proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

Didn’t do your research to well did you, that’s why you have no citations to back up your claims.

I don't need citations to follow the logic of nature. Just look at nature. When has a wolf ever given birth to a Pekingese? Or a Mastiff? Or a Greyhound? Or any other of the dozens of dog breeds?

Never, that's when.

Just like Huskies mating with Huskies always produce more Huskies, so do wolves mating with other wolves produce more wolves.

Btw, after even more research I'm now up to 17 originally created Dog Kinds. Once I complete my research I'll publish my full list.

There were a lot of dogs on the Ark.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You might be an ape, but frankly I’ve never seen an ape evolve into anything at all, have you?

You are an ape too. If you claim that you are not an ape then you are not a human being. And you are using a strawman of evolution again. No wonder that you can't understand it.

And no, change of Kinds is a false one brought up by evolutionists. I admit Husky remains Husky, Asian remains Asian, black bear remains black bear, and on and on and on for every animal that exists. It’s you that claims species change into other species by mutation, yet the only time you have observed any new variation is when two interbreeed. Mutations never did anything.

Wrong again. And a rather blatant error. "Kinds" is a term that creationists cannot define and yet try to use. Those on the side of science do not use that word. And no, they don't "change into other species". Once again with the strawman.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You are an ape too. If you claim that you are not an ape then you are not a human being. And you are using a strawman of evolution again. No wonder that you can't understand it.

can't or won't? So hard to tell sometimes...

 

[xianghua]

I suggest re-reading what you literally just quoted.

so what is your prediction actually, if creatures were not evolved from a common descent?

 

[Equal Marriage]

You could tell him that evolution has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of Christianity, and that there are lots and lots of Christians, including many Christian scientists, who accept the findings of science. Focus on what matters, not on what doesn't.

if so why so many scientists (including biologists) reject evolution?

You could tell him that evolution has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of Christianity, and that there are lots and lots of Christians, including many Christian scientists, who accept the findings of science. Focus on what matters, not on what doesn't.

That doesn't work for everybody because for some, it isn't Christianity unless you believe the Bible, even when it disagrees with science.

 

[Equal Marriage]

Sorry, but this is just wrong. The basic reality of evolution has been the consensus view among scientists for well over a century, and its validity and importance have only been cemented by all of the discoveries in between. There is lots of debate in the scientific literature about the details and mechanisms of evolution, but none at all about its reality.

Are you saying that Creation Scientists are not included in the science community?

 

[Equal Marriage]

If your friend thinks that evolution somehow disproves Christianity, then he doesn't know much about either.

The long, convoluted, back and forth, senseless, cruel history of spectacularly inefficient natural selection is inconsistent with the omnipotent, benevolent God of Christianity. The more you know about evolution, the less likely Christianity seems. The more you understand and believe in Christianity, the less acceptable evolution seems as an explanation of life on earth. The two are incompatible and the rational decision is to make a choice. Otherwise you have to lop off bits of both to squeeze them together in your brain.

 

[rjs330]

. They're right. There is no more scientific evidence for the God we both believe in than there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It's bad science. There is no cogent definition of design, no test for its presence in an object and no proposed process for how design gets into the designed object in the first place. I won't argue biology with you--don't know that much about it. My background is in math and engineering and I know enough about it to recognize Dembski's math for the snake oil it is. It's bad theology, too, if you think on it. It's one thing to believe in a God who intervenes in history with miraculous events at critical times. It's quite another to believe in a God who must tinker periodically with mundane biological systems because the process He created to produce them is not quite up to the job.


You can accept whatever you like, believe whatever you like, but if you want to call it science you have to play by the epistemological rules that science plays with. The existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition, knowable only by faith and inaccessible to science. Likewise your belief that "God told us how He did it."

So why do you care that those proposition are not falsifiable scientific propositions? Does it make it harder for you to believe them?

Yes there is a definition of ID. Evolution believers just don't like it or believe it. It's the same old song and dance that I have been talking about. ID always leads to a designer. Therefore ID can NEVER fit the current definition of science. And by the way evolution doesn't either but that doesn't seem to bother the evolutionist.

 

[Equal Marriage]

Hi camila,

A debate regarding evolution vs. creation is an extremely difficult way to show someone the truth of God. There are just waaaay too many arguments for and against and the 'truth' of creationism. Such an understanding must find its foundation in faith. For example, the Scriptures tell us that God created the first couple by His own hand. But, you have to believe in God to believe that. You can tell them that Jesus spoke of Adam being the first man, but one would have to believe that Jesus even existed as the Son of God and that his words were truth, to believe that he knew what he was talking about. You can say that God's word tells us that He created all organic life as their separate 'kinds', but again, you would have to believe in God to believe that there is any truth in that.

So, while a applaud and encourage you in trying to reach your friend with the truth of God, I'm not sure that debating this issue is the best way to do that. It wasn't until I understood the truth of who Jesus is, that I came to understand all the truth found in the whole of the Scriptures. I believe the Scriptures tell us why that is so. We are told that it is only by the Holy Spirit that we come to know the truth, but we must first have the Holy Spirit to come under that conviction.

I would rather tell your friend that what he is attempting to do is akin to jumping into calculus III without first establishing the knowledge of calculus I. If a college student were to be going off to college and for his first semester picked calculus III, then he's likely to be working through a great fog of knowledge that he wouldn't likely understand because he had missed the foundations of calculus first.

So, my encouragement would be to ask him to hold off on the meatier truths of the Scriptures until he had grasped the more simple foundation of the Scriptures -- Jesus. The issue of this created realm being created as God has told us that it was created, begins with the understanding of the power and plan of God. I'd start there.

Explaining that the whole of the Scriptures outlines a plan. A plan whereby God created this realm of life in which we live and will also bring it all to a close. I've found that the better way to start off with trying to prove that God does exist is through the explanation and understanding of prophecy. Ask your friend if he's willing to set that question aside for a bit. Then, beginning with the law and the prophets, help him to come to faith in God first.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

The problem with "prophecy" is that it is not convincing to someone with critical thinking skills. There is no way to show that the prophecy occurred before the prophesied event and that the event matched the prophecy.

 

[Equal Marriage]

Nope and you can't prove evolution from a common ancestor is either. So I guess we both have the same issue.

Very difficult, because practically all people have been brainwashed for decades into believing that evolution:
a] is a scientific theory
b] is supported by lots and lots of evidence
c] is not just a naturalistic belief.
d] is something everybody with enough knowledge subscribes to
e] has no serious scientific gaps and problems.
f] etcetera.....

So, good luck with trying to make that person realise that it is in fact:
a] a naturalistic belief
b] a presupposition that was decided upon long ago
c] an outrageous claim that demands strong evidence, and not just people shouting there is so much evidence.
e] a feeble attempt to explain the mind blowing complexity and genius we find in living nature and in the premises for life to be sustained
f] a lot of stuff proudly proclaimed as proof is ambiguous or fabricated.
g] popular science is a travesty of proper science.
h] etcetera...

Good luck.

"practically all people have been brainwashed for decades" Do you have any way of supporting this conspiracy theory? Who is doing the brainwashing? Why? How has the secret of the conspiracy been kept so perfectly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that Creation Scientists are not included in the science community?

For the most part they take themselves out of the scientific community.

 

[Equal Marriage]

Yes there is a definition of ID. Evolution believers just don't like it or believe it. It's the same old song and dance that I have been talking about. ID always leads to a designer. Therefore ID can NEVER fit the current definition of science. And by the way evolution doesn't either but that doesn't seem to bother the evolutionist.

You say evolution doesn't fit the current definition of science, but scientists think it does. How come they are all wrong? Conspiracy by evil liars, or all under Satan's influence, or they are all stupid, or they are all greedy and being paid by rich atheists, or what? And how is it that you know better?

 

[TLK Valentine]

There were a lot of dogs on the Ark.

How many beetles?

 

[xianghua]

You say evolution doesn't fit the current definition of science, but scientists think it does. How come they are all wrong?

one explanation is that they arent even aware about the evidence against it. actually even michael behe himself admit that he never heared about evidence against evolution in academia till he read "evolution, a theory in crisis" book:

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Theory-Crisis-Michael-Denton/dp/091756152X

 

[Jimmy D]

one explanation is that they arent even aware about the evidence against it. actually even michael behe himself admit that he never heared about evidence against evolution in academia till he read "evolution, a theory in crisis" book:

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Theory-Crisis-Michael-Denton/dp/091756152X

We all look forward to you presenting some then. Hopefully it won’t be a failed analogy about cars or irreducible complexity.

 

[Jimmy D]

Why yes there is, because if they can interbreed, then they are not closely related species, but the same species, merely at the most subspecies. But you’d understand that if you followed the definition and stopped looking for excuses to ignore it.

Why what do you know, what you claim is actually the definition of subspecies, not seperate species. But b ring you ignore the scientific definitions so you can claim anything at any time, it’s not surprising you don’t know what that definition is either.

Citation required. Where exactly is it written that closely related species can never interbreed? It seems to be a definition that you’ve made up.

 

[Skreeper]

We all look forward to you presenting some then. Hopefully it won’t be a failed analogy about cars or irreducible complexity.

Dear Cthulhu no! Don't you start encouraging him!

 

[miamited]

The problem with "prophecy" is that it is not convincing to someone with critical thinking skills. There is no way to show that the prophecy occurred before the prophesied event and that the event matched the prophecy.

Hi equalmarriage

Well, I think Jesus has well proven that there is no foolproof always accepted method of telling others about God. However, prophecy is how all the new covenant writers introduced the telling of the Son of God. I also agree with you that our current culture of putting critical thinking over godly thinking is a problem for some to come to faith. After all, it's what caused Eve to eat the fruit. Critical thinking has always been anathema to faith when that critical thinking leads us away from the truth of God rather than to the truth of God.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Hi equalmarriage

Well, I think Jesus has well proven that there is no foolproof always accepted method of telling others about God. However, prophecy is how all the new covenant writers introduced the telling of the Son of God. I also agree with you that our current culture of putting critical thinking over godly thinking is a problem for some to come to faith. After all, it's what caused Eve to eat the fruit. Critical thinking has always been anathema to faith when that critical thinking leads us away from the truth of God rather than to the truth of God.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

The real problem is Christians who insist that accepting a literal Genesis is a precondition for faith in Christ. You are right, critical thinking is likely to cause people to reject that approach.

 

[Strathos]

The long, convoluted, back and forth, senseless, cruel history of spectacularly inefficient natural selection is inconsistent with the omnipotent, benevolent God of Christianity. The more you know about evolution, the less likely Christianity seems. The more you understand and believe in Christianity, the less acceptable evolution seems as an explanation of life on earth. The two are incompatible and the rational decision is to make a choice. Otherwise you have to lop off bits of both to squeeze them together in your brain.

You could say the same thing about the Problem of Evil.

And you probably will.