proving evolution as just a "theory"

[joshua 1 9]

we are teaching them that they are NOT God's children but instead are the same as any other animal.

Yet they prove that God became a part of His Creation. This is what the incarnation is all about. How can you even prove that we are real and that we exist and are not just the figment of your imagination. Science shows us that the world we live in is a very real world. Jesus really did go to Calvary to die for the Sins of the World. He lived His life as an example for us to follow as to how we are to live our life.

2 Peter 2:12 "But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish."

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do you know more than they do about their study?

Maybe, because God only assigns it to man to gather the evidence. That does not mean we can trust them to explain or interpret that evidence. Life can be very subjective at times and it is not as objective as you seem to think it is.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Ah, so you know then, that scientific theories, require evidence.

Yes. evolutionists and creationists BOTH have the exact same evidence to work with. You are the first to object when we use scientific evidence to show that Creationism is true. Evolutionists want to twist and warp the evidence as if they were trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

 

[pitabread]

evolutionists and creationists BOTH have the exact same evidence to work with

We hear that a lot, but I don't buy it.

For example, phylogenetic tree reconstructions are evidence for evolutionary relationships. They are constructed on the basis of evolution, don't fundamentally support creationism at all, and indeed creationists often flat-out reject phylogenetic trees as being fictional.

Phylogenetics is an example of not working with the same evidence.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You have no evidence of an infinite anything

I guess you never heard of the The infinite monkey theorem. IF you falsify infinite then you falsify evolutionary theory because it is dependant on the The infinite monkey theorem.

 

[joshua 1 9]

phylogenetic tree reconstructions

Your evidence is based on DNA and the same DNA evidence is there for Creationists just the same as it is there for evolutionists to use to construct their phylogenetic tree. Only we use the evidence to reconstruct the tree of life. As Francis Collins the leading expert tells us that DNA is the language of life and DNA is the language of God.

 

[pitabread]

Your evidence is based on DNA and the same DNA evidence is there for Creationists just the same as it is there for evolutionists to use to construct their phylogenetic tree.

The point is that the phylogenetic tree itself is evidence; evidence, which creationists* don't share in.

* (Note: by creationists I'm referring to those who outright deny common ancestry and not your much broader definition which seems to include anyone with theological beliefs).

 

[joshua 1 9]

I am saying that God tells us He is infinite.

Infinite in Psalm 147:5 "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit." This is actually a negative meaning God has no limit, no restrictions. Otherwise we are looking at all of the ages. God knows the end from the beginning. You have to have an end before you can have a beginning and every beginning has an end. Infinity is a Greek term and in the Bible it means all of the ages. But there is still a beginning and an end to time. So infinity for God means he is outside of time and has none of the restrictions of time that the universe has.

Gerold Schroeder talks about when time grabbed a hold of the universe.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes. evolutionists and creationists BOTH have the exact same evidence to work with. You are the first to object when we use scientific evidence to show that Creationism is true. Evolutionists want to twist and warp the evidence as if they were trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Ok, use scientific evidence to show creationism is true. And, please define what you mean by creationism.

 

[bhsmte]

Your evidence is based on DNA and the same DNA evidence is there for Creationists just the same as it is there for evolutionists to use to construct their phylogenetic tree. Only we use the evidence to reconstruct the tree of life. As Francis Collins the leading expert tells us that DNA is the language of life and DNA is the language of God.

Does Collin's claim to have scientific evidence that DNA is the language of God, or is that his theological belief?

 

[bhsmte]

I guess you never heard of the The infinite monkey theorem. IF you falsify infinite then you falsify evolutionary theory because it is dependant on the The infinite monkey theorem.

????????????????????????????????

 

[joshua 1 9]

The point is that the phylogenetic tree itself is evidence; evidence, which creationists* don't share in.

Interesting that you should mention that because there is a paradigm change in evolutionary microbiology dealing with the evolutionary tree. Some people call this a Paradigm shift.

* (Note: by creationists I'm referring to those who outright deny common ancestry and not your much broader definition which seems to include anyone with theological beliefs).

So you are busy building a strawman. The Bible is all about common ancestor. In fact that is why Science uses "Adam" and "Eve" and "Eden" because these terms embody what they are trying to represent. Only The Bible is a paradigm and science tries to treat the Bible as a metaphor.

 

[pitabread]

So you are busy building a strawman.

No, I'm posting advanced clarification of the terms I'm using so it doesn't lead to terminal confusion which seems to be a common thread every time I try to engage you in conversation. That you immediately respond with "strawman" accusations suggests you really don't know what it is I'm referring to.

So rather than risk an aneurysm during further discussion, how about you go on the ignore list and we leave things here.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Does Collin's claim to have scientific evidence that DNA is the language of God, or is that his theological belief?

You do know that the title to Collins book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" Collins says: "science, which is, of course, a means of exploring nature, also becomes a means of exploring God’s creative abilities."

If we allowed Gerald Schroeder to answer the question. After he got his PhD from MIT he studied the great Kabbalah masters going back at least 1,000 years. So you can verify that the mathematical precision is based on theology going back to Moses and not just the evidence produced by modern Science. We have the written tradition and the oral tradition. Science does not define our theological belief.

Science helps to verify the time honored evidence for what we believe. When I tested my son's DNA the results verified my family history that goes back to 800 AD. Based on the History we have of the Normans from Norway that in 800 ad were given the land we call Normandy. History verifies science and science verifies the history that we have.

This what we call synergy: combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects. So Science and Theological belief create a synergy that is greater than their individual parts. Just like History and Science create a synergy that is greater than their individual parts.

The Bible as a book of history and law goes back to the time of Moses. Although written recorded history goes back 1,000 years before Moses lived.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, I'm posting advanced clarification of the terms I'm using so it doesn't lead to terminal confusion which seems to be a common thread every time I try to engage you in conversation. That you immediately respond with "strawman" accusations suggests you really don't know what it is I'm referring to.

So rather than risk an aneurysm during further discussion, how about you go on the ignore list and we leave things here.

The point of my post was the paradigm shift that is taking place. What you seem to want to call an "aneurysm". If you're worried about that then maybe you should talk to your doctor and see about taking a baby aspirin for a blood thinner.

 

[bhsmte]

You do know that the title to Collins book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" Collins says: "science, which is, of course, a means of exploring nature, also becomes a means of exploring God’s creative abilities."

If we allowed Gerald Schroeder to answer the question. After he got his PhD from MIT he studied the great Kabbalah masters going back at least 1,000 years. So you can verify that the mathematical precision is based on theology going back to Moses and not just the evidence produced by modern Science. We have the written tradition and the oral tradition. Science does not define our theological belief.

Science helps to verify the time honored evidence for what we believe. When I tested my son's DNA the results verified my family history that goes back to 800 AD. Based on the History we have of the Normans from Norway that in 800 ad were given the land we call Normandy. History verifies science and science verifies the history that we have.

This what we call synergy: combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects. So Science and Theological belief create a synergy that is greater than their individual parts. Just like History and Science create a synergy that is greater than their individual parts.

The Bible as a book of history and law goes back to the time of Moses. Although written recorded history goes back 1,000 years before Moses lived.

You didn't answer my question. I will ask it one more time:

Does Collins claim to have scientific evidence, to show DNA is the language of God, or is that term, his theological belief?

 

[omega2xx]

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

First pray for him. Then ask him to provide some scientific evidence for anything the TOE says.

 

[omega2xx]

They don't. The fact that creationists can dig up a few mavericks proves nothing.

Why do you call him a maverick? Let me guess. He rejects what you accepts by faith alone. There are many scientists who reject evolution, because it is not based on science.

Except for "after their kind" we do not use the Bible to reject evolution, we use proven science. Specifically genetics and DNA.

You should take your own advice and provide some objective science to prove for example how and why a dog-like animal surviving very well on land could eventually become a whale. That refutes a basic doctrine of evolution---natural selection. Another doctrine for which there is no evidence and must be accepted by faith alone. That a dog-like land animal eventually became a whale takes much more faith than "God did it all."

 

[omega2xx]

You didn't answer my question. I will ask it one more time:

Does Collins claim to have scientific evidence, to show DNA is the language of God, or is that term, his theological belief?

It is a matter of understanding DNA. God gave all living things different DNA to separate the species He created, not to link them. Proof positive that evolution is not true.

 

[omega2xx]

Hello Iconclast, I'm afraid I'm rather ignorant about Giraffe evolution. What you say could be possible, maybe there are other reasons though, mating rituals, evading threats etc. I really wouldn't like to say.

What he says is not possible. We still have plenty of giraffes