"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[bhsmte]

Yep.

Looks like; many, many Christians agree with evolution.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Collins say about the TOE

Collins said, “angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.”

Yep.

Looks like; many, many Christians agree with evolution.

Even Hovind agrees with micro evolution.
The problem is they use bait and switch to claim micro evidence for macro evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Collins said, “angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.”
Even Hovind agrees with micro evolution.
The problem is they use bait and switch to claim micro evidence for macro evolution.

No, they just don't make a qualitative distinction between them.

 

[bhsmte]

Collins said, “angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.”
Even Hovind agrees with micro evolution.
The problem is they use bait and switch to claim micro evidence for macro evolution.

Ok, let me help you in regards to what Collin's has to say about the science of the TOE, as it appears you have avoided that piece:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-and-the-church-part-2#sthash.IrHxbgiJ.dpuf

 

[USincognito]

No I don't.
It's your claim they have always been the same and the rate is what you say it is.

Yes you do. We have absolutely no reason to think mutation rates were significantly different in the past. Unless you can provide a reason, you're not making an argument, you're just making stuff up.

 

[USincognito]

Scientist have show they are not in the same place....all you are doing is...cut and paste.

Name them.

 

[bhsmte]

Name them.

Kenny Hovind.

 

[USincognito]

Now, just where can one find this ABUNDANT evidence? It's one thing to make a claim...and yet another to support the claim.
Got support?

Wow, just wow.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Even Hovind agrees with micro evolution.
The problem is they use bait and switch to claim micro evidence for macro evolution.

My point is that many Christians believe in macro evolution. They believe that modern species evolved from a common microbe ancestor.

 

[doubtingmerle]

God did not did it, He said it: "God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature" Then "God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind," You have to look at what God said and then you have to look at what God made. If you talk to Frances Collins the leading expert on the subject, Frances will tell you that "DNA is the Language of God".

OK, when God said it, what process then happened? Did a long process of evolution then happen, which resulted in the earth bringing forth every creature? Or did mud puddles suddenly start coming together to form zebras and crocodiles and everything else?

Can you at least agree that the process took hundreds of millions of years from the first microbe to the first human? And can you agree that life got progressively more complex and more like modern life as time went on?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Collins say about the TOE

Collins said, “angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.”

 

[bhsmte]

Collins said, “angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.”

Nope:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-and-the-church-part-2#sthash.IrHxbgiJ.dpuf

 

[doubtingmerle]

Collins said, “angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.”

And your point is?

AV suggested that 100% of Christians agree with him on evolution. That is not true. Even your own chart shows many Christians believe that evolution is the best answer to the origin of humans.

Collins, of course, is one example making my point, that many Christians agree with macroevolution as the source of humans.

So you seem to be 0 for 2 here, publishing both a chart and referencing an authority that both make my point.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So you seem to be 0 for 2 here

Really, you want to argue against Collins the leading expert on the subject? Ok give it your best shot.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information.

Darwin owned the book written by the Father of Genetics: Gregor Mendel and there is no evidence that he ever read it. So Darwin is without excuse. Perhaps Darwin did not want to look into this because Mendel was a religious person.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Wait a min. I just had a talk with my son about this. I was looking at his Calculus book and it looks a lot like the Physics that I learned in college. So they had to explain to me what Newton was doing and just what the association is between Calculus and Physics. Just like people today are trying to explain the association between Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Creationism.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Darwin owned the book written by the Father of Genetics: Gregor Mendel and there is no evidence that he ever read it. So Darwin is without excuse. Perhaps Darwin did not want to look into this because Mendel was a religious person.

Did you not read the whole of the post you quote-mined that from? Did you not read what your much-vaunted Frances Collins says about the Theory of Evolution?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Did you not read the whole of the post you quote-mined that from? Did you not read what your much-vaunted Frances Collins says about the Theory of Evolution?

I read the book, do you want to talk about his book? Collins says: "It is the height of science hubus to claim that science can be used to discount the great monotheistic religions of the world".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I read the book, do you want to talk about his book?

No, my questions were clear: Did you not read the whole of the post you quote-mined that from? Did you not read what your much-vaunted Frances Collins says about the Theory of Evolution?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Really, you want to argue against Collins the leading expert on the subject? Ok give it your best shot.

Huh? Collins is a strong advocate of both evangelical Christianity and the view that humans evolved from a common ancestor with other species. For instance, he says:

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.

But I have no difficulty putting that together with what I believe as a Christian because I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire [the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.

I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal.​

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/news/scien...cientific-adventures.aspx#OhqvLbxqMcCyBFhf.99

So yes, when you refer to Francis Collins as an example, and you post a chart that says that 23% of evangelicals believe humans evolved from earlier species, you are indeed 0 for 2. Neither source denies my claim that many, many Christians believe in evolution of humans from a common ancestor.