As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[eleos1954]

Your straw man version of "macro evolution" is not supported by the bible or science.

"is not supported by the bible

... or science" - at least you admit this

You dismiss the bible as a source ... that's fine

I won't argue this further as it is futile. It will not change either of our views.

 

[tas8831]

There are no scientifically valid theories for origination. In fact, science tells us that the origination of anything from nothing is impossible. Either you believe through faith that God has done the impossible, or you believe in something which is nonsense at its core. Evolution proponents contend that their theory begins on the second rung of the ladder; that the first doesn't matter. That's how they justify it to themselves.

Not even on topic...

 

[Jimmy D]

"is not supported by the bible

... or science" - at least you admit this

You dismiss the bible as a source ... that's fine

I won't argue this further as it is futile. It will not change either of our views.

I didn't dismiss the bible or "admit" anything. I pointed out that your misrepresentation of "macro evolution" was a straw man that no one would accept. Dogs mating with cats indeed.

 

[pitabread]

I suppose you DO realize, that classical physics is how they have gotten to where they are now? Cause and effect is basic, for approaching the place of questioning where cause and effect may not apply?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[7angels]

replying to quote 635.

Theories and facts are two different things.
Theories explain facts.
Facts support theories.

Theories never become facts.
correct facts support theories but sooner or later a theory will either become fact or it will prove false. just like the big bang theory was thought to be true but instead was proved wrong.

Facts, are data. Theories are the explanations of said data. They explain why the data is what it is and not what it isn't.

only half true. theories are data too. theories become facts when enough evidence is shown to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the theory is true. as I said before when there are not enough facts to support the theory then the theory is casted away for another explaination. that is the way of science.

You can believe whatever you want, off course.

yep that is what each person is supposed to do. hopefully they make informed decisions and ones due to ignorance or peer pressure.

Yes. Some 4.5 billion years.

good answer. whether it is true or not is just a theory. facts support your answer but not enough facts to make theory become fact.

Your bible is not a history book.

your right the bible is not just a history book. the bible is a book on salvation. the bible has history recorded in it as well as mathematics, health, healing, prophesy, and many other subjects but that does not mean it is false. actually many atheists have found to their dismay or joy that when they tried proving the bible false that what they proved was actually that the bible is true. the same can be found out about many of the concepts within the bible. science has put them to the test to see if they are true and have found that yes they are true.

nice discussion with you.

God bless

 

[tas8831]

to prove that this is indeed impossible.

Please provide the verifiable mechanism whereby silicates can be transformed into thousands of different specific biologically important organic molecules and then animated all at once.

 

[tas8831]

There are no scientifically valid theories for origination. In fact, science tells us that the origination of anything from nothing is impossible.

And so this whole "VOID" THING...

Either you believe through faith that God has done the impossible, or you believe in something which is nonsense at its core.

Nice false dichotomy coupled with some well poisoning of some sort.

Please provide the mechanism whereby this nonsense occurred:

"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Specifics please. With legitimate corroboration.

Evolution proponents contend that their theory begins on the second rung of the ladder; that the first doesn't matter. That's how they justify it to themselves.

Lego.

 

[KWCrazy]

Justify what to themselves? They're trying to figure out abiogenesis as best they can, though we all know they haven't done it yet.

Real scientists know the auto- origination of anything is an impossibility.
There is no natural causation for the origination of the universe.
Still, we are surrounded with people who state conclusively that everything came about by natural processes, even though they know that it simply could not have happened that way.

 

[KWCrazy]

Does it?
When did scientists ever get their hands on a "nothing" that they could study, to see if anything comes from it?
It seems to me that in order to conclude that nothing can come from "nothing", you'ld have to have a "nothing" to study.

Perhaps we should throw out the laws of thermodynamics because they are inconvenient.
The third law tells us that in the absence of anything ; absolute zero; there is no activity. It also tells us that matter cannot created. Thus, something cannot arise from nothing.

Unless of course you want to reject the laws of physics.

Alternatively, you could just say "we don't know" instead of coming up with obviously false dichotomies.

If we passed 7th grade science we do know.
We can pretend that the absolutes in science are not absolutes, but that is simply pretending. We can pretend that there is no evidence for the supernatural, but that is quite simply a rejection of reality. Reality includes both the natural and the supernatural. Ignoring either represents a distortion of reality.

 

[Shemjaza]

Perhaps we should throw out the laws of thermodynamics because they are inconvenient.
The third law tells us that in the absence of anything ; absolute zero; there is no activity. It also tells us that matter cannot created. Thus, something cannot arise from nothing.

Unless of course you want to reject the laws of physics.

If we passed 7th grade science we do know.
We can pretend that the absolutes in science are not absolutes, but that is simply pretending. We can pretend that there is no evidence for the supernatural, but that is quite simply a rejection of reality. Reality includes both the natural and the supernatural. Ignoring either represents a distortion of reality.

Turns out it takes more then the simplifications and absolutes taught to seventh graders to understand the details of the big bang theory and the scientific hypotheses about the beginning of time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Turns out it takes more then the simplifications and absolutes taught to seventh graders to understand the details of the big bang theory and the scientific hypotheses about the beginning of time.

Yet they use the absolutes to arrive at the new hypotheses.

According to some (I don't call them scientists) science has mathematically brought us to the realm where cause and effect no long applies. Yet cause and effect is how they got to that realm.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yet they use the absolutes to arrive at the new hypotheses.

According to some (I don't call them scientists) science has mathematically brought us to the realm where cause and effect no long applies. Yet cause and effect is how they got to that realm.

I wasn't trying to imply that absolutes are automatically wrong, merely pointing out that the version of physics we teach to children isn't the be-all and end-all of science.

Personally the weird maths and ideas about time and the universe not needing a cause are beyond me. However, my knowledge of physics was enough to understand how the big bang theory shows the very early history of the universe even if it can't explain its origin.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but evolutionists do it too. so?

No.

if so why you said that it cant happen if evolution is true? ("such a thing can't happen if evolution is accurate").

Because evolution happens through small changes that accumulate over generations.
Because in evolution, speciation is a process that does not happen overnight.

No math required. A cat giving birth to a dog, is the exact opposite of "not happening overnight" and "small changes accumulating over many generations"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Macro evolution - not after their kind ... we do not see, ie cats and dogs don't cross breed etc.

False.

The only difference between micro and macro is the amount of generations wich amounts to a lot more accumulation of micro changes - simply because there were more generations to pass and add micro changes.

It's the exact same process for both.

Note: Biblically micro evolution is supported and accepted, macro evolution is not.

Note: your religious mythology has no bearing on any natural sciences.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps we should throw out the laws of thermodynamics because they are inconvenient.
The third law tells us that in the absence of anything ; absolute zero; there is no activity. It also tells us that matter cannot created. Thus, something cannot arise from nothing.

1. the third law is about low tempuratures, not about "nothingness".

2. thermodynamics are laws that apply in the universe, they are aspects of space-time. When the topic is the origins of space-time, then thermodynamics of space-time don't exist yet.

Unless of course you want to reject the laws of physics.

Physics breaks down at T = 0.
Physics is a model that deals with how stuff works IN space-time.
When there is no space-time, there also isn't any physics of space-time.

If we passed 7th grade science we do know.

I wasn't aware that 7th graders (or the teachers of 7th grade) had knowledge that even the most outstanding physicists of this world don't have.

We can pretend that the absolutes in science are not absolutes, but that is simply pretending. We can pretend that there is no evidence for the supernatural, but that is quite simply a rejection of reality. Reality includes both the natural and the supernatural. Ignoring either represents a distortion of reality.

Please share this evidence of the supernatural.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

correct facts support theories but sooner or later a theory will either become fact or it will prove false.

This is just not true. You should learn the basics of how science is done.

just like the big bang theory was thought to be true but instead was proved wrong

Citation required.

only half true. theories are data too.

No. Again, please learn the basics of how science is done.

theories become facts when enough evidence is shown to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the theory is true.

No.

as I said before when there are not enough facts to support the theory then the theory is casted away for another explaination. that is the way of science.

Whoever told you that this is how science works, was either honestly wrong or just lying.

good answer. whether it is true or not is just a theory. facts support your answer but not enough facts to make theory become fact

The age of the earth is not a theory, but a measurement. It's data. Fact, if you will.

your right the bible is not just a history book. the bible is a book on salvation. the bible has history recorded in it as well as mathematics, health, healing, prophesy, and many other subjects but that does not mean it is false. actually many atheists have found to their dismay or joy that when they tried proving the bible false that what they proved was actually that the bible is true.

Just false. Geology as a field, for example, was kickstarted by christians who said out to collect evidence to prove that noah's flood really occured. They ended up demonstrating the exact opposite and created geology as a scientific discipline in the process.

Throughout history, whenever science and religion (any religion) went head to head on a specific point, not once did the religion turn out correct while the science wrong.

the same can be found out about many of the concepts within the bible. science has put them to the test to see if they are true and have found that yes they are true.

Give me a single example.

 

[the iconoclast]

It's trivial. And it says absolutely nothing about whether or not that god, or demon, or rock, or ice-cream cone actually exist.

Hey hey my marvelous new friend I have read your 3 replies to me and believe we are stagnating. Lets move on.

I did not think its trivial and i know one way to prove a statement, to test it!

I have disproved your creature ie you made it up recently and do not believe it exists in reality.

I know God exists and have experienced Him.

My position is God is real and can be known. Your position is He is akin to your fictitious creature. Where should we go from here?

Cheers Hey hey my dear @TagliatelliMonster, i have briefly looked at your reply. I will respond shortly, dont worry, we have much to discuss. Looks like the extraordinary ananda replied, i think you will find what she has to say quite fascinating. I do!!

Anyways, We have come far but we have much further to go.

Hey hey @Kylie.
Heads up im delaying your post - again. You aint going no where so i hope you dont mind waiting some more.

Dont worry, i will not disappoint.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My position is God is real and can be known. Your position is He is akin to your fictitious creature. Where should we go from here?

To the evidence.
As it stands, there seems to be the exact same kind of evidence for both. And that is "none".

Evidence, is what makes the imaginary distinguishable from the real.

Cheers Hey hey my dear @TagliatelliMonster, i have briefly looked at your reply. I will respond shortly, dont worry, we have much to discuss. Looks like the extraordinary ananda replied, i think you will find what she has to say quite fascinating. I do!!

Anyways, We have come far but we have much further to go.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey @Kylie.
Heads up im delaying your post - again. You aint going no where so i hope you dont mind waiting some more.

Dont worry, i will not disappoint.

I'm already disappointed that you think that you can keep me happy with promises of great stuff in the future and then taking forever to actually deliver.

Have you thought about a career in politics?

 

[KWCrazy]

Turns out it takes more then the simplifications and absolutes taught to seventh graders to understand the details of the big bang theory and the scientific hypotheses about the beginning of time.

Not really. "The big bang" happened on day four when the singularity called "light" instantly became the sun, moon and stars. As a Christian, which is the basis of this thread, I do not reject the word of God and the actual confirmation on a stone tablet by God Himself that in six days He created the universe and all living things within it. Evolution is contrary to the word of God, which makes it by definition false.