Here's my question for you: why are you pitting Christianity against science? If you want to believe science is wrong that's your prerogative, but that doesn't justify forcing others into your either/or dilemma.
Is this a Christian forum? Correct?
I am not pitting Christianity against science. I am pitting it against a theory that has no biblical backing or any hard evidence. It is all speculation.
Jesus even spoke against evolution, but you choose not to believe Jesus. That makes Jesus into a liar.
This is what the Christian Forums are for. Discussion.
Would you rather I be quiet?
It's the only place where we can be sure that it works. Inferring unknown "intelligent designers" is not scientific and not backed by evidence.
The designer is not unknown. I know Him.
I believe that there are many here who think that they know Him, and they may even go to church and worship Him, but, although they knew God, they did not glorify
Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. - Evolutionists give credit for creation to the animals and man. They say we evolved, and therefore they take the Glory from God and give it to the creatures of the earth. So, in effect, they worship the creature more than they do the creator.
(Sorry if this post seems a little harsh. It is simply the truth. Give God the Glory.)
Common sense is a trap. Science is the method for keeping out of the trap.
"The collection of data through observation and experimentation."
To be considered scientifically proven, a theory must be observable, testable, repeatable, and able to be proven wrong if the evidence goes against it.
Darwinian evolution, by definition, cannot be directly observed or repeated, especially when it is said to happen over millions of years. No one has ever observed one kind of animal slowly turning into another with a new body plan. At best, we observe small changes within species (microevolution), but the kind of large-scale transformation required by Darwinian theory (macroevolution) is assumed, not observed.
It is not scientific. It is a belief system.
It really depends on if there is a mechanism for lining up apples under the tree, for example a fallen branch, or a crack in the ground. We are not talking about unnaturally arranged apples, but things with actual explanations for apparent order.
That’s a fair point. Sometimes, what appears to be designed can have a natural explanation. But this is exactly why examples from nature that exhibit functional complexity are so compelling. Some biological systems show a level of interdependent design where all parts must be present and functioning for the whole to work. In other words, their complexity can't be explained by simple step-by-step processes.
Take the human eye, for example. It requires a retina, a lens, an iris, tear ducts, optic nerves, and a visual processing centre in the brain. Remove or disable any one of these, and the system doesn’t function properly, if at all. The eye is an incredibly sophisticated tool, capable of focusing, adjusting to light, and processing millions of signals per second. It doesn’t behave like something that emerged gradually through random mutation—it looks more like something engineered for a purpose.
This leads to the concept of irreducible complexity, which suggests that certain biological systems are composed of multiple interdependent parts, all of which must be present for the system to function. Here's a concrete example:
The Circulatory System: An Irreducibly Complex System
- The Heart pumps the blood, but without blood, it has nothing to move.
- The Blood carries oxygen and nutrients, but it would be pointless without a pump to circulate it.
- Blood Vessels direct the blood, but they’re useless without both blood and a pumping heart.
These components are co-dependent. You can't build up to a functional circulatory system one piece at a time; it has to be complete from the beginning, or it doesn’t work at all. And if it doesn’t work, the organism doesn’t survive.
Another striking example is the bombardier beetle, which defends itself by firing a boiling, chemically reactive spray at its predators. This beetle stores two separate chemicals-hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide-in its body, along with enzymes that trigger an explosive reaction when the chemicals mix. It even has a special valve system to safely control the reaction and aim it with precision.
Now, if the chemicals had mixed too early during the beetle’s development, it would have destroyed itself. If just one component was missing, the storage system, the enzymes, the reaction chamber, or the safety valve, the defence mechanism wouldn't work and could be fatal. All the parts must be present and properly coordinated from the start. Again, this points toward intelligent design rather than gradual, trial-and-error evolution.
These systems don’t behave like the result of undirected processes; they bear the hallmarks of planning, foresight, and function. In everyday life, we recognise this kind of arrangement as a sign of intelligent causation. Why should we abandon that reasoning when we look at nature?
That is not a 'fundamental truth, it is an unsubstantiated religious opinion.
So, I take it that you are not Christian.
We do. The Cambrian organisms have precursor fossils.
We do not have clear, step-by-step intermediate fossils that Darwin himself said would be necessary if evolution occurred gradually.
When we look at the fossil record surrounding the Cambrian Explosion, we don’t see the detailed transitional sequences that would connect the simple, pre-Cambrian organisms to the sudden appearance of fully formed, complex body plans in the Cambrian. Yes, there are a few candidate fossils like Kimberella or Dickinsonia from the Ediacaran period, but these are relatively simple and lack the anatomical complexity, such as eyes, nervous systems, or articulated limbs, that we see in Cambrian organisms like trilobites, early arthropods, and chordates.
In fact, even many evolutionary palaeontologists acknowledge that the transition from pre-Cambrian to Cambrian life forms is abrupt. The new body plans appear without a clear sequence of gradual modifications leading up to them. We're talking about entirely new phyla, not just variation within a species. These leaps include multiple tissue layers, organs, symmetry types, and complex systems that seem to appear fully formed rather than slowly developed.
As Stephen Jay Gould once wrote, “The Cambrian Explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.”
So, the issue isn’t whether there are any fossils before the Cambrian, it's whether there are enough clear, functional intermediates to plausibly explain how evolution gradually constructed the highly integrated body plans of Cambrian animals. So far, the fossil record doesn’t seem to support that level of detail.
There is a decided lack of evidence for the supernatural.
I take it that you are also another person who is not a Christian.
False. Evolution is driven by natural selection, which is much more powerful than chance,
True. It is blind faith.
I can create a real leaf by planting a seed and waiting a few weeks. There is no magic involved. You're making the Argument from Incredulity, which does not hold water.
You said you can create a real leaf by planting a seed, but you didn’t create the leaf. You planted something that already contained an immense amount of encoded biological information and machinery capable of producing that leaf. That’s like pressing “print” and claiming you authored the book. The seed is not simple; it’s a self-replicating system packed with genetic instructions, cellular machinery, and a built-in energy system to initiate growth.
This isn't "incredulity"; it's pointing out that even the simplest components of life, like a leaf, are mind-bogglingly complex. Photosynthesis alone involves multiple protein complexes, light-harvesting systems, electron transport chains, and precisely regulated chemical reactions, none of which happen by accident or in isolation.
The fact that we, with all our scientific and technological advances, still cannot design and build a functioning biological leaf from raw materials should give us pause. It doesn’t disprove evolution, but it does highlight that life is far more than just chemistry plus time. Simply saying "it's not magic" doesn’t make complexity disappear. The burden is not on me to accept that blind processes produced such marvels, it's on you to show, step by step, how they came to be without guidance.
Sure. Just some of the evidence:
1. The bones in fins of a certain group of fish have all the bones found in tetrapod legs.
2. The genes of surviving members of this group are closer to those of cats than they are to other fish.
3. There are many, many transitional forms between these fish and tetrapods.
4. There are many transitional forms between early tetrapods and reptiles.
5. There are many transitional forms between therapsid reptiles and mammals, including detailed transitions between reptilian jaws and ears and mammalian jaws and ears.
Would you like to see some more?
This list doesn’t demonstrate that fish turned into cats, or any other specific macroevolutionary pathway. What it does is assume common ancestry and then point to similarities and transitional-looking fossils as evidence for that assumption. But similarities in genes or bones can just as easily point to common design as they can to common descent.
Let’s take your examples one at a time:
1. Bones in fins – Sure, some lobe-finned fish have structures similar to tetrapod limbs, but similarity isn't the same as a mechanism for transformation. A similar bone layout doesn’t show how random mutation and natural selection built the massive anatomical, physiological, and genetic changes needed to go from a fish to a mammal.
2. Genetic similarity – Again, this is expected if you believe in common ancestry, but genetics can’t tell us how or if complex new structures and functions arose by undirected processes. Cats and fish sharing genes is not proof that one turned into the other over time—especially considering that all living organisms share many genes (even bananas and humans are ~60% genetically similar).
3–5. Transitional forms – These are always presented as “many, many,” but when you look closely, you find scattered fossils interpreted after the fact as intermediates, but no clear, continuous sequence of small, incremental changes that Darwinian evolution requires. The supposed transitions from therapsids to mammals are hotly debated even among evolutionary biologists, and the so-called “ear bone evolution” story is filled with gaps, assumptions, and reinterpretations.
The burden of proof isn't to just show that you can line up fossils in a rough order or point to general similarities. The burden is to show a clear, step-by-step, mechanistic pathway by which unguided processes created vast new genetic information and functional complexity, like the leap from aquatic respiration to mammalian lungs, or scales to fur, or cold-blooded to warm-blooded regulation, all while keeping the organism viable at every stage.
So yes, I’m happy to look at more evidence, but I’m not asking for more similarity; I’m asking for a detailed explanation of how large-scale transformations actually occurred by natural processes. That’s what’s missing.
Of course. The difference is, I'm O.K. with the way He did it.
Thank you for sharing your beliefs.
So, you are OK that in the beginning He made them male and female and did not make them slime that evolved into male and female.
It's like asking who adamantly defends gravity. Evolution and gravity are observed phenomena.
Gravity can be tested and seen. Tell me, who do you know that has lived and seen the evolutionary process over millions of years?
I, for one, don't "adamantly defend evolution" I accept it provisionally as the best theory currently available--just like I do with all other scientific theories. Whether God is creator of all or not is irrelevant to the question of the acceptability of the theory.
I asked the question as it would be interesting to see how many atheists are on these forums defending their blind faith.
NOTE: Sorry if I take a long time to answer. I am one person arguing that the Bible is correct, while there are about 8 opponents who give honour to evolution. So, there are many questions that are being thrown at me and I am struggling to find time to answer them.
