Faith.

[Archaeopteryx]

Mind to share what you know? Which part of evolution is not random other than natural selection?

Things aren't "combined randomly." The fact that you think they are shows that you don't understand the fundamentals of how population genetics works.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Where did that 4400 years come from?

The flood. I think you know this.

Let's check this. Nowadays we know if you marry your close relative, there is a higher risk of flowed part of DNA shows up in your offspring. Then how the small groups of initial humans survived this? Doesn't it make much more sense that our initial DNA is pure and good, and it gotten corrupted over time?

Small group of initial humans? DNA pure and good? Corrupted over time?

Sit in on a course on biology at a university. It's free. Find one that fits your schedule. It's only a couple hours a week. Just show up for the lectures, no need to do homework, ditch on test days. Free knowledge.

 

[dcalling]

Things aren't "combined randomly." The fact that you think they are shows that you don't understand the fundamentals of how population genetics works.

The generic drifts are random, because the assumption there is not a God to change the genes, and natural selection pick the bests drifts. My question stands, if you don't think the drifts are random, then how the drifts are done?

Edit: You might have mistaken about the random I was talking about, when I talk about random, it is under the laws of physics, example H and O have a higher probability of forming H2O than H2O2, but for each O or H it is random what they will form.

 

[dcalling]

The flood. I think you know this.

How do you tie the flood to 4400 years? There are lines that trace back, but it most likely only recorded important figures, so the date of the flood can't be verified.

Small group of initial humans? DNA pure and good? Corrupted over time?

Sit in on a course on biology at a university. It's free. Find one that fits your schedule. It's only a couple hours a week. Just show up for the lectures, no need to do homework, ditch on test days. Free knowledge.

I have, a long time ago, assuming you have also? So tell me, do you have any evidence contradicts the hypothesis that our DNA is all evolved from a single human DNA many many years ago? Are we able to construct a RNA ourselves as to find a way how RNA can form in nature?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

How do you tie the flood to 4400 years? There are lines that trace back, but it most likely only recorded important figures, so the date of the flood can't be verified.

So all the other Christians are wrong, the atheists are of course wrong, and you are the only human being who's got it right.

I have, a long time ago, assuming you have also? So tell me, do you have any evidence contradicts the hypothesis that our DNA is all evolved from a single human DNA many many years ago? Are we able to construct a RNA ourselves as to find a way how RNA can form in nature?

We didn't evolve from a single human. Like I said, education is free. The paper degree isn't. You should go learn.

 

[dcalling]

So all the other Christians are wrong, the atheists are of course wrong, and you are the only human being who's got it right.

Check out the forum, see how many Christians believe in earth is 4400 year old. Even for the Christians believe in YE, the 4400 is debatable too.

We didn't evolve from a single human. Like I said, education is free. The paper degree isn't. You should go learn.

I know the ToE didn't say we evolve from a single human. If you read my post, my question is "do you have any evidence contradicts the hypothesis that our DNA is all evolved from a single human DNA many many years ago", I am saying there is no contradict evidence of Creation.

And education is indeed free. If you really believe in science, you will admit that any proven theory should be repeatable and independently verifiable. Is ToE repeatable and verifiable when we can't even create RNA under laboratory conditions? ToE is a hypothesis at best, definitely not a theory.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Check out the forum, see how many Christians believe in earth is 4400 year old. Even for the Christians believe in YE, the 4400 is debatable too.

Straw man. Not saying the earth is 4400 years old. Saying 4400 years since the flood.

I know the ToE didn't say we evolve from a single human. If you read my post, my question is "do you have any evidence contradicts the hypothesis that our DNA is all evolved from a single human DNA many many years ago", I am saying there is no contradict evidence of Creation.

I see. My mistake.

As it happens, there is evidence to contradict your claim. Retro viral DNA evidence proves conclusively that we share a common ancestor with the apes.

And education is indeed free. If you really believe in science, you will admit that any proven theory should be repeatable and independently verifiable. Is ToE repeatable and verifiable when we can't even create RNA under laboratory conditions? ToE is a hypothesis at best, definitely not a theory.

Evolution does not discuss abiogenesis any more than geology discusses the behavior of the solar system.

You clearly have not completed the level of education that you claim because you do not even know the claims being made.

If you think evolution is a fiction, that does not stop you from understanding the arguments being made and passing exams to prove your competency in the subject. I didn't care for Hamlet but half of my 10th grade English class was based on it and I got my A.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because they'd cease being facts.

I guess we would have to determine what we mean by demonstrable and independently verified, don't you think?

 

[dcalling]

Straw man. Not saying the earth is 4400 years old. Saying 4400 years since the flood.

It is the same. From my discussions, most Christians does not believe it is 4400 years since the flood. The Bible does not make such claims either. Once I had the same questions, and majority of people I talk to believe the linage recorded in the Bible only cover important people.

I see. My mistake.

As it happens, there is evidence to contradict your claim. Retro viral DNA evidence proves conclusively that we share a common ancestor with the apes.

Thanks, at least you acknowledge this, unlike some others

Evolution does not discuss abiogenesis any more than geology discusses the behavior of the solar system.

Never the less, it is the first stage of Evolution, and abiogenesis is a must for a Godless evolution, and since you are an atheist, you have to agree that abiogenesis must have happened for evolution to happen.

You clearly have not completed the level of education that you claim because you do not even know the claims being made.

If you think evolution is a fiction, that does not stop you from understanding the arguments being made and passing exams to prove your competency in the subject. I didn't care for Hamlet but half of my 10th grade English class was based on it and I got my A.

My claim for you is, ToE is not a theory but a hypothesis. Unless you can show how RNA is formed, what part of DNA has to change (i.e. the sequence of DNA change that resulted from on species to the other), ToE is just a hypothesis, not a theory.

 

[HitchSlap]

I guess we would have to determine what we mean by demonstrable and independently verified, don't you think?

We don't get to determine what facts are.

 

[aiki]

The question is simple. Why do Christians have faith?

Sorry, blind post.

Why do I have faith? Because it is integral to daily living. Why do I have faith in God? Because I have had a long, daily experience of Him; because I trust the Bible accurately conveys the true revelation of God to me; because there are many arguments and evidences for God that I find very persuasive.

Selah.

 

[bhsmte]

It is the same. From my discussions, most Christians does not believe it is 4400 years since the flood. The Bible does not make such claims either. Once I had the same questions, and majority of people I talk to believe the linage recorded in the Bible only cover important people.



Thanks, at least you acknowledge this, unlike some others



Never the less, it is the first stage of Evolution, and abiogenesis is a must for a Godless evolution, and since you are an atheist, you have to agree that abiogenesis must have happened for evolution to happen.



My claim for you is, ToE is not a theory but a hypothesis. Unless you can show how RNA is formed, what part of DNA has to change (i.e. the sequence of DNA change that resulted from on species to the other), ToE is just a hypothesis, not a theory.

Why is it, that Phd biologists disagree with you on whether the TOE is a legit scientific theory? And not only a theory, but one of the most well evidenced theories known to science?

Is it because they are all stupid? Is it because there is a world wide conspiracy among scientist? Is it because you are simply smarter than all these scientists?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It is the same. From my discussions, most Christians does not believe it is 4400 years since the flood. The Bible does not make such claims either. Once I had the same questions, and majority of people I talk to believe the linage recorded in the Bible only cover important people.

I have been talking to Christians for decades and you're the only person who's ever made that claim.

Thanks, at least you acknowledge this, unlike some others

And as soon as you get on board doing the same thing, we can have an interesting discussion.

Never the less, it is the first stage of Evolution, and abiogenesis is a must for a Godless evolution, and since you are an atheist, you have to agree that abiogenesis must have happened for evolution to happen.

Obviously. But then below you go on to show, once again, your complete lack of understanding of what science is.

My claim for you is, ToE is not a theory but a hypothesis. Unless you can show how RNA is formed, what part of DNA has to change (i.e. the sequence of DNA change that resulted from on species to the other), ToE is just a hypothesis, not a theory.

When Newton discovered gravity in the sense that he understood the same force controls falling apples and planetary motion, he still had no idea where gravity came from or why it existed. Yet he came up with a model to describe it and make predictions. Einstein came along a bit later and - same thing - had no idea where gravity came from, but came up with a better description of it and made better predictions (although with Einstein, it happened that the Big Bang Theory came in his lifetime).

Do you reject the theory of gravity? Because even now, with our limited understanding of the Big Bang, we still don't know why it happened, what caused it, or if there even was a cause. So we can describe the effects of the event that gave us gravity, but we don't know much about the event itself. Thus we ultimately don't know where gravity came from. By your logic, since we don't know where gravity came from, the theory of gravity should be demoted to a hypothesis.

The point is that we do not need to know how evolution started (abiogenesis) in order to know that evolution, as a model, or as a theory, describes biology and makes accurate predictions. You are simply wrong, could not be more wrong, and I hope the light to goes on.

 

[dcalling]

Why is it, that Phd biologists disagree with you on whether the TOE is a legit scientific theory? And not only a theory, but one of the most well evidenced theories known to science?

Is it because they are all stupid? Is it because there is a world wide conspiracy among scientist? Is it because you are simply smarter than all these scientists?

Nope I am not smarter, it is a simple matter of truth. When the fundamentals are wrong, you don't need a PHD to tell.

Do you agree that science must be repeatable, testable and confirmable? If so, do you agree that we have not even able to test to create RNA out of raw materials? If the very begging of ToE is not confirmed, why is it became a theory? It clearly demonstrates that those who think ToE is a theory jump the gun, took a leap of faith.

Just because a lot of scientist agrees on that, does not make it right. science is not majority rule, several hundred years ago you can use the same argument to argue that earth is flat, don't you agree?

 

[dcalling]

I have been talking to Christians for decades and you're the only person who's ever made that claim.

Check out the forum, and see how many Christians think it has been 4400 years since the flood. You and I must come from different backgrounds, a lot of the atheists I have seen on this form are former Christians from US, most in my chruch are former atheists from atheist countries, many still don't even know there is such a hypothesis that it has been 4400 years since the flood (and I have no idea how it is accurate to years).

And as soon as you get on board doing the same thing, we can have an interesting discussion.

I will, if you can show real evidence, instead of just tell me to get more education. I did show my evidences didn't I?

Obviously. But then below you go on to show, once again, your complete lack of understanding of what science is.

Again, show evidences, labeling doesn't solve anything.

When Newton discovered gravity in the sense that he understood the same force controls falling apples and planetary motion, he still had no idea where gravity came from or why it existed. Yet he came up with a model to describe it and make predictions.

Agreed, we still don't know what gravity is, Einstein has a hypothesis about it.

However, what make theory (or law) of Gravity a theory/law is not because what Newton come up some model, it is because it is repeatable, testable and confirmable. If you can show me the RNA stage of ToE, make it repeatable, testable and confirmable, I will believe you. Without that, it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.

Einstein came along a bit later and - same thing - had no idea where gravity came from, but came up with a better description of it and made better predictions (although with Einstein, it happened that the Big Bang Theory came in his lifetime).

And that remain a hypothesis, if you catch the latest news you will see Einstein was again proved wrong on quantum physics (to be accurate, he was proven wrong a while back, and again proven wrong with better experiments).
Remember, sciense must be repeatable, testable and confirmable.

Do you reject the theory of gravity? Because even now, with our limited understanding of the Big Bang, we still don't know why it happened, what caused it, or if there even was a cause. So we can describe the effects of the event that gave us gravity, but we don't know much about the event itself. Thus we ultimately don't know where gravity came from. By your logic, since we don't know where gravity came from, the theory of gravity should be demoted to a hypothesis.

The point is that we do not need to know how evolution started (abiogenesis) in order to know that evolution, as a model, or as a theory, describes biology and makes accurate predictions. You are simply wrong, could not be more wrong, and I hope the light to goes on.

Again, gravity is repeatable, testable and confirmable, abiogenesis is not. It is very clear. Unless you have other evidences that I am not aware of.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We don't get to determine what facts are.

Which is not what I said. Do you want to address what I really wrote?

 

[bhsmte]

Nope I am not smarter, it is a simple matter of truth. When the fundamentals are wrong, you don't need a PHD to tell.

Do you agree that science must be repeatable, testable and confirmable? If so, do you agree that we have not even able to test to create RNA out of raw materials? If the very begging of ToE is not confirmed, why is it became a theory? It clearly demonstrates that those who think ToE is a theory jump the gun, took a leap of faith.

Just because a lot of scientist agrees on that, does not make it right. science is not majority rule, several hundred years ago you can use the same argument to argue that earth is flat, don't you agree?

Ok, in your opinion, the scientists all over the world, have the fundamentals wrong and you have them right?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Agreed, we still don't know what gravity is, Einstein has a hypothesis about it.

So you reject the theory of gravity.

I think we're done here.

 

[dcalling]

Ok, in your opinion, the scientists all over the world, have the fundamentals wrong and you have them right?

No all over the world, there are scientists who believe in God. And remember, truth might hold in the hands of the minority.

 

[dcalling]

So you reject the theory of gravity.

I think we're done here.

You totally miss quoted me. Read my original "Again, gravity is repeatable, testable and confirmable, abiogenesis is not. It is very clear. Unless you have other evidences that I am not aware of."

I didn't reject gravity. What I said about Einstein is that part of his theory (on quantum coupling) was proven wrong. Please read the other's statements carefully. I hope you were not intentional.