-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mr. Ham vs Bill Nye debate, good stuff
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ugh5rZsRd1c
check out Kent Hovind as well
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ugh5rZsRd1c
check out Kent Hovind as well
G
From a Christian perspective evolution makes it impossible to believe in a creating God. Think about it. Every time they just add another gazillion years until they get to the “solution”.
My God is so powerful he could create heaven and earth in 5 days. He left ONE full day to plan Adam and then He rested. How great is your god?
My quote for today “I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution”.
My God is so powerful he could create heaven and earth in 5 days. He left ONE full day to plan Adam and then He rested. How great is your god?
My quote for today “I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution”.
My main thing, it's not observable science,
If your going to teach it, fine, teach the creationist aspect as well, because are tax dollars fund the theory, and not the truth.
If not, fine just take out this theory, let them build their own conclusions, or the professor who people look to for guidance becomes their preacher and confidant. It's just a lie and should be set apart from actual science.
If your going to teach it, fine, teach the creationist aspect as well, because are tax dollars fund the theory, and not the truth.
If not, fine just take out this theory, let them build their own conclusions, or the professor who people look to for guidance becomes their preacher and confidant. It's just a lie and should be set apart from actual science.
I started believing in creation after I took evolution in Biology and Geology in College, when the rather large holes in the paradigm of evolution became apparent. I got saved about 6 months later!
I would check out Answers in Genesis for a very a Bible based approach and the Creation Research Institute. Henry Morris' "The Genesis Flood" is also good. Tintin has some other goods sites he can recommend, on why creation is the more accurate paradigm of origins!
I would check out Answers in Genesis for a very a Bible based approach and the Creation Research Institute. Henry Morris' "The Genesis Flood" is also good. Tintin has some other goods sites he can recommend, on why creation is the more accurate paradigm of origins!
Many Christians accept evolution and view Genesis as a figurative account of the world's creation.
Kent Hovind is an imbecile.
[video=youtube;_sD_7rxYoZY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY&list=PLC0B19F2B45170B0E[/video]
Kent claims you can take a container and fill it with different forms of sediment and water, shake it up, then watch as layers form. Why would Kent suggest people try this experiment if he's never performed it himself?
The problem with all creationist sources, including Answers In Genesis, is that nearly every single claim they make against evolution simply isn't true. They claim transitional fossils don't exist, they do. They claim scientists don't have an answer for why we find marine fossils on top of mountains, they do (and it doesn't involve a global flood). They claim there's evidence of a global flood, there isn't. They claim fossils aren't layers in any particular order, they are. They claim heavier fossils sink to the bottom, it's not hard to figure this one out. All you have to do is a little bit of research, and make sure you keep an open mind.
The fact Angela says she found loopholes in evolutionary theory, then suggested Answers In Genesis, makes it quite evident that she never actually grasped the concept of evolution to begin with. Even if she did conclude evolution couldn't have happened while having a clear grasp on evolutionary theory, she would at least be able to point out all the lies in Answer In Genesis. I can go into more detail later. The problem with AIG is that it tells people what evolution is, and they're wrong.
Keep in mind, you don't have to accept Genesis to be literally true to believe in God and to accept Jesus as you Lord and Savior. These two beliefs are not exclusive. Are they contradicting? Possibly, but you would be surprised at how two contradicting views can be held at the same time.
Kent Hovind is an imbecile.
[video=youtube;_sD_7rxYoZY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY&list=PLC0B19F2B45170B0E[/video]
Kent claims you can take a container and fill it with different forms of sediment and water, shake it up, then watch as layers form. Why would Kent suggest people try this experiment if he's never performed it himself?
The problem with all creationist sources, including Answers In Genesis, is that nearly every single claim they make against evolution simply isn't true. They claim transitional fossils don't exist, they do. They claim scientists don't have an answer for why we find marine fossils on top of mountains, they do (and it doesn't involve a global flood). They claim there's evidence of a global flood, there isn't. They claim fossils aren't layers in any particular order, they are. They claim heavier fossils sink to the bottom, it's not hard to figure this one out. All you have to do is a little bit of research, and make sure you keep an open mind.
The fact Angela says she found loopholes in evolutionary theory, then suggested Answers In Genesis, makes it quite evident that she never actually grasped the concept of evolution to begin with. Even if she did conclude evolution couldn't have happened while having a clear grasp on evolutionary theory, she would at least be able to point out all the lies in Answer In Genesis. I can go into more detail later. The problem with AIG is that it tells people what evolution is, and they're wrong.
Keep in mind, you don't have to accept Genesis to be literally true to believe in God and to accept Jesus as you Lord and Savior. These two beliefs are not exclusive. Are they contradicting? Possibly, but you would be surprised at how two contradicting views can be held at the same time.
Last edited:
A
I believe many people misrepresent the theory of Evolution and create a false paradigm in which some aspects of evolutionary theory which is true and easily observed is rejected along with the more conceptual and less proven parts of the theory.
I believe the scientific definition of speciation happens even today. That definition is that certain populations can be isolated and then genetically changed to a degree that they are no longer able to mate and therefore are classified as a different species.
Also the concept of natural selection does not exclude belief in the Bible or God's creation.
It explains how organisms who display traits that are best suited to the environment survive and reproduce and increase the gene frequency in that population to be expressed. However those traits already exist in the organisms genome.
We have so much we don't understand about our DNA.
Personally I believe in both the Bible and aspects of Evolutionary theory.
God create mankind: male and female.
I believe God created animals in the same way in pairs. However, over time the different types of animals evolved into what we see today. Adaptive radiation explains the diversity of life in the world around us.
I believe it might even explain why there were dietary laws back in the OT because of the similarities in our DNA with those animals God declared "unclean" we have a more likelihood of contracting diseases from them. Eboli was a monkey virus that cross-over to humans because people were eating infected monkey meat.
The things about evolutionary theory I disagree with are the timeline and how they got from organic molecules to the first vertebrate, or any abiogenesis theories people try to include.
However, I believe abiogenesis like eugenics is a twisting of the pure science that can be found in many of the concepts put forth by Evolution through natural selection.
People don't evolve, populations do.
I believe the scientific definition of speciation happens even today. That definition is that certain populations can be isolated and then genetically changed to a degree that they are no longer able to mate and therefore are classified as a different species.
Also the concept of natural selection does not exclude belief in the Bible or God's creation.
It explains how organisms who display traits that are best suited to the environment survive and reproduce and increase the gene frequency in that population to be expressed. However those traits already exist in the organisms genome.
We have so much we don't understand about our DNA.
Personally I believe in both the Bible and aspects of Evolutionary theory.
God create mankind: male and female.
I believe God created animals in the same way in pairs. However, over time the different types of animals evolved into what we see today. Adaptive radiation explains the diversity of life in the world around us.
I believe it might even explain why there were dietary laws back in the OT because of the similarities in our DNA with those animals God declared "unclean" we have a more likelihood of contracting diseases from them. Eboli was a monkey virus that cross-over to humans because people were eating infected monkey meat.
The things about evolutionary theory I disagree with are the timeline and how they got from organic molecules to the first vertebrate, or any abiogenesis theories people try to include.
However, I believe abiogenesis like eugenics is a twisting of the pure science that can be found in many of the concepts put forth by Evolution through natural selection.
People don't evolve, populations do.
A
Also I learned that during the summer months when its not flu season, the virus is housed in pigs mixed with the avian flu strain and reintroduced into the human population in the cold months.
Though I eat bacon and would never condemn anyone for what they eat if it is done with prayer and thanksgiving. I can understand why God would command the Israelites to not eat or herd pigs. I do wonder about why Jesus made a whole herd of demon possessed pigs leap off a cliff.
Though I eat bacon and would never condemn anyone for what they eat if it is done with prayer and thanksgiving. I can understand why God would command the Israelites to not eat or herd pigs. I do wonder about why Jesus made a whole herd of demon possessed pigs leap off a cliff.
The Bible can't be used to accept evolution. That is an entirely secular concept, often held in open hostility toward the Bible. There are many scripture references to the Genesis creation validity. Jesus accepted all of Moses' record, often pointing to that. Moses gets credit for writing all the first five books, the "Pentateuch", which contains the Law of Moses given by God, and biblical history pre-Israel. Jesus today would be labelled a "creationist", rejecting evolution as heresy. It helps to know Jesus and the apostles werefans of Moses.
John 5:46 (KJV) [SUP]46 [/SUP] For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Matthew 17:3 (KJV) [SUP]3 [/SUP] And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
The author of the creation account visited them. That indicates the validity of all that Moses wrote for God by inspiration, by voice on the mountain, by the tablets of stone inscribed by God's own finger, and by the miracles and signs. Of course many people only accept parts of the Bible that doesn't offend them. Much of Genesis makes unbelievers nervous because that book puts us directly accountable to God.
Jesus cited Moses' account of Adam and Eve, putting His acceptance of all written back to that time in creation. The genealogies listing ancestors mostly begin with Adam, confirming the creation account as being accepted as God's account.
Paul cited much concerning Adam and Eve in laying doctrine out.
1 Timothy 2:13 (KJV) [SUP]13 [/SUP] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Many Psalms praise the drama of creation. My point is that it is absurd that anyone claiming to beleive in Jesus can omit parts of what Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets of old believed. To deny some of that makes those men liars. They were not. 66 books written by 40 or so authors over a1600 year span, men that didn't know each other and very unlikely to view other's writings, not one contradicting another, yet a modern person is confortable denying! On what basis?
What was accepted as true science in Darwin's day has been greatly diluted to become fables, their hypotheses elevated to science theory status without meeting the requirements of a science theory verification process. Evolution is unobservable, there being no evidence of one species sliding into another with a fossil record showing the intermediate steps. Every fossil dug up ought to have a series of those nearby or in the same geologic stratum. But all we find are the finished products. The fossils attest to creation of "kinds". Lately some dinosaur bones have been discovered with blood components in the bone marrow. "It's an enigma" is the response of evolutionist scientists who often ignore truths unearthed by real scientists. They are avoiding that issue like a plague.
My favorite ministry supporting the creation science view is Institute for Creation Research. Amazing things there online. They have many examples of evidences that support creation and the Genesis flood using the same physical data, fossils, etc. that evolutiomnists use.
Many books, much media covers the facts. Public school students won't be presented the truth, but will be told simply "we believe" thngs that can't be scientifically supported. Evolution is mostly assumption. Ages of fossils are often based on ages of rocks, while ages of rocks are based on ages of fossils. Circular beliefs.
John 5:46 (KJV) [SUP]46 [/SUP] For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Matthew 17:3 (KJV) [SUP]3 [/SUP] And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
The author of the creation account visited them. That indicates the validity of all that Moses wrote for God by inspiration, by voice on the mountain, by the tablets of stone inscribed by God's own finger, and by the miracles and signs. Of course many people only accept parts of the Bible that doesn't offend them. Much of Genesis makes unbelievers nervous because that book puts us directly accountable to God.
Jesus cited Moses' account of Adam and Eve, putting His acceptance of all written back to that time in creation. The genealogies listing ancestors mostly begin with Adam, confirming the creation account as being accepted as God's account.
Paul cited much concerning Adam and Eve in laying doctrine out.
1 Timothy 2:13 (KJV) [SUP]13 [/SUP] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Many Psalms praise the drama of creation. My point is that it is absurd that anyone claiming to beleive in Jesus can omit parts of what Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets of old believed. To deny some of that makes those men liars. They were not. 66 books written by 40 or so authors over a1600 year span, men that didn't know each other and very unlikely to view other's writings, not one contradicting another, yet a modern person is confortable denying! On what basis?
What was accepted as true science in Darwin's day has been greatly diluted to become fables, their hypotheses elevated to science theory status without meeting the requirements of a science theory verification process. Evolution is unobservable, there being no evidence of one species sliding into another with a fossil record showing the intermediate steps. Every fossil dug up ought to have a series of those nearby or in the same geologic stratum. But all we find are the finished products. The fossils attest to creation of "kinds". Lately some dinosaur bones have been discovered with blood components in the bone marrow. "It's an enigma" is the response of evolutionist scientists who often ignore truths unearthed by real scientists. They are avoiding that issue like a plague.
My favorite ministry supporting the creation science view is Institute for Creation Research. Amazing things there online. They have many examples of evidences that support creation and the Genesis flood using the same physical data, fossils, etc. that evolutiomnists use.
Many books, much media covers the facts. Public school students won't be presented the truth, but will be told simply "we believe" thngs that can't be scientifically supported. Evolution is mostly assumption. Ages of fossils are often based on ages of rocks, while ages of rocks are based on ages of fossils. Circular beliefs.
At least you know the different between hypothesis and theory.
But you still fail to understand how science works. Science isn't used to just verify what can be observed in one setting, but to uncover the past.
This is like saying we can't verify dinosaurs were ever alive because we've never seen a living dinosaur. We have their fossils, therefore we can conclude they were once living. If you can't directly observe a phenomena, then you must look at the evidence to draw your conclusions.
Yes, there is.
Can you tell me which fossils are human?
29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
Most dead organisms decay. It's actually quite uncommon for an animal's remains to become fossilized. Most living organisms that die do not become fossilized. The only reason we have so many fossils today is because we've had millions of years and an unimaginable number of organisms come and go.
There's no such thing as a "finished" or "unfinished" product when it comes to the theory of evolution. Life constantly evolves with no goal.
But what are "blood components"? The following video explains the myth that often surrounds this find and explains how "blood components" doesn't disprove evolution theory.
[video=youtube;fgpSrUWQplE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE[/video]
Yes, the do use the same physical data and fossils real scientists (evolutionists) use. They look at different layers and conclude a great flood sorted the layers out and they conclude the fossils are either randomized or assorted by weight. The problem is, they can't prove the former and the latter is demonstrably untrue.
The problem is, if you automatically assume all evidence that supports evolution must be false because it contradicts the Bible, then that means you are making it literally impossible to know whether or not the evidence actually does or does not support evolution. You can't siphon legitimate claims from illegitimate claims if you're going to automatically assume they're all false.
Someone linked the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate and the two men were asked "What would it take to change your mind." Ken Ham openly admitted that his mind can not be changed. If your mind can't be changed, then that means one will not accept evidence that is true - not even in a hypothetical world. That is to say, if evolution is true and supported by evidence (even if it's in a hypothetical world), Ken Ham would STILL reject it!
Yet you have no problem with creationism being taught in schools.
Well, no. Evolution is a theory supported by mountains of evidence. As we obtain more evidence, we discover certain claims we've made that were previously untrue. As we uncover more and more evidence, we become more and more correct over time.
Before responding to my statement, read the following: Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong
Wrong. Wikipedia lays everything out pretty well and if you don't trust Wikipedia you can refer to the sources.
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And before you go on about how radiometric dating is completely unreliable, that's just simple bogosity. We know that radiometric dating can be flawed, but we understand where the flaws come from. Understanding when radiometric dating doesn't work helps us avoid flawed results.
Luckily Potholer, who's videos I have been linking, goes over this as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4
Also watch his video "The Age of Earth Made Easy":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4
If we're going to debate this issue, let's stick to very specific topics such as rock layers, transitional fossils, or dating methods. Because often when I present my case against a creationist claim on one topic, such as rock layers, they'll try to change the topic to transitional fossils. And when I respond to them proving transitional fossils, the move on to dating methods. And during this entire debate, they never acknowledge they were wrong or try to further disprove my most recent rebuttals.
But you still fail to understand how science works. Science isn't used to just verify what can be observed in one setting, but to uncover the past.
This is like saying we can't verify dinosaurs were ever alive because we've never seen a living dinosaur. We have their fossils, therefore we can conclude they were once living. If you can't directly observe a phenomena, then you must look at the evidence to draw your conclusions.
Yes, there is.
Can you tell me which fossils are human?
29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
Most dead organisms decay. It's actually quite uncommon for an animal's remains to become fossilized. Most living organisms that die do not become fossilized. The only reason we have so many fossils today is because we've had millions of years and an unimaginable number of organisms come and go.
There's no such thing as a "finished" or "unfinished" product when it comes to the theory of evolution. Life constantly evolves with no goal.
But what are "blood components"? The following video explains the myth that often surrounds this find and explains how "blood components" doesn't disprove evolution theory.
[video=youtube;fgpSrUWQplE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE[/video]
Yes, the do use the same physical data and fossils real scientists (evolutionists) use. They look at different layers and conclude a great flood sorted the layers out and they conclude the fossils are either randomized or assorted by weight. The problem is, they can't prove the former and the latter is demonstrably untrue.
The problem is, if you automatically assume all evidence that supports evolution must be false because it contradicts the Bible, then that means you are making it literally impossible to know whether or not the evidence actually does or does not support evolution. You can't siphon legitimate claims from illegitimate claims if you're going to automatically assume they're all false.
Someone linked the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate and the two men were asked "What would it take to change your mind." Ken Ham openly admitted that his mind can not be changed. If your mind can't be changed, then that means one will not accept evidence that is true - not even in a hypothetical world. That is to say, if evolution is true and supported by evidence (even if it's in a hypothetical world), Ken Ham would STILL reject it!
Yet you have no problem with creationism being taught in schools.
Well, no. Evolution is a theory supported by mountains of evidence. As we obtain more evidence, we discover certain claims we've made that were previously untrue. As we uncover more and more evidence, we become more and more correct over time.
Before responding to my statement, read the following: Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong
Wrong. Wikipedia lays everything out pretty well and if you don't trust Wikipedia you can refer to the sources.
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And before you go on about how radiometric dating is completely unreliable, that's just simple bogosity. We know that radiometric dating can be flawed, but we understand where the flaws come from. Understanding when radiometric dating doesn't work helps us avoid flawed results.
Luckily Potholer, who's videos I have been linking, goes over this as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4
Also watch his video "The Age of Earth Made Easy":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4
If we're going to debate this issue, let's stick to very specific topics such as rock layers, transitional fossils, or dating methods. Because often when I present my case against a creationist claim on one topic, such as rock layers, they'll try to change the topic to transitional fossils. And when I respond to them proving transitional fossils, the move on to dating methods. And during this entire debate, they never acknowledge they were wrong or try to further disprove my most recent rebuttals.
A
we can observe the creation of "new species" from old "species" in Darwin's finches.
They all came from a population of finches from the mainland that were separated on the island.
The various finches found different niches and evolved to no longer be the same species because they could not interbreed and create viable offspring.
However, they originally came from the same population of finches.
They all came from a population of finches from the mainland that were separated on the island.
The various finches found different niches and evolved to no longer be the same species because they could not interbreed and create viable offspring.
However, they originally came from the same population of finches.
A
For example, if you read the OT and look at the life span of humans it decreased from the hundreds to what our lifespan in now.
If you study age and why people get old, you find that it is because we are not able to replicate our DNA accurately.
Telemarase study is fascinating:
First gene therapy successful against aging-associated decline: Mouse lifespan extended up to 24% with a single treatment -- ScienceDaily
""Aged organisms accumulate damage in their DNA due to telomere shortening, "
I would propose that God made animals and they became separate species through lose of certain DNA strands which made them unable to reproduce with organisms who used to be of the same species.
Most mutations I've heard of cause cancer, not adaptions within organisms that would be naturally selected for survive.
The adaptations typically were already in the genome, but were not expressed for some reason.
If you study age and why people get old, you find that it is because we are not able to replicate our DNA accurately.
Telemarase study is fascinating:
First gene therapy successful against aging-associated decline: Mouse lifespan extended up to 24% with a single treatment -- ScienceDaily
""Aged organisms accumulate damage in their DNA due to telomere shortening, "
I would propose that God made animals and they became separate species through lose of certain DNA strands which made them unable to reproduce with organisms who used to be of the same species.
Most mutations I've heard of cause cancer, not adaptions within organisms that would be naturally selected for survive.
The adaptations typically were already in the genome, but were not expressed for some reason.