Christians Only : your evidence please

[Kylie]

so human is a kind of fish. very logical. thanks.

Do you intentionally distort what people tell you, or was this accidental? No one said that humans are fish. ViaCrucis said that modern Humans and (some) modern fish share a common ancestor. That ancestor was more fish-like than human-like. But Humans are not fish, nor did anyone ever say so.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

I'm kidding --- you are all most welcome, even though my three wee question are for Christians !

I was a Christian for most of my adult life but at some point before learning about how evolutionary biology puts a different spin on what happened after God created us, I realized that I was living a lie

Now here's question 1 : Is Evolution, really a BIG FAT LIE?

Question 2 : What evidence would you offer in support of such an idea?

Question 3 : If you are a Christian who stands by the evidence in support of Evolution, how do you reconcile the two - your faith in Jesus and Evolution?

Thank you

I believe that evolution is a moot point. The fact is that God created the heaven and the earth by forming them is all of the heavens, which are as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore, approximately one quintillion times. Thus; we have, "heavens," plural in Genesis 22:17.

Therefore, your time-frame does not work and you must rethink your conclusions.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I believe that evolution is a moot point. The fact is that God created the heaven and the earth by forming them is all of the heavens, which are as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore, approximately one quintillion times. Thus; we have, "heavens," plural in Genesis 22:17.

Therefore, your time-frame does not work and you must rethink your conclusions.

Debating what is already established as a scientific fact, is pointless. Unless you have an actual scientific argument, for we might debate certain details ( though quite a bit has already been thrashed out here and other threads over the years - Have a careful read through the important exchanges from this thread? ), but as far as I understand the fact of Evolution ( incl. developments subsequent to Darwin's works ) isn't up for debate, except ofcourse by those who employ the forum to make faith claims instead of actual science

--- is the Bible not a little too old for science?

 

[xianghua]

Yes, if by "fish" you mean sarcopterygian, and by sarcopterygians we are speaking of them as a monophyletic group, lobe-finned fish and all their descendants.

Yes, that is logical. A parakeet is a bird, because "bird" covers that lineage of birds that includes parakeets, that is a logical statement. Or do you think it is illogical to call a parakeet a bird?

-CryptoLutheran

if you dont see any problem to call human a kind of a fish, i realy have nothing to say about this. also: this definition assume that evolution is true. so its base about assumption.

 

[xianghua]

Debating what is already established as a scientific fact, is pointless. Unless you have an actual scientific argument, for we might debate certain details ( though quite a bit has already been thrashed out here and other threads over the years - Have carefully read through the important exchanges from this thread? ), but as far as I understand the fact of Evolution ( incl. developments subsequent to Darwin's works ) isn't up for debate, except ofcourse by those who employ the forum to make faith claims instead of actual science

"the fact of evolution"? you kidding,right?

 

[xianghua]

Do you intentionally distort what people tell you, or was this accidental? No one said that humans are fish. ViaCrucis said that modern Humans and (some) modern fish share a common ancestor. That ancestor was more fish-like than human-like. But Humans are not fish, nor did anyone ever say so.

this is his own words:

"Yes, if by "fish" you mean sarcopterygian, and by sarcopterygians we are speaking of them as a monophyletic group, lobe-finned fish and all their descendants"

 

[ViaCrucis]

this is his own words:

"Yes, if by "fish" you mean sarcopterygian, and by sarcopterygians we are speaking of them as a monophyletic group, lobe-finned fish and all their descendants"

That was pretty clear.

If you have a problem with it, then you also have a problem calling a parakeet a bird.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kenneth Redden]

Debating what is already established as a scientific fact, is pointless. Unless you have an actual scientific argument, for we might debate certain details ( though quite a bit has already been thrashed out here and other threads over the years - Have a careful read through the important exchanges from this thread? ), but as far as I understand the fact of Evolution ( incl. developments subsequent to Darwin's works ) isn't up for debate, except ofcourse by those who employ the forum to make faith claims instead of actual science

--- is the Bible not a little too old for science?

No, it is not. Science has yet to catch up with the KJV Bible. But I am not trying to prove or disprove evolution, or Science. In fact, correct scientific data of the heavens and the earth is a foundation piece for the understanding. I believe Man was created and made in the beginning of the creation, from everlasting. This may be implied by the existence of Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God; without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Hebrews 7:1-3 KJV.
I believe today is the fourth day of the creation. The last fourth day! The day He made the stars also, in Genesis 1:16.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

"the fact of evolution"? you kidding,right?

Please don't misqoute me

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

No, it is not. Science has yet to catch up with the KJV Bible. But I am not trying to prove or disprove evolution, or Science. In fact, correct scientific data of the heavens and the earth is a foundation piece for the understanding. I believe Man was created and made in the beginning of the creation, from everlasting. This may be implied by the existence of Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God; without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Hebrews 7:1-3 KJV.
I believe today is the fourth day of the creation. The last fourth day! The day He made the stars also, in Genesis 1:16.

Faith claims are cute but they are not science

 

[AV1611VET]

Please don't misqoute me

Ya ... I know how you feel.

I feel the same way when people misquote Genesis 1:1, then try to justify it by blaming it on the Jews.

 

[Kylie]

if you dont see any problem to call human a kind of a fish, i realy have nothing to say about this. also: this definition assume that evolution is true. so its base about assumption.

Once again, no one said that humans are fish. It was stated that Humans are sarcopterygians. The fact that the first sarcopterygian was (what we would call) a fish is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Kylie]

this is his own words:

"Yes, if by "fish" you mean sarcopterygian, and by sarcopterygians we are speaking of them as a monophyletic group, lobe-finned fish and all their descendants"

And he was quite clear that he was referring to sarcopterygians. You are the one trying to twist it into something it is not. Did you miss the point where he said, "and all their descendants"?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Ya ... I know how you feel.

I feel the same way when people misquote Genesis 1:1, then try to justify it by blaming it on the Jews.

It's a mistake I made too -- leaving out or adding certain words can sometimes be cata-straw-fic

 

[FredVB]

You are shifting the goal posts from "True" to "useful".

By me speaking to some others' conversation, this response doesn't consider that context. But it is not like dark energy would be shown to be factually true, either. It is accepted from an interpretation of a finding to have consistency with a prevailing theory. It is the case that the theory of evolution is still actively promoted here to others who don't see factual reality to it, for it to be accepted.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

.... the theory of evolution is still actively promoted here to others who don't see factual reality to it, for it to be accepted.

It's a scientific theory - a fact which scientists don't need to promote - or defend -- because the evidence is there to explore and challenge - if one has that sort of counter evidence

 

[juvenissun]

It's a scientific theory - a fact which scientists don't need to promote - or defend -- because the evidence is there to explore and challenge - if one has that sort of counter evidence

Through these evidences, do you "believe" that evolution is true? Is it the same way as you "believe" that God does not exist?

 

[JoeP222w]

I'm kidding --- you are all most welcome, even though my three wee question are for Christians !

I was a Christian for most of my adult life but at some point before learning about how evolutionary biology puts a different spin on what happened after God created us, I realized that I was living a lie

Now here's question 1 : Is Evolution, really a BIG FAT LIE?

Question 2 : What evidence would you offer in support of such an idea?

Question 3 : If you are a Christian who stands by the evidence in support of Evolution, how do you reconcile the two - your faith in Jesus and Evolution?

Thank you

1. Yes.
2. The question is asking to prove a lie. How does one prove a lie? There is not one shred of evidence for Evolution.
3. Belief in Evolution and the truth of the Bible is completely contrary. They cannot be reconciled.

 

[Colter]

I'm kidding --- you are all most welcome, even though my three wee question are for Christians !

I was a Christian for most of my adult life but at some point before learning about how evolutionary biology puts a different spin on what happened after God created us, I realized that I was living a lie

Now here's question 1 : Is Evolution, really a BIG FAT LIE?

Question 2 : What evidence would you offer in support of such an idea?

Question 3 : If you are a Christian who stands by the evidence in support of Evolution, how do you reconcile the two - your faith in Jesus and Evolution?

Thank you

1) No, it's Gods technique for creating life on the evolutionary worlds. There are many of them in a vast universe.

2) the evidence of evolution is everywhere, the "purposive potential" within evolution is a mater of perception.

3) Rescue Jesus from the Bible and you will see that there is quite a lot that he did NOT say compared to what his followers assume.

 

[Doveaman]

To me, faith is not a belief in a set of propositional statements but rather a sure confidence that no matter what happens in our lives, God is always with us.

Nope.

Faith is taking God at His word:

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." -- (Romans 10:17)

Evolution theory contradicts God's word:

"From one man He [God] made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live." -- (Acts 17:26)