proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Kenny'sID]

I can provide evidence I accept as demonstrating the reality of evolution:

Actually, it is based, for me, on things like this list I came across elsewhere:

"I accept" and "based for me". I appreciate your wording there, and that, I can accept.

 

[gaara4158]

My cousin and i are both humans, so what's your point?

We observe descent all the time. We have never observed a creator. Common descent is therefore a better explanation than a common creator.

 

[Speedwell]

Why do you think Jesus will return with the wrath of God?

Because most of us, even the Christians, don't believe in the scriptural interpretation of a minority Protestant sect? Really?

You'd think that with all that's going on in the world, Jesus would have better things to pour out His wrath on.

 

[tas8831]

"I accept" and "based for me". I appreciate your wording there, and that, I can accept.

So no comment on the actual evidence, just the usual creationist cop outs...

I also note that you deleted this:

"No, it was a conclusion that you expect from others with you are incapable of providing yourself."

Interesting what creationists omit from posts that they respond to.

 

[Hieronymus]

False, since the Christian understanding of Genesis AGREES in every way with the discoveries of Science and History, IF you have the proper interpretation, which you obviously do NOT.

Hmmm...
I could agree with you when you said Genesis 1 and every time the Bible refers (or quotes rather) to it is meant allegorically, but then there is still no evidence in the Bible that suggests it is allegorical.
Rather the opposite if anything.
Maybe you mean that real science is not in conflict with the Bible, but naturalistic scientism is (which it obviously is)?

 

[Hieronymus]

What good is your Genesis account if you have to adjust your interpretation every time new scientific discoveries come out? Why not just go with the science?

You mean "go with naturalistic scientists and opinion makers".

 

[Hieronymus]

So no comment on the actual evidence, just the usual creationist cop outs...

Maybe we're just not as impressed as you are.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Good. Their theology allows for evolution and Catholic schools already teach it in science class. I'm glad you're OK with it.

And many christian schools teach conventional creation...what is our point here?

 

[tas8831]

Maybe we're just not as impressed as you are.

But you think bible verses impress others?

No - I think you are not informed enough to understand the evidence.

 

[gaara4158]

What is a conspiracy theorist according to you?
Are you proposing people with power do not conspire things?
Are you really that naive?

If you know of a specific conspiracy, provide your evidence.

You mean "go with naturalistic scientists and opinion makers".

Scientists operate under methodological naturalism, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for elements outside the natural realm to exist. They just can't be investigated scientifically. That makes you very uncomfortable, doesn't it?

 

[Speedwell]

And many christian schools teach conventional creation...what is our point here?

We were talking about teaching Catholic theology in public school science classes, and you said you would be OK with it, couldn't be worse than evolution. But if Catholics were teaching public school science they would no doubt be teaching evolution, just like they do in their own schools. So I would be OK with it, too.

 

[Kenny'sID]

This wasn't about who is right or wrong. This was about the notion that a scientific theory like evolution was created for the purpose of denying god.

It's a silly notion that is demonstrably false given the number of theists including Christians who have no problem with biological evolution and modern science.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable notion. Now what?

You don't actually expect anyone to admit to it, do you?

 

[Aman777]

What good is your Genesis account if you have to adjust your interpretation every time new scientific discoveries come out? Why not just go with the science?

God hid His scientific Truth in the Bible from everyone except the people of the last days when increased knowledge Dan 12:4 will demonstrate to "ALL flesh" Act 2:17 that ONLY God could have authored the Bible. I've told people for years that ALL life came from water, but Science just confirmed this Truth last year. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

Look for future discoveries that we live in a Multiverse and that Humans first came to this Earth 11,000 years ago in the mountains of Ararat. Genesis 1:28-31 is prophecy of events which happen AFTER Jesus returns, at the end of the present 6th Day, the Day of Salvation. When Today is over, it will be too late to be created in God's Image or born again Spiritually, leaving one alone, in a burned out hull of a Universe, forever in outer darkness.

 

[Speedwell]

I think it's a perfectly reasonable notion. Now what?

You don't actually expect anyone to admit to it, do you?

The question is, why are they doing such a poor job of it? After 150 years all they have been able to "deny" is the scriptural interpretation of a minority Protestant sect.

 

[Hieronymus]

If you know of a specific conspiracy, provide your evidence.

Off topic and just a cheap shot.
Ridiculing doesn't make the world a place without people in power conspiring things to secure and or improve their position or that of their descendents.
It doesn't change the fact that they tend to be religious and not Christian either.

Scientists operate under methodological naturalism, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for elements outside the natural realm to exist.

Then why do they make such an effort to convince us of naturalistic beliefs?
Or hadn't you noticed that yet?

They just can't be investigated scientifically. That makes you very uncomfortable, doesn't it?

No it doesn't.
You make me uncomfortable though, but that's not illegal.

 

[Hieronymus]

But you think bible verses impress others?

No - I think you are not informed enough to understand the evidence.

Whatever makes you happy.

 

[pitabread]

I think it's a perfectly reasonable notion. Now what?

If you think that's reasonable, I'd hate to see what you think is unreasonable.

You don't actually expect anyone to admit to it, do you?

Again, the fact that the scientific theory of evolution doesn't require one to renounce their faith (as is evident by the number of theists that accept it, including scientists who work with it) clearly demonstrates it isn't about denying God.

So aside from being a ridiculous notion, it's a demonstrably false one.

 

[gaara4158]

Look for future discoveries that we live in a Multiverse and that Humans first came to this Earth 11,000 years ago in the mountains of Ararat.

Not likely. The oldest human remains found to date are from Morocco and they're 300,000 years old. How do you reconcile that?

 

[Hieronymus]

Because most of us, even the Christians, don't believe in the scriptural interpretation of a minority Protestant sect? Really?

I just read what it says and try to understand what it means.
If you think that makes me a part of a tiny sect, what can i do about that, other than be confounded by such a nonsensical notion?

 

[Audacious]

My cousin and i are both humans, so what's your point?

My point is that similar DNA, genes, traits, etc indicates similar ancestry. There are all kinds of evidence -- archaeological, biological, paleological, forensic, etc -- that all life on Earth comes from a single common ancestor.

But did that gene get in the chicken by chance or did someone put it there?

The fact that our genes are compatible with chicken genes (that you can just stick one in and watch it work) is actually proof that we share common ancestry.

What would make you think such things can happen by chance at all anyway?

I never said it happened by chance. Or that chickens had hands. The implication of what I was saying was that chickens' wings, and our hands, evolved from the same structure over time.

Because they proclaim it is so?

I believe in evidence. It's kind of important, you know.

It's naturalistic propaganda.

It's a book on comparative anatomy and the history of life on Earth, from the very first cell. Part of it involves the story of how life first came from the ocean, and then out onto land -- exploring new places that no life-forms had yet seen before. It's pretty cool stuff.

All it did was talk about facts, though; I'm the one with the romantic imagery.

Beyond that is the conviction they want you to subscribe to.

All I need to be convinced is evidence and logic. And that's what they've got.

Why do you think people eventually dismissed evolution, while being brainwashed with it for years, while being called fools by the brainwashed majority?

Uh... Darwin was actually a pretty widely accepted scientist in his time. It hasn't been dismissed; in fact, the case for it has been hardened by quite a lot.

Why would a creator not use similar parts to create different things that live in the same environment?

Whales: mammals. Different parts from fish in many ways, since they evolved out of the ocean, then back in again at a later date.
Fish: generally haven't left. Not nearly as related to us as whales are.

The parts aren't always different for the same environment.

Don't get me wrong, i understand your line of thinking, i haven't forgotten what i used to believe in the past, and there are indeed many common traits among various kinds.
But there are also very different traits for different kinds.

Stuff is the same, except when it's different? Okay.

It seems like you assume that if God created living nature, he would have made every kind of organism totally unique in every way.

What I believe is that God created the universe, and because he is God, he had plans with what to do with it. Some of those plans involved natural processes which he put into place.

In my opinion, God created the evolutionary process.

Point is, animals obviously share traits when they live in the same (or similar) environment.

So our similarity to fish is all because we are in similar environments?

I like your definition of similar. It's very wide.

What is a conspiracy theorist according to you?

Someone who believes that large or powerful groups of people are conspiring against them, when they have no evidence that there is in fact a conspiracy. Like how you see anti-vaxxers saying doctors are being paid off by the CDC.

The idea that scientists are being paid off, or that they all hate God or something, is just silly. Because that's in every single country in the world, with people of every religion.

Francis Collins, a biologist and Christian who published a book on science and Jesus, was also the head of the Human Genome Project. I think he'd've noticed something if people were covering up evidence for creationism.

Are you proposing people with power do not conspire things?
Are you really that naive? Have you ever seriously looked into what makes the powers that shouldn't be tick?

I am proposing that there isn't a conspiracy against something until there is evidence for the existence of such a conspiracy. In other words: you have to prove that something exists for me to believe it (including conspiracies).

Do you think they're fans of Jesus?

I know a lot of people who aren't fans of Jesus. Many of them still value truth, even if they don't see the truth with a capital "T".

Of course there is evidence for anti-Christian propaganda.
More than there is for evolution, obviously.

You might wanna check on that.

Evolution
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

There's enough evidence for evolution to kill a horse. Evolution is arguably the most confirmed theory in science.

Why do you think Jesus will return with the wrath of God?
Or don't you believe that either?

I don't have any real opinion on eschatological matters, because I've honestly never cared. No man knows when the end will come, according to Jesus. /shrug