Life evolved. Deal with it.

[Phred]

After having been an active participant in this forum for years then sitting back and just reading for several more I find that I am rather saddened by the level of ignorance that is currently accepted around here. No, the fact that you don't understand something does not invalidate it in any way. The fact that you have a "problem" with it doesn't matter. Life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor and until there's a better explanation that's what happened.

There are thousands if not tens of thousands of creation stories out there. Not one is supported by the evidence. Including Genesis. Creationists of all colors, old, young, aliens... etc. Not one bit of proper evidence to support your claims exists. Yes, I know... blasphemy! The Bible is true because it must be true. Literally true. Ok... I know you believe that. But it's not scientific and it's not supported scientifically. Evolution is. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. (that is if that creature had offspring) To claim there are no transitional fossils is just showing your ignorance of what a transitional fossil actually is. To claim there are differences between macro and micro evolution does the same. You can't show me the line between them. Where is there a magical barrier that stops creatures from evolving? Where is it stated that people must observe something for it to be true? We have observed every single stage of evolution including speciation. And yet, I have heard it stated, "a lizard is still a lizard." Which again shows you don't understand what you're talking about. If a dog ever gave birth to cat it would prove evolution to be false. Parents NEVER EVER gave birth to a child they didn't recognize. Evolution is gradual. Even Punctuated Evolution is still so gradual as to fit into these conditions.

The Theory of Evolution is the single most supported scientific explanation of anything in any field of scientific endeavor and here it is being debated in light of religious texts as if that matters. If there's a problem here it's with your understanding and your insistence upon literalism. If, as creationists insist, God created the universe, then who is closer to God? The scientist studying God's work first hand or the creationist who has read a book that was inspired by God and then written down and translated time and time again? Considering the book has two chapters about the creation of the world and those two chapters are different... I'd say the scientist.

I know this won't change anyone's mind. But in this time of Trump it needed to be said. Again.

 

[tstor]

No, the fact that you don't understand something does not invalidate it in any way. The fact that you have a "problem" with it doesn't matter. Life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor and until there's a better explanation that's what happened.

I understand the theory of evolution perfectly well. It has only been drilled into my head since the seventh grade. I do not reject it out of my lack of understanding. I reject it precisely because I understand what it teaches. Evolution usurps the very claims of God and hands them to nature. Any theory made by fallible men that attempts to usurp the claims of God is false. There is no argument to be had. So, life did not evolve. Deal with it.

 

[PropheticTimes]

After having been an active participant in this forum for years then sitting back and just reading for several more I find that I am rather saddened by the level of ignorance that is currently accepted around here. No, the fact that you don't understand something does not invalidate it in any way. The fact that you have a "problem" with it doesn't matter. Life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor and until there's a better explanation that's what happened.

There are thousands if not tens of thousands of creation stories out there. Not one is supported by the evidence. Including Genesis. Creationists of all colors, old, young, aliens... etc. Not one bit of proper evidence to support your claims exists. Yes, I know... blasphemy! The Bible is true because it must be true. Literally true. Ok... I know you believe that. But it's not scientific and it's not supported scientifically. Evolution is. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. (that is if that creature had offspring) To claim there are no transitional fossils is just showing your ignorance of what a transitional fossil actually is. To claim there are differences between macro and micro evolution does the same. You can't show me the line between them. Where is there a magical barrier that stops creatures from evolving? Where is it stated that people must observe something for it to be true? We have observed every single stage of evolution including speciation. And yet, I have heard it stated, "a lizard is still a lizard." Which again shows you don't understand what you're talking about. If a dog ever gave birth to cat it would prove evolution to be false. Parents NEVER EVER gave birth to a child they didn't recognize. Evolution is gradual. Even Punctuated Evolution is still so gradual as to fit into these conditions.

The Theory of Evolution is the single most supported scientific explanation of anything in any field of scientific endeavor and here it is being debated in light of religious texts as if that matters. If there's a problem here it's with your understanding and your insistence upon literalism. If, as creationists insist, God created the universe, then who is closer to God? The scientist studying God's work first hand or the creationist who has read a book that was inspired by God and then written down and translated time and time again? Considering the book has two chapters about the creation of the world and those two chapters are different... I'd say the scientist.

I know this won't change anyone's mind. But in this time of Trump it needed to be said. Again.

I agree, I mean look at all the transitional fossils that have been found over the centuries!!! Wait a minute.....

It's a THEORY, not a fact. Darwin himself said if transitional fossils were not found then he was wrong. Guess what? He was wrong. Science doesn't support it at all, science actually supports creation but shhh, that goes against the Darwinian paradigm so we'll just toss out all that overwhelming information and toss little bits of data to those we tell that God doesn't exist because they'll believe us because SCIENCE!

 

[tstor]

I know this won't change anyone's mind. But in this time of Trump it needed to be said. Again.

Trump only presents a concern for you with Betsy Devos. I am not sure what her position is when it comes to freedom of education, but it sure would put you unregenerates in a pickle if parents have the freedom to educate their children as they see fit.

 

[And-U-Say]

I understand the theory of evolution perfectly well.

No, you do not.

It has only been drilled into my head since the seventh grade. I do not reject it out of my lack of understanding. I reject it precisely because I understand what it teaches.

No, you don't understand.

Evolution usurps the very claims of God and hands them to nature.

No, evolution just describes the facts as they are.

Any theory made by fallible men that attempts to usurp the claims of God is false.

Well, chuckles, you got yourself a problem there. There are a lot of claims in the bible that have been "usurped" by competent humans. This is just one of them. You seem to be fine with the others. Why is this one so different? The bible has been wrong about so many things, why do you accept those and not this?

Oh... desperation. I get it. Cornered rat and all that. Well, enjoy your delusion. Keep in mind that in less than 100 years creationism will be rightly located to the dust bin of history (well, it already is, but it might take a bit longer for the uneducated).

There is no argument to be had. So, life did not evolve. Deal with it.

I think you and yours are the ones needing to deal with it. Creationists lose at every turn. Just where do you think this will end up with this kind of track record?

 

[AJTruth]

After having been an active participant in this forum for years then sitting back and just reading for several more I find that I am rather saddened by the level of ignorance that is currently accepted around here. No, the fact that you don't understand something does not invalidate it in any way. The fact that you have a "problem" with it doesn't matter. Life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor and until there's a better explanation that's what happened.

There are thousands if not tens of thousands of creation stories out there. Not one is supported by the evidence. Including Genesis. Creationists of all colors, old, young, aliens... etc. Not one bit of proper evidence to support your claims exists. Yes, I know... blasphemy! The Bible is true because it must be true. Literally true. Ok... I know you believe that. But it's not scientific and it's not supported scientifically. Evolution is. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. (that is if that creature had offspring) To claim there are no transitional fossils is just showing your ignorance of what a transitional fossil actually is. To claim there are differences between macro and micro evolution does the same. You can't show me the line between them. Where is there a magical barrier that stops creatures from evolving? Where is it stated that people must observe something for it to be true? We have observed every single stage of evolution including speciation. And yet, I have heard it stated, "a lizard is still a lizard." Which again shows you don't understand what you're talking about. If a dog ever gave birth to cat it would prove evolution to be false. Parents NEVER EVER gave birth to a child they didn't recognize. Evolution is gradual. Even Punctuated Evolution is still so gradual as to fit into these conditions.

The Theory of Evolution is the single most supported scientific explanation of anything in any field of scientific endeavor and here it is being debated in light of religious texts as if that matters. If there's a problem here it's with your understanding and your insistence upon literalism. If, as creationists insist, God created the universe, then who is closer to God? The scientist studying God's work first hand or the creationist who has read a book that was inspired by God and then written down and translated time and time again? Considering the book has two chapters about the creation of the world and those two chapters are different... I'd say the scientist.

I know this won't change anyone's mind. But in this time of Trump it needed to be said. Again.

First cause:

Intelligent Design or Puff the Magic creation?

Your unexplained puff the magic creation theory is sad & pathetic.

First Cause = Intelligent Design

Then comes space, time, science & evolution

The Bible describes a few key characteristics of the universe that scientists now have the ability to measure.

Scripture also talks about the constancy of the laws of physics, most explicitly stated in Jeremiah 33:25.

Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 11:3 declare that the universe began to exist (thus required a Beginner).

Romans 8:18-21 speaks of a pervasive law of decay.

The Bible covers these four characteristics: A singular beginning, cosmic expansion & constant laws of physics including the law of decay.

Keep up the "Faith" (pun intended), maybe one day (evolutionist) will be able to explain gravity.

And what holds an atom together. BTW, If you'd take time to read the Bible, it answers this one.

Heaven & Earth clearly point to ""Intelligent Design"". Not PUFF the MAGIC creation.

 

[tstor]

No, you do not. [...] No, you don't understand.

I most certainly do. I began learning about evolution in seventh grade, continuing into eighth. I took two courses of honors biology in high school along with an advanced placement biology course. I took an honors course in anatomy and physiology in high school as well, which covered evolution. I am currently finishing up my freshman year in university, which has included an anthropology course (covered human evolution), an intro to biology course, and a biology lab. This does not include my own readings on evolution outside of the classroom. So, I would say I have a very good foundational knowledge of the theory of evolution.

No, evolution just describes the facts as they are.

The evolutionary paradigm is merely an invention of man to interpret the world around them in a way that glorifies themselves and nature (as opposed to glorifying God). There is nothing factual about it.

Well, chuckles, you got yourself a problem there. There are a lot of claims in the bible that have been "usurped" by competent humans. This is just one of them. You seem to be fine with the others. Why is this one so different? The bible has been wrong about so many things, why do you accept those and not this?

Oh... desperation. I get it. Cornered rat and all that. Well, enjoy your delusion. Keep in mind that in less than 100 years creationism will be rightly located to the dust bin of history (well, it already is, but it might take a bit longer for the uneducated).

I like how you did not provide any examples of "a lot of claims in the bible that have been 'usurped' by competent humans." I will wait.

Regarding the "uneducated" remnant that remain who deny the theory of evolution, would you include Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Fazale Rana, Dr. Jason Lisle, Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. Stephen Meyer, etc? Or do you ignore them for convenience?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So then , all those who see God Creating the world and all life,
everything to reproduce after it's own kind,

only speak about what we both have heard and seen - all the evidence everywhere,
in God's Word (always proven true throughout thousands of years),
in all the world in harmony , completely,
as God Said,
as God Designed all things Himself,
and it is ALL AMAZING !!!!!!!!!

Then , a few years ago, some evil temptation dragged someone down to make up a story , a theory, opposed to God,
opposed to God's people,
and later used, if not designed, to tear children away from faith and from their family,
to make the unwary uncaring for life,
to keep them unaware of the ABUNDANT LIFE OF JESUS GRACE and SALVATION...

without any evidence at all (honestly)....
and re-adjusting the false theory every 6 months or more as it continually gets proven false .....

hmmmm...... maybe we can sell a bridge over the everglades to someone ?!
All we need is a xerox machine, a few forms,
and a false description of such a bridge, < shrugs > it is easier to make a false description of a bridge, than it is to make a false description of Creation !

And we're not buying nor selling the truth - it is for FREE !

 

[Larniavc]

I like how you did not provide any examples of "a lot of claims in the bible that have been 'usurped' by competent humans." I will wait.

The physical evidence suggests there was no Noachian flood.

You can stop waiting.

 

[tstor]

The physical evidence suggests there was no Noachian flood.

You can stop waiting.

Yes, but that has not changed my view on the flood. Perhaps you did not read his quote in contex. It reads:

Well, chuckles, you got yourself a problem there. There are a lot of claims in the bible that have been "usurped" by competent humans. This is just one of them. You seem to be fine with the others. Why is this one so different? The bible has been wrong about so many things, why do you accept those and not this?
​

This would suggest that there is some sort of belief that has been defined by men that I take no issue with. The flood would not be an example of this.

 

[HitchSlap]

I agree, I mean look at all the transitional fossils that have been found over the centuries!!! Wait a minute.....

It's a THEORY, not a fact. Darwin himself said if transitional fossils were not found then he was wrong. Guess what? He was wrong. Science doesn't support it at all, science actually supports creation but shhh, that goes against the Darwinian paradigm so we'll just toss out all that overwhelming information and toss little bits of data to those we tell that God doesn't exist because they'll believe us because SCIENCE!

Yes, evolution is a theory, much like the germ theory of disease.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

 

[Tree of Life]

After talking to many friends in scientific fields I'm still not really sure what the relevance of the theory of evolution is to science or life. That is to say, if the biological situation we find ourselves in was created by God as it appears or if it came into existence via evolution doesn't make much of a practical difference.

It's relevant, I suppose, if you're looking for a narrative to make sense of your existence and you don't like the idea of God. In that case, the theory of evolution is a nice stronghold against the horrors of theism.

But what would it mean to "deal with it", as you say? What practical difference does the theory of evolution make to my life, the sciences, or society?

 

[HereIStand]

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting
the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light,
and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have
been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest degree." I could not agree more, Charles Darwin.

 

[PropheticTimes]

Yes, evolution is a theory, much like the germ theory of disease.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

Show me the fossils. There aren't any, NOT ONE. Not one kangaroo turning into a chicken. Not one ape turning into a man. Nothing. All the millions of fossils found in the fossil record and NOT ONE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL. Also no current half this/half that.

Theory debunked. Buh bye

 

[SeventyOne]

After having been an active participant in this forum for years then sitting back and just reading for several more I find that I am rather saddened by the level of ignorance that is currently accepted around here. No, the fact that you don't understand something does not invalidate it in any way. The fact that you have a "problem" with it doesn't matter. Life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor and until there's a better explanation that's what happened.

There are thousands if not tens of thousands of creation stories out there. Not one is supported by the evidence. Including Genesis. Creationists of all colors, old, young, aliens... etc. Not one bit of proper evidence to support your claims exists. Yes, I know... blasphemy! The Bible is true because it must be true. Literally true. Ok... I know you believe that. But it's not scientific and it's not supported scientifically. Evolution is. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. (that is if that creature had offspring) To claim there are no transitional fossils is just showing your ignorance of what a transitional fossil actually is. To claim there are differences between macro and micro evolution does the same. You can't show me the line between them. Where is there a magical barrier that stops creatures from evolving? Where is it stated that people must observe something for it to be true? We have observed every single stage of evolution including speciation. And yet, I have heard it stated, "a lizard is still a lizard." Which again shows you don't understand what you're talking about. If a dog ever gave birth to cat it would prove evolution to be false. Parents NEVER EVER gave birth to a child they didn't recognize. Evolution is gradual. Even Punctuated Evolution is still so gradual as to fit into these conditions.

The Theory of Evolution is the single most supported scientific explanation of anything in any field of scientific endeavor and here it is being debated in light of religious texts as if that matters. If there's a problem here it's with your understanding and your insistence upon literalism. If, as creationists insist, God created the universe, then who is closer to God? The scientist studying God's work first hand or the creationist who has read a book that was inspired by God and then written down and translated time and time again? Considering the book has two chapters about the creation of the world and those two chapters are different... I'd say the scientist.

I know this won't change anyone's mind. But in this time of Trump it needed to be said. Again.

You're certainly free to live in your delusion if that's what you wish.

The Scriptures have more than 2 chapters on the creation. Regardless, the two in Genesis are not different. Chapter 1 would be a literary device we call a frame story. Your reasoning for rejecting them because you deem them as different isn't because they actually are different, but rather just a lack of comprehension on your part.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Not one is supported by the evidence.

We are here/things are created all the time, it's the only way they come about and the "out of nowhere" option is silly. See? a little common sense goes a long way.

There is your evidence... deal with it.

 

[JackRT]

I understand the theory of evolution perfectly well. It has only been drilled into my head since the seventh grade. I do not reject it out of my lack of understanding. I reject it precisely because I understand what it teaches. Evolution usurps the very claims of God and hands them to nature. Any theory made by fallible men that attempts to usurp the claims of God is false. There is no argument to be had. So, life did not evolve. Deal with it.

Evolution does not usurp any claims of God. What it does is present an evidence based understanding of life on this planet. It happens to differ from some ancient creation stories.

 

[Speedwell]

I understand the theory of evolution perfectly well. It has only been drilled into my head since the seventh grade. I do not reject it out of my lack of understanding. I reject it precisely because I understand what it teaches. Evolution usurps the very claims of God and hands them to nature. Any theory made by fallible men that attempts to usurp the claims of God is false. There is no argument to be had. So, life did not evolve. Deal with it.

You don't understand it very well if you think it denies God's authorship of the universe and everything in it. The theory of evolution makes no statement about the existence of God one way or the other.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes, evolution is a theory, much like the germ theory of disease.

Aren't germs in the here and now so we can see them in action?

 

[HitchSlap]

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting
the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light,
and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have
been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest degree." I could not agree more, Charles Darwin.

Fantastic point!

http://io9.gizmodo.com/im-tired-of-seeing-this-charles-darwin-quote-taken-out-1678727678