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

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fossil record don't show transitions. Do you have any links to actual photographs (not drawings) of transitions in the fossil record?

Just google "transitional fossil" and click on "images".

Everything I've seen myself and found online show fully formed "creatures"

Obviously. What else did you expect? Crockoducks?​

Evolution is the supposed process by which the first cell evolved into the diversity of life we see today. Natural selection and mutations are considered its driving force. However, evolution has never been observed

Google "observed evolution".
Having said that, processes/events don't need to be observed directly to be able to conclude that they happen. Processes and events of the past leave evidence in the present that we can study.

This is how just about every murder is solved. Usually, murders aren't observed.

and natural selection and mutations cannot add the information necessary to change one kind into another.

What do you mean with "kind"? Forget it, it doesn't matter actually. No matter how you define it, it's a strawmen of the actual evolutionary process.

Because in reality, in evolution, not a single organism was ever born that wasn't of the same species as its direct parents. Evolution is a process of gradual change over generations.
Much like how languages evolve over time.

Not a single child was ever raised in a different language then spoken by its care takers - usually the parents. Yet, the 2000 year old ancestors of spanish, french, portugese and italian folks spoke Latin.

Think about how that is possible...... that eventhough EVERY child ever raised spoke the language of its parents, YET over the course of 2000 years, Latin evolved into spanish, italian, french, portugese. The difference between these 4 languages are so big today that an average french men will not be able to have a conversation with an average portugese speaking person. He'll understand a few words left and right and that's about it.

So, how did latin change into these 4 new languages (which DID NOT EXIST back when everybody spoke latin!) while every new generation essentially spoke the language of the generation before it? The tip of that sentence is "essentially".

Go ahead.... try to explain that one.
When you do, you'll mostly have your answer on how an ancestral species can turn into several new species eventhough every new generation is essentially the same species as the generation that produced it.

Operational, experimental science has never demonstrated life randomly evolving from non-living elements.

Evolution explains the origins of diversity, not the origins of life. Different area of study, different scientific discipline.

But I'm sure you've been told that countless times before. Either your memory span is nihil, or you willfully chose to ignore that point.

Such an occurrence would violate the most fundamental observable law of biology: life comes from life, not from non-life.

That's not a law.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

referring to post 656


if all you are going to do is be negative and argue with me please don't respond. if you want to discuss your ideas vs mine then I am more then happy to engage.

God bless

Please fix your quotes. I went through the trouble with your previous post to pull out your comments via copy paste and constant switching of tabs in my browser assuming you just made a mistake and didn't notice, but I'm not going to bother with it this time.


I'll just repeat this: Scientific theories never become facts. Theories explain facts. Facts support theories. Learn the scientific jargon please.

Fact: a piece of data, an observation (ie: apples fall to earth)

Law: an abstraction of a set of facts/observations within a fixed scope (ie: objects with mass attract other objects with mass)

Hypothesis: a proposed explanatory model of the facts and laws. It attempts to answer the questions WHY/HOW do apples fall? WHY/HOW do objects with mass attract other objects with mass?

Theory: a graduated hypothesis. A well-tested and confirmed body of knowledge that explains facts, makes testable predictions and therefor is usefull in practical applications.


Theories NEVER become facts.
Facts and theories in science are DIFFERENT THINGS.

 

[7angels]

Please fix your quotes. I went through the trouble with your previous post to pull out your comments via copy paste and constant switching of tabs in my browser assuming you just made a mistake and didn't notice, but I'm not going to bother with it this time.


I'll just repeat this: Scientific theories never become facts. Theories explain facts. Facts support theories. Learn the scientific jargon please.

Fact: a piece of data, an observation (ie: apples fall to earth)

Law: an abstraction of a set of facts/observations within a fixed scope (ie: objects with mass attract other objects with mass)

Hypothesis: a proposed explanatory model of the facts and laws. It attempts to answer the questions WHY/HOW do apples fall? WHY/HOW do objects with mass attract other objects with mass?

Theory: a graduated hypothesis. A well-tested and confirmed body of knowledge that explains facts, makes testable predictions and therefor is usefull in practical applications.


Theories NEVER become facts.
Facts and theories in science are DIFFERENT THINGS.

I understand where you are coming from but when you have enough facts to prove a theory what happens?

for example at the moment time travel being possible is a theory atm because it is not proven. what happens when there are enough facts to prove time travel works?

I know what definition say and they are correct but now link or separate them so I understand where the difference is.

God bless

 

[xianghua]

Fossil record don't show transitions. Do you have any links to actual photographs (not drawings) of transitions in the fossil record?

here is one:

(image from BUSINESS & REPS – Digit247)

 

[pitabread]

here is one:

(image from BUSINESS & REPS – Digit247)

Time to admit you're just here to troll everyone.

 

[tas8831]

here is one:

(image from BUSINESS & REPS – Digit247)

 

[Aman777]

I'll just repeat this: Scientific theories never become facts. Theories explain facts. Facts support theories. Learn the scientific jargon please.

Changeable scientific theories are man made speculations about what the facts show. A good example is the false assumption of the ToE, that Humans descended from L.U.C.A. or the last universal common ancestor of all life on planet Earth. This incomplete theory is "willingly ignorant" that Humans were first made on another world, which was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:3-7

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Changeable scientific theories are man made speculations about what the facts show.

Yeah, sure... Plate tectonics, atoms, germs,.... all "speculation".

A good example is the false assumption of the ToE

Or atoms. Or germs. Or relativity.

All "just" theories. All "just" speculation.

, that Humans descended from L.U.C.A. or the last universal common ancestor of all life on planet Earth. This incomplete theory is "willingly ignorant" that Humans were first made on another world, which was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:3-7

Try again when you have evidence instead of bible quotes.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:..that Humans descended from L.U.C.A. or the last universal common ancestor of all life on planet Earth. This incomplete theory is "willingly ignorant" that Humans were first made on another world, which was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:3-7

Try again when you have evidence instead of bible quotes.

IF God told us the Truth in Genesis, then it must agree with every other discovered truth, if you have the proper interpretation. Therefore, I will be happy to show you God's Truth in Genesis which agrees in every way with Science, History and Genetics. Just tell me which way you like. Amen?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IF God told us the Truth in Genesis, then it must agree with every other discovered truth

And it doesn't.

, if you have the proper interpretation. Therefore, I will be happy to show you God's Truth in Genesis which agrees in every way with Science, History and Genetics. Just tell me which way you like. Amen?

I've read your wacky stuff.
Not interested.

I'ld be surprised if you could even find a handfull of christians who'ld agree with your bizar bible interpretations.

 

[Aman777]

I've read your wacky stuff.
Not interested.

I don't blame you since it destroys the ToE. I don't suppose I would read your stuff if it totally destroyed my faith in God's Truth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't blame you since it destroys the ToE. I don't suppose I would read your stuff if it totally destroyed my faith in God's Truth.

I just told you that I already read your stuff.
You would just be repeating the stuff I've already seen from you. I wasn't impressed then, I wouldn't be impressed now. Repeating claims won't change my response to them.

I would in fact love it, if you could actually destroy well established scientific theories. Because it would mean progress and learning. And progress and learning is a good thing.

Unfortunatly, your stuff doesn't destroy anything.

 

[KWCrazy]

So how did Yahweh do it?

He spoke it and it happened.
Or if you want to explain it through science, the energy of God became the matter which comprises the universe; since energy and matter are convertible.

 

[KWCrazy]

Duplicate post

 

[KWCrazy]

About absolute zero tempurature
Not about absolute zero "anything".

It includes anything that produces heat; like stars for instance.

IN our universe, yes.

It's the only one we have.... unless you have another in your pocket.

What makes you think you can just extrapolate them to make any kind of point about a setting where this universe doesn't exist (yet)?

If it doesn't exist it will never exist because no natural force could bring it into existence.

That makes no sense.
That's like saying that "before I was conveived, I wasn't aging".

The characteristics of rocks applies to rocks whether you have one, three or none.
It is mindless to claim that the rock had no characteristics before you had it.

Entropy/thermo dynamics is a mechanism that applies IN the universe. It makes no sense to extrapolate it into a setting where no universe exists (yet).

It is mindless to pretend that the characteristics of something are changed in its absence. The essence of a rock is the same whether you have one or not. If you do not have one, it will not suddenly appear because the laws of nature did not apply to it.

That point being that thermodynamics in fact does NOT tell us AT ALL that your claim about "nothingness" is accurate. So you're back to square one.

Perhaps you simply do not see the big picture.
1. The universe is degrading, so it cannot be eternal.
2. Everything that exists must have a beginning. Prior to its beginning it does not exist. Therefore, before there was anything there was nothing.
3. If there was once nothingness, then there would still be nothingness without a force outside of the universe creating it.

when did scientists ever get their hands on a "nothing" thaty they could study, to see if anything comes from it or can come from it?

I'm not the one who came up with the concept of absolute zero. Science DID prove, however, that in the absence of flies maggots do not appear in rotted meat. Something does not come from nothing.

"Hell"? What are you talking about?

A very hot and terrible place.

You're the one claiming that 7th graders are taught and know things that even the best theoretical physicists are ignorant off.....

It's not so much that they are ignorant but they are continually seeking to prove how things were created via a medium by which they were not created. This is because their mindset is that the physical laws of nature govern the universe. In truth it's God, not nature, who reigns sovereign over natural law.
So a young boy comes to know the Lord and goes to heaven. A scientist accrues 3 PhD's and worldwide acclaim but spends his eternity in Hell. Which would you say is the fool?

Science is not the problem. Denying the authority of God is the problem.

But you said that there is evidence of the supernatural.....
Are you now saying that such evidence even can't exist?

Evidence is not proof. Your father telling you how He was saved and how Christ changed him is evidence, but you can still reject it. Proof is when YOU are saved and come to know Christ as your personal savior. Or..... proof is when you stand before the throne of God and there is no denying that God is the king of kings.

Why is that "fortunate"?

Faith is the key to Heaven.
Nobody comes to the Father but by Christ; by accepting His sacrifice for your sins.
It doesn't take money. You don't have to be born into the right family. It's available to all freely given.

So none of the apostles had any chance of going to heaven?
I mean, they supposedly literally stood in God's (Jesus') presence, right?
They supposedly witnessed his divine power first hand in a multitude of ways, right?

The Holy Spirit did not come to earth until after the ascension.
John 20:29. "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

So, tell us all.... why would one go to hell if one would have rational reasons to believe a god exists? God doesn't like rational beliefs? He prefers gullible sheep who believe "just because"?

Why wouldn't you?
Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
Jesus is the lamb of God; the shed blood for the forgiveness of man's sins.
Without Him every sin you ever committed remains unforgiven.
God alone decides who goes to Hell, but His word very clearly tells us who does NOT make it to Heaven.

 

[KWCrazy]

When the evidence of reality contradicts a priori faith based beliefs, it's not the evidence of reality that is incorrect.........................

Reality is the sum total of all existence; the natural and the supernatural.
To deny the supernatural is to deny 50% of existence.
The physical world is not reality. It is the physical world. Belief only in it is not enlightenment but ignorance.

 

[KWCrazy]

Sounds suspiciously a lot like wizards saying "abracadabra" and then POOF, a rabbit.

I believe this thread was targeted to Christians, not atheists. Note the title does not begin with "As an atheist..."

 

[Job 33:6]

I understand where you are coming from but when you have enough facts to prove a theory what happens?

for example at the moment time travel being possible is a theory atm because it is not proven. what happens when there are enough facts to prove time travel works?

I know what definition say and they are correct but now link or separate them so I understand where the difference is.

God bless

Hi Angels. There really isn't such a thing as a theory of time travel.

Theories really just explain things that are real. Hypotheses suggest ideas of things that may or may not be real.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

I can understand your frustration. Please excuse me, iam in the process but im taking it slowly. I always get back to you sooner or later dont i

Cheers

So far you haven't. All I've had is assurances and no actual results. I am not impressed by your excuses.

 

[the iconoclast]

So far you haven't. All I've had is assurances and no actual results. I am not impressed by your excuses.

Hey hey kylie

Please excuse me. I gave a reason for my delay and an assurance that it will indeed happen. You will have to trust me on my word, or if you have an unquenchable desire to continue, we can restart.

Hit me with your best arguement? Or if you want to tackle my entire post you may have to wait a little longer.

Cheers