Science is Broken

  • 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.
K

Kisses1990

Guest
#61
#61
Fish don't have necks...or many of the other qualities this animal had. You're making me laugh now with your disbelief! No need to berate, Tintin. Read up on Neil Shubins research and hear his testimony about how he came to realize where exactly to dig for the fossil and how the whole search came about. It's brilliant! If it's still on Netflix, check out the documentary "Your Inner Fish".
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#62
#62
Kisses1990 said:
Fish don't have necks...or many of the other qualities this animal had. You're making me laugh now with your disbelief! No need to berate, Tintin. Read up on Neil Shubins research and hear his testimony about how he came to realize where exactly to dig for the fossil and how the whole search came about. It's brilliant! If it's still on Netflix, check out the documentary "Your Inner Fish".
Click to expand...
You need to look at both sides of an argument, not just the evolution side. There can't be any leg for evolutionary thinking to stand on if they always try to silence the opposition. Talk about dishonesty! If you believed God to His Word, you'd know you are not related in any way to the animals He created.
 
K

Kisses1990

Guest
#63
#63
What other side? I didn't know there was an argument... No credible scientist denies evolution... I'm asking you right now to give me your opposition if you have any. I'm not dishonest and I do believe the word of God. I just think you are misunderstanding God's word, and you're trying to fit it based on how you were raised or how you would like to interpret it. Clearly, God wanted to tell us something different in Genesis. The science is incontrovertible. Listen to Francis Collins or Ken Miller if you want reputable Christian scientists. All of life fits in perfect hierarchy like a gigantic family tree. There is evidence in everything from vestiges, to fossils, to bad design, to biogeographic distribution, to embryology, to DNA. I'm not aware of any counter argument that holds any weight at all. IF you are talking about the Ken Ham's and the Kent Hovind's, they are extremely clueless people. They might sound smart, but only if you aren't aware of the "other side", that is, the scientific side yourself. So, I think you are actually the one being dishonest. I thought after the Bill Nye Ken Ham debate people would see first hand how ludicrous Ham's statements are.... It's just not supported by...anything... He did sure like to use the Appeal to Authority fallacy though, both in quote mining scientists and quote mining The Bible itself.
 
p_rehbein

p_rehbein

Senior Member
#64
Sep 4, 2013
30,196
6,539
113
#64
Kisses1990 said:
What other side? I didn't know there was an argument... No credible scientist denies evolution... I'm asking you right now to give me your opposition if you have any. I'm not dishonest and I do believe the word of God. I just think you are misunderstanding God's word, and you're trying to fit it based on how you were raised or how you would like to interpret it. Clearly, God wanted to tell us something different in Genesis. The science is incontrovertible. Listen to Francis Collins or Ken Miller if you want reputable Christian scientists. All of life fits in perfect hierarchy like a gigantic family tree. There is evidence in everything from vestiges, to fossils, to bad design, to biogeographic distribution, to embryology, to DNA. I'm not aware of any counter argument that holds any weight at all. IF you are talking about the Ken Ham's and the Kent Hovind's, they are extremely clueless people. They might sound smart, but only if you aren't aware of the "other side", that is, the scientific side yourself. So, I think you are actually the one being dishonest. I thought after the Bill Nye Ken Ham debate people would see first hand how ludicrous Ham's statements are.... It's just not supported by...anything... He did sure like to use the Appeal to Authority fallacy though, both in quote mining scientists and quote mining The Bible itself.
Click to expand...

You may not be dishonest, but your assertions are.

Answer my question with your incontrovertible science please.

Where are they?

As for understanding the Word of God..........lessee...........um, er, hmm............yeah, I'll go with people who have been students of His Word for a wee bit longer than you and those reputable scientists that promote people evolved from some ape like creature........thanks anyway........but I ain't buying that Godless snake-oil.
 
p_rehbein

p_rehbein

Senior Member
#65
Sep 4, 2013
30,196
6,539
113
#65
Kisses1990 said:
The fact that so many people have "liked" this above quote proves to me that many of you are actually very ignorant to what evolution is and how it works... If you knew the slightest thing about evolution, you'd never have asked this question. This is a nonsensical question. There is no "partially evolved" life forms... I'm not even sure what you mean by that. You are very confused... There is no ladder climbing up to a "higher" species, and there is no "higher" species. Everything is equally evolved in the time that they live... Where did you hear about this "partially evolved" concept you keep mentioning? Nothing ever is or was "partially evolved", just so you know.
Click to expand...

The confusion and misinformation being displayed here is by you, and by you alone. Clearly you have not read with understanding Darwin's The Origin of the Species..........Clearly, you have not studied with understanding what has been taught in the Public School System in this Nation for many, many years.

(Re: the embolden above) WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT, and why the Theory of Evolution as presented by Darwin is a flawed theory and not worthy of being taught as Science. You exhibit little vision of the Big Picture, and the various "end result" effects of what Darwin proposed in his Theory.

Pretending to be intellectually superior to all who disagree with you only displays your lesser intellect.........given that, enjoy living amid the shadows of Satan's deception concerning the Theory of Evolution.

I have no desire to converse with such...........
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#66
#66
On the Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection; or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Oh, that Charles Darwin. Such a lovely guy. Being all racist, making up stories and plagiarising from many other scientists. He even stole the idea of natural selection from a biblical creationist and then twisted it to support his evolutionary premise. And his book didn't even end up addressing the origin of species. What crock!
 
Sirk

Sirk

Banned
#67
Mar 2, 2016
8,896
112
0
#67
Kisses1990 said:
Of course it happens in steps. But that should not imply that anything that has existed maybe a million years ago were some how "less evolved" than animals of today.... They are just different...not better or worse, though that could be relative. Again, there are MANY "intermediates", but I just want you to know that these so-called intermediates weren't "trying" to become modern day species. They were very successful in the time they lived...they lived long enough to pass on their genes to subsequent generations, and through various selection pressures, new mutations built up that eventually led to speciation events. There is a great deal of fossil evidence for this if that is what you seek. Check out Tiktaalik for example.
Click to expand...
To get from water to land it would take upwards of 50 thousand variations. There aren't any.
 
B

BrotherJustin

Guest
#68
#68
Did you know that evolution is a different subject from the origin of life question?

Did you know that there are many theories of evolution?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#69
#69
Kisses1990 said:
Of course it happens in steps. But that should not imply that anything that has existed maybe a million years ago were some how "less evolved" than animals of today.... They are just different...not better or worse, though that could be relative. Again, there are MANY "intermediates", but I just want you to know that these so-called intermediates weren't "trying" to become modern day species. They were very successful in the time they lived...they lived long enough to pass on their genes to subsequent generations, and through various selection pressures, new mutations built up that eventually led to speciation events. There is a great deal of fossil evidence for this if that is what you seek. Check out Tiktaalik for example.
Click to expand...

It is obvious you have no fathom of what it would take for a single cell organism to evolve into the many species of creatures we have today. Or you would not keep trying to excuse why there are not things one would expect to see.

Science says, if this is true, then we would expect to see this.

a true scientist would look at evolution and say, We should expect to see these things, why do we not see them.
 
Sirk

Sirk

Banned
#70
Mar 2, 2016
8,896
112
0
#70
BrotherJustin said:
Did you know that evolution is a different subject from the origin of life question?

Did you know that there are many theories of evolution?
Click to expand...
When I was a kid I spent a lot of time at the lake...swimming ....and swimming some more. Then we would go home and I'd spend my days at the pool and you'll never guess what I was doing.....yup you guessed it.....swimming. I tried and I tried to breath under water....I even wished that I could. I hoped I would evolve flaps of skin between my fingers and toes so I could swim faster and gills in my neck so I could stay under water longer. When I got older I was so afraid of evolution that when I had my own child, he would be born with gills and a dorsal fin. He turned out okay but now I'm worried about his children. What if they are born with scales and lay eggs and have this unquenchable desire to swim upstream only to get eaten by a bear?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#71
#71
Kisses1990 said:
What other side? I didn't know there was an argument... No credible scientist denies evolution...
Click to expand...
This right here proves this person has no desire to discuss anything,

I must ask her, why is she in a discussion forum? when she has no desire to discuss anything?

ps.many credible scientists deny evolution. In fact scientists who used to teach evolution have since come to the conclusion that it can not be true.
 
B

BrotherJustin

Guest
#72
#72
Sirk said:
When I was a kid I spent a lot of time at the lake...swimming ....and swimming some more. Then we would go home and I'd spend my days at the pool and you'll never guess what I was doing.....yup you guessed it.....swimming. I tried and I tried to breath under water....I even wished that I could. I hoped I would evolve flaps of skin between my fingers and toes so I could swim faster and gills in my neck so I could stay under water longer. When I got older I was so afraid of evolution that when I had my own child, he would be born with gills and a dorsal fin. He turned out okay but now I'm worried about his children. What if they are born with scales and lay eggs and have this unquenchable desire to swim upstream only to get eaten by a bear?
Click to expand...
Laughing-Hard-Meme-07.jpg

*giggles*

...you really a swimmer?

I wrestled--we shared the locker room with the swim team and called our swimmers "fish" ;)
 
U

Ultimatum77

Guest
#73
#73
A lot of the so called "fossils" supporting evolution have been nothing but artists with plaster making fake fossils they even found a baboon bone recently last year in the so called oldest human "lucy" skeleton....hmmm....maybe b/c lucy was just a baboon in the first place?

Evolution is fake science used to deny God. A microorganism can't spontaneously even over millions of years develop into a multicellular organism like a man.....while mutations can happen on the dna level and present itself as a phenotype (outward visible characteristic) the idea of evolution is of rapid mutations leading to totally different organisms which is false. Even animals with mutations will still have the same dna base code with one or two nucleotides changed/mutated....even if they are 20 yrs apart in generations....

Darwin was sore b/c he got rejected for the priesthood b/c of his wacky ideas so he had a vendetta to deny God completely by promoting anti-God ideology of evolution....all b/c he got rejected for the priesthood.....not to mention his theories on genetic purity were completely insane....He married his own cousin and had several children of which a significant number were mentally disabled due to similar gene pools of Darwin and his cousin....If you go against God he can make you look like a fool and that's what God did by showing how his racial purity ideas were idiotic and giving him these wacked out children....
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#74
#74
I believe there are theistic evolutionists who are Christians. Kisses says she's a Christian, but I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe she's speaking the truth. I won't make that kind of judgement, that's not my place.
 
B

BrotherJustin

Guest
#75
#75
Tintin said:
I believe there are theistic evolutionists who are Christians. Kisses says she's a Christian, but I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe she's speaking the truth. I won't make that kind of judgement, that's not my place.
Click to expand...

Yup--theistic evolutionists exist because the question of 'origin of life' is a different subject than evolution!
 
B

BrotherJustin

Guest
#76
#76
Ultimatum77 said:
Darwin was sore b/c he got rejected for the priesthood b/c of his wacky ideas so he had a vendetta to deny God completely by promoting anti-God ideology of evolution....all b/c he got rejected for the priesthood....
Click to expand...
...first time I've heard this.

Is it true?
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#77
#77
BrotherJustin said:
...first time I've heard this.

Is it true?
Click to expand...
He was a seminary student but he turned his back on God good and proper when his daughter died. His wife remained a steadfast Christian.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#78
#78
Joseph Stalin also went to seminary. Must be something about that place.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#79
#79
Tintin said:
I believe there are theistic evolutionists who are Christians. Kisses says she's a Christian, but I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe she's speaking the truth. I won't make that kind of judgement, that's not my place.
Click to expand...
Amen this is not a gospel issue.. I have not heard what she believes about salvation either, so nor would I judge her salvation..
 
U

Ultimatum77

Guest
#80
#80
BrotherJustin said:
...first time I've heard this.

Is it true?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I read it in a book about evolution I think by Doc Marquis, but some say he tried to spread his ideals when he was at Cambridge studying for the priest hood and some of the elders there did not like it....so they threw him out of the school....others say he willingly left after getting on board the ship and sailing to other lands where he developed his evolution theory....

Most books I've read on charles darwin say he was brought up Christian but that he rejected it after some kind of souring experience/rejection.....don't really know but I think it would make sense as to why he hated God so much later in life....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.