold claim of the universe being 13.7 billion years old. But now....we have Richard Dawkins that has recently said that he believes in an infinite universe....but that conflicts with finite laws and astrophysics that say energy is finite. Further, energy will never be intelligent. How do you explain that?

 

[Loudmouth]

And this single method of dating conflicts with:

1)Helium in the atmosphere
2) Helium in the ground
3) Meteor Dust
4) Buildup of carbon 14
5) Natural plutonium
6) Sodium in sea
7) Sediment in sea
8) Erosion of continents
9) Earth's magnetic field
10) Oil leaks in Earth
11) Natural gas in Earth
12) Coral reef growth
13) Oldest living plants
14) River Delta growth
15) Neutrons and lead
16) Rotation of spiral galaxies
17) Carbon 14 in meteorites

None of those are used to date the Earth because none of them are capable of doing so. Those are things creationists have made up. No geologist uses them.

 

[TheMadnessInMe]

None of those are used to date the Earth because none of them are capable of doing so. Those are things creationists have made up. No geologist uses them.

Lies....

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044

Notice the uranium-lead as well as Carbon 14 to determine the decay....

 

[Loudmouth]

Lies....

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044

Notice the uranium-lead as well as Carbon 14 to determine the decay....

Lies.

They date fossils using carbon 14, not the age of the Earth. Also, carbon dating is only good out to 50k years or less.

 

[TheMadnessInMe]

How are fossils not observable?

Fossils are observable but HOW you went about the grouping apes, monkeys, and humans into the same species is corrupt data or at best, as aforementioned, concluded on dishonest data. We would have to go back and again, argue the origins in order to define why an ape or monkey cannot be grouped with the human species. This will inevitably lead the conversation to two different worldviews. All I want is for evolutionists to at least agree that it takes an equal amount of faith to believe in your worldview as it does mine. Additionally, why couldn't evolutionists and creationists work side-by-side, using their own respective worldviews, to contribute towards science? Why does the scientific community insist on only using their model and limited worldview to do science? We know, because there's evidence of successful Christian scientists, using their Christian worldview to make their own contributions towards science and being inventors and innovators. So why must we cave?

 

[Armoured]

Fossils are observable but HOW you went about the grouping apes, monkeys, and humans into the same species is corrupt data or at best, as aforementioned, concluded on dishonest data. We would have to go back and again, argue the origins in order to define why an ape or monkey cannot be grouped with the human species. This will inevitably lead the conversation to two different worldviews. All I want is for evolutionists to at least agree that it takes an equal amount of faith to believe in your worldview as it does mine. Additionally, why couldn't evolutionists and creationists work side-by-side, using their own respective worldviews, to contribute towards science? Why does the scientific community insist on only using their model and limited worldview to do science? We know, because there's evidence of successful Christian scientists, using their Christian worldview to make their own contributions towards science and being inventors and innovators. So why must we cave?

Sorry, WHY can't a human and ape be grouped scientifically?

 

[Loudmouth]

Fossils are observable but HOW you went about the grouping apes, monkeys, and humans into the same species is corrupt data or at best, as aforementioned, concluded on dishonest data.

Grouping them into species has nothing to do with it.

We OBSERVE that these fossils have a mixture of ape features not seen in modern humans and modern human features not found in any living ape species. That makes them transitional by definition. We don't need to group them with any other fossils or give them a species name in order to determine that they are transitional. All of the evidence has to do with the observable features in the fossils. Those observations are used to test the theory of evolution, all in keeping with the scientific method.

If you are wondering about falsifiability, that is there too. All you need to do is find fossils that have a mixture of features that the theory of evolution doesn't predict. For example, a fossil with feathers and three middle ear bones would falsify the theory of evolution since these are derived bird and derived mammal features. As of now, ALL OF THE FOSSILS fit into the predicted nested hierarchy. None of the fossils have mixtures of features that violate that nested hierarchy.

We would have to go back and again, argue the origins in order to define why an ape or monkey cannot be grouped with the human species.

The argument is about the mixture of features in the fossil itself.

All I want is for evolutionists to at least agree that it takes an equal amount of faith to believe in your worldview as it does mine.

Of course this is what you want, because you want to believe that evolution isn't true, or at least that you are on even footing with scientists.

The truth is that we have the evidence. We don't need faith. We aren't on even ground with you.

Additionally, why couldn't evolutionists and creationists work side-by-side, using their own respective worldviews, to contribute towards science?

You tell me. What is stopping creationists from searching for fossils, or any of the other work that biologists do to test the theory of evolution?

Why does the scientific community insist on only using their model and limited worldview to do science?

Because creationists can't show how their model explains the evidence.

We know, because there's evidence of successful Christian scientists, using their Christian worldview to make their own contributions towards science and being inventors and innovators. So why must we cave?

Please show how they use creationism to do biology.