• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Is evolution a fact or theory?

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by mathinspiration, Jan 8, 2018.

  1. AFrazier

    AFrazier Well-Known Member Supporter

    +319
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    The very notion of human evolution is contradictory to human beings. The notion of evolution, as first posited by Darwin, is more along the lines of natural selection, or survival of the fittest. An animal is born with a minor genetic variance that gives it some sort of edge over others of the same species. But these genetic variances are minor changes that give advantages. Nothing more. When these variances are passed down genetically to their offspring, over time the minor change becomes more widespread and ultimately dominates the species because of the advantage it affords. So in the long term, a species may evolve in basic traits. This is an observable fact.

    But as Darwin also noted, his theory was not proven, because the fossil record was not, in his day, sufficient to prove the evolution from one species to another; the "missing link" was not there. There were no fish-dogs, hippo-birds, or snake-gazelles.

    Modern discoveries have actually proven the exact opposite. The Cambrian layer shows the almost spontaneous existence of most known phyla of life, in almost the same forms as they exist today. There have been no findings of substance beyond the Cambrian layer. And we still don't have a missing link.

    Now, as it concerns humans ... the concept of evolution is, again, natural selection. A small trait makes an animal more survivable, and so it flourishes. Giraffes did not grow long necks so they could eat leaves from the tall trees. They eat leaves from the tall trees because they have long necks. People on a sinking island aren't going to develop gills because they need to breath under water. They'll just drown.

    So when one considers the fact that human beings will die from exposure in virtually any climate on earth without artificial aid, the idea that we evolved to a lesser version of a survivable species contradicts the very foundation of natural selection. We have become less survivable. Our changes from the alleged previous forms of our species have not made us more survivable. They have made us more fragile.

    We evolved also in mind, some might say. Well, if the first smart human with less hair, a weaker constitution, and weaker muscles was born to a less intelligent, hairy mother who could knock down trees ... but who didn't use fire ... we wouldn't have survived to pass on our more intelligent, less hairy, weaker selves to a new line of offspring. We would have simply died, being ill-equipped to survive, lacking the necessary traits common to our alleged ancestors.

    Then there are things like the human eye (or any eye in general), which is not a small change, but a complex one. No blind species, by accident or genetic mutation, would ever produce an offspring with complex sight.

    All in all, the concept of evolution is pure speculation, and it's not based on any real findings of science. Darwin had an idea. The idea in its simplest form is tangible. But the idea on the scope and level that evolutionists propose is preposterous. It's not real. Evolution is a farce.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  2. Almost there

    Almost there Well-Known Member

    +1,133
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    mutation is a fact. Evolution is either a theory or an hypothesis, depending on what you are claiming "evolved".
     
  3. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,044
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Where exactly did he note that?
    This will come as a profound shock to the world's biologists, who think otherwise.

    None of those things should ever have existed if Darwin was correct. You really should learn something about evolutionary biology before attacking it.
    Sort of close. It shows the first appearance of most animal phyla, over a period of tens of millions of years.
    Completely wrong. For example, humans are in the phylum Chordata. The earliest chordates looked something like this:
    [​IMG]
    (source: Functional Genomics Thickens the Biological Plot)

    Do think humans have almost the same form as that?

    There are in fact numerous examples of transitional fossils.
    Since we do in fact survive in every climate on the planet, your claim is clearly wrong.
    Quite true. But a blind species is quite capable of producing offspring with extremely rudimentary sight, and a species with extremely rudimentary sight is capable of producing a species with slightly less rudimentary sight, and so on.
    Might I ask what your qualifications are, that you are telling thousands upon thousands of scientists that they have no idea how to do their own jobs? Biologists are under the impression that evolution is the foundational theory for biology, and that it is supported by and explains a vast range of data. You think they're completely wrong. Who do you think knows more about biology, you or the biologists?
     
  4. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,044
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Mutation is a fact. Common descent is a fact. Evolution is the theoretical explanation for the fact of common descent.
     
  5. Almost there

    Almost there Well-Known Member

    +1,133
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Which specific instance of common descent are you saying is a fact?
     
  6. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    People just repeat the same garbage around here. You know, the cambrian explosion occurred over tens of millions of years (40-50), and the hard shelled fossils of the cambrian explosion were further predated by trace fossils and microscopic shelled phyla (bivalves, mollusks, corals etc.) dating back some 100 million years even prior to the cambrian explosion.

    Darwin lived over 200 years ago. So he might not be the best person to refer to on this topic, unfortunately.

    "spontaneous existence" of the cambrian layer indeed. Also, the cambrian isnt just one layer, so i wouldnt refer to it as "the cambrian layer". Cambrian layers span hundreds of feet thick and encompass many many layers that span some 55 million years.

    Someone has clearly been feeding you some nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2018
  7. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,044
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I'd say they all are. But let's stick with the only one most people actually care about: humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. That's a fact about the history of life on this planet.
     
  8. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married
    permission denied. Is that your personal website?
    Read the abstract again, it is not observing actual events, it is observing existing items and ASSUMING what might happened in the past.

    Do you believe that for serious science theories, we should be able to repeatably test and verify such theory? Is anything you said above can be tested, verified in a lab? Not just assuming something must be true because they look similar, but test such DNA changes in a lab?
     
  9. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married
    That is a rather brave jump. It is quite amazing that most people just go against the established scientific method of to be able to repeatably test and verify a fact, to the degree that if it looks like a fact, it must be a fact. Just a couple of hundred year ago it was the fact of the scientific community that the earth is flat....
     
  10. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,044
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Yes.
    The tests -- carried out in a lab -- were described in what you quoted above. Identifying the residual centromere in human chromosome 2 is one such test. (Note: scientific theories have to be testable. That does not mean you have to recreate the subject of the theory in the lab. We can test theories about the sun without creating a sun in the lab.)
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  11. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,044
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    It's nothing of the sort. Common descent has been treated as a fact by biologists for over a century.
    It is quite amazing (really -- it continues to surprise me) how many people think they're in a position to tell scientists how they should be doing their job. Are you a scientist?
    I suggest you read up on your history. The scientific community has known that the earth is a sphere since the time of the ancient Greeks. They even knew roughly how big it was.
     
  12. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Can you quote in the post how the chromosome fused? What chemical/physical reaction is required to make such thing happen? Did we actually OBSERVE it happen or just assumed it happened, without even knowing what condition, time this might even happened?
    That is why how sun is formed is only a hypotheses. We know some of the properties of the sun (i.e. how hot it might be, what reaction it might use) via repeatable, verifiable tests. All others are just hypothesis.
     
  13. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,044
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I didn't mean just hypotheses about the sun's formation, but about the sun itself. That the sun is fueled by fusion is a fact, one that we determined without creating a sun in the lab.
     
  14. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married
    There are a huge difference between facts and hypothesis.

    You don't need to be a scientist to demand facts, verifiable, testable and repeatable facts. What's wrong with that? If you heard some scientists roll out a theory but can't provide facts, it does not matter who he is. Scientists get things wrong all the time.

    Yes some, even some early Christians hold the idea the earth is round. However the over whleming majority think the earth is flat. It is rather obvious.
     
  15. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married
    We know this because we are able to observe our thermonuclear bombs, by compare the properties we assume they are the same. We can't create sun but we can repeatably, verifiable test a thermonuclear bomb.

    Now can you say the same about we evolved from apes?
     
  16. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,044
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Yes, I know. And biologists have been treating common descent as a fact, not as a hypothesis, for a very long time.
    Nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with you, a nonscientist, telling scientists what counts as a scientific test and as repeatable scientific evidence.
    You said that a couple of hundred years ago it was a fact of the scientific community that the earth was flat. That statement was wrong.
     
  17. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,044
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Yes. We can look at mutations that occur now, in living organisms. We can count how often they occur, and what the different kinds are. Then we can compare the properties of those genetic changes with the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. They turn out to have just about identical properties.
     
  18. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,044
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I noted one of the tests we can do to determine whether a fusion has occurred. Do you agree that this is a test or not? As for how it happens, we can see chromosome fusions happen all the time in today's organisms.
     
  19. Waggles

    Waggles Acts 2:38 Supporter

    771
    +468
    Australia
    Pentecostal
    Widowed
    No there is no proof only speculation and false science at best.
    People who can't handle the truth of creation subscribe to proving
    evolution as an alternative to the truth of Jesus, who is God and created all things.

    They are blind and to the revelation of God in scripture and in "nature" and
    the cosmos.
     
  20. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,638
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    No. That is completely wrong. As you were told, the Greeks were quite aware that the Earth was a sphere, and one of them accurately measured how bit it is. There are Roman coins showing the Earth as a sphere.

    By the time of the Roman Republic, every educated person knew the Earth was spherical.
     
Loading...