-
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.
D
'I don't listen to man' , then you state that in fact you listen to a man for the express purpose you just said he cannot do?
If in fact a theistic God who intervenes in human affairs existed, then we would expect evidence relating to him/her/it. The fact remains we do not need to use God in any scientific theory relating to our origin, evolution or existance.
If in fact a theistic God who intervenes in human affairs existed, then we would expect evidence relating to him/her/it. The fact remains we do not need to use God in any scientific theory relating to our origin, evolution or existance.
D
Yes I can provide tons of evidence, factual scientific discoveries, observable evidence, and of course I can provide listings of transistional fossils to document the evolution of an animal. Basically I can provide evidence to support the Origin of speices by means of natural selection. Which part would you like me to talk about?
D
Interesting, let me give you some evidence which supports evolution. I can't deal with the entire accumulated evidence so I will just deal with one part namely 'transitional fossils'. I wrote this in my own words so don't think I just copied and pasted it apart from the definitions and scientific names of animals.
1. What is a transitional fossil.
Firstly I would like to clear up the definition of what a transitional fossil is. I presume you are talking about 'Species to species transition instead of 'general lineage'.Species to species transition are a set of numerous individual fossils which show a change between one species and another.Species to species fossils are unmistakable when found. We would expect to see fossils which show small but distinct differences over a period of time. ex. A million years. It is a very finely grained sequence.
2. The gaps in the record.
Considering the time scale and the amount of fossils needed, it takes a huge amount of effort and dedication to uncover all these fossils. This is a fairly recent occupation also, if we compare to when The theory of evolution was first brought to light. A huge point of interest is that we have only been able to survey two continents fully Europe and North America. When I say finding all the fossils is something that would require a lot of time don't think that I am saying we have no fossils. We do have fossils documenting this process and there is overwhelming evidence to support my claim. I only want to highlight that the 'gaps' do exist in some cases but are completely over-exaggerated by creationists.
3. An example of transitional fossils found.
I will use homo-sapiens as an example for evolution. I will show you the fossils found and also the transition. Out of interest to you Nathan I won't list the entire sequence documented but I will show you from an arbitrary point the transition over time.
Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene) Up to 5 feet tall,with a slightly larger brain as documented, their teeth are becoming more like homo-sapiens with smaller incisors. These are a very good example of an intermediate.
Homo habilis (latest Pliocene) Attributed to using clumsy tools, larger brain and progressively more modern than the Australopithecus due to its brain and teeth.
Homo erectus (Pleist) More human like with a larger brain. It has a thick brow and no chin.
Archaic Homo sapiens (Pleistocene) These first primitive humans were a perfect intermediate between Homo erectus and modern humans, larger brain, molars got smaller.
H. sapiens neandertalensis (developed 150,000 years ago) Considered the same species as us, but a different sub species, they are an offshoot group. incl.
H. sapiens sapiens incl. ('Cro-magnons' ;late Pleist. , 40,000 years ago) All modern humans. Larger brain.
This is just a quick example of documented transitional fossils which show us how the modern human evolved.
I hope I at least dealt with some of your questions or problems with evolution. I think that the evidence we have supports evolution.
1. What is a transitional fossil.
Firstly I would like to clear up the definition of what a transitional fossil is. I presume you are talking about 'Species to species transition instead of 'general lineage'.Species to species transition are a set of numerous individual fossils which show a change between one species and another.Species to species fossils are unmistakable when found. We would expect to see fossils which show small but distinct differences over a period of time. ex. A million years. It is a very finely grained sequence.
2. The gaps in the record.
Considering the time scale and the amount of fossils needed, it takes a huge amount of effort and dedication to uncover all these fossils. This is a fairly recent occupation also, if we compare to when The theory of evolution was first brought to light. A huge point of interest is that we have only been able to survey two continents fully Europe and North America. When I say finding all the fossils is something that would require a lot of time don't think that I am saying we have no fossils. We do have fossils documenting this process and there is overwhelming evidence to support my claim. I only want to highlight that the 'gaps' do exist in some cases but are completely over-exaggerated by creationists.
3. An example of transitional fossils found.
I will use homo-sapiens as an example for evolution. I will show you the fossils found and also the transition. Out of interest to you Nathan I won't list the entire sequence documented but I will show you from an arbitrary point the transition over time.
Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene) Up to 5 feet tall,with a slightly larger brain as documented, their teeth are becoming more like homo-sapiens with smaller incisors. These are a very good example of an intermediate.
Homo habilis (latest Pliocene) Attributed to using clumsy tools, larger brain and progressively more modern than the Australopithecus due to its brain and teeth.
Homo erectus (Pleist) More human like with a larger brain. It has a thick brow and no chin.
Archaic Homo sapiens (Pleistocene) These first primitive humans were a perfect intermediate between Homo erectus and modern humans, larger brain, molars got smaller.
H. sapiens neandertalensis (developed 150,000 years ago) Considered the same species as us, but a different sub species, they are an offshoot group. incl.
H. sapiens sapiens incl. ('Cro-magnons' ;late Pleist. , 40,000 years ago) All modern humans. Larger brain.
This is just a quick example of documented transitional fossils which show us how the modern human evolved.
I hope I at least dealt with some of your questions or problems with evolution. I think that the evidence we have supports evolution.
T
sure
Define "know little"?
Ok so if you claim to know the bible it is false because you dont know the bible, right? If you dont have faith in the bible you claim to know than it is false? How on earth did you found G-d?
Ok yeah sure. I want to see your proof. Here is mine that I researched on my own
http://christianchat.com/blogs/tosi...neralizations-condemnations-music-part-1.html
and part 2:
http://christianchat.com/blogs/tosi...ypical-generalization-condemnation-music.html
I know I read the bible, do you?
Define "know little"?
Ok so if you claim to know the bible it is false because you dont know the bible, right? If you dont have faith in the bible you claim to know than it is false? How on earth did you found G-d?
Ok yeah sure. I want to see your proof. Here is mine that I researched on my own
http://christianchat.com/blogs/tosi...neralizations-condemnations-music-part-1.html
and part 2:
http://christianchat.com/blogs/tosi...ypical-generalization-condemnation-music.html
I know I read the bible, do you?
B
There is historical evidence of Jesus's resurrection. Please read it, I know it's also a long read but it'll be well worth the time to find out that believing that Jesus resurrected is extremely reasonable.
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST - Evidence for & about the Resurrection of Christ Jesus
Next, those fossils you showed are either apes or human beings. The reason I say that is because for evolution to happen, billions of years are needed and the earth is not billions of years old. The RATE group, a group of research scientists, have proven that radioisotope dating isn't reliable and that instead it gives evidence for the young earth modal. Please read the following link... I know it's a long read but well worth it.
Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old? - Answers in Genesis
Hopefully you read those two links... anyways, if your still not convinced... I'd like to ask you something and that is... since you insist that evolution or that the big bang theory was the cause of everything. Then what would you think about the idea of God or a higher super natural being using both the big bang theory and evolution theory as a means to create mankind and everything? Not that the big bang theory and evolution theory makes sense to me but hypothetically speaking... what would you think of God using those two theories... what if he did? What do you think of that idea?
I want to end with the most solid thing of all... I prayed for a vision.
I got one. Yeah, I actually had a response from God to get a spiritual vision. I know God exists. My two brothers have also seen spiritual things. And take into account the many other people out there that claim visions as well. It's reasonable to believe there is a spiritual reality out there. So... it doesn't get more real than... REAL. Please think about this and think about God himself... God, Jesus was willing to die for you.. out of love. I think a God that's willing to die for you is worth giving a chance. He loves you, don't fight him anymore.
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST - Evidence for & about the Resurrection of Christ Jesus
Next, those fossils you showed are either apes or human beings. The reason I say that is because for evolution to happen, billions of years are needed and the earth is not billions of years old. The RATE group, a group of research scientists, have proven that radioisotope dating isn't reliable and that instead it gives evidence for the young earth modal. Please read the following link... I know it's a long read but well worth it.
Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old? - Answers in Genesis
Hopefully you read those two links... anyways, if your still not convinced... I'd like to ask you something and that is... since you insist that evolution or that the big bang theory was the cause of everything. Then what would you think about the idea of God or a higher super natural being using both the big bang theory and evolution theory as a means to create mankind and everything? Not that the big bang theory and evolution theory makes sense to me but hypothetically speaking... what would you think of God using those two theories... what if he did? What do you think of that idea?
I want to end with the most solid thing of all... I prayed for a vision.
I got one. Yeah, I actually had a response from God to get a spiritual vision. I know God exists. My two brothers have also seen spiritual things. And take into account the many other people out there that claim visions as well. It's reasonable to believe there is a spiritual reality out there. So... it doesn't get more real than... REAL. Please think about this and think about God himself... God, Jesus was willing to die for you.. out of love. I think a God that's willing to die for you is worth giving a chance. He loves you, don't fight him anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Now to simply wave a hand and dismiss fossils as either human or ape shows a serious lack of honest interest. Might I ask you what would you count as a transistional fossil for humans? Would it be that the three major evolutionary developments of brain capacity, bi-pedalism and precision grip are documented extremely well and are evident of a slow but progressive mechanism namely Natural selection? As we do know humans are in fact apes.
Regarding the age of the earth, firstly we must look at a few things. Firstly the RATE group are creationist scientists who have a biased agenda, which is to prove a young earth. Now scientists don't work on that principle, they would never insist they have the answer and then attempt to force or manipulate information in order to achieve a set goal and answer. So my first point if the scientific community don't regard creation science as science then why should we consider it science?
This isn't an ad populum, this is simply a case regarding objectivity and reliable information. With no controversy within the scientific community regarding both the theory of evolution or the age of the earth I don't see any obvious case being made against it.
I googled RATE's findings and regarding its Helium diffusion rates which seemingly they spent a numerous amount of years on I noticed alot of bad assumptions and very questionable data. Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. unpacks the entire study and details its numerous flaws. To list but a few as I cannot dissect the entire 8 year study by RATE.
[h=3]Humphreys (2005a) Corrects an Erroneous Unit of Measure in the Appendix C of Humphreys et al. (2003a)[/h][h=3]Missing and Questionable a Values[/h][h=3]Poorly Defined Average b Value[/h][h=3]Dr. Humphreys Fudges Soviet Helium Diffusion Data to Support his Agenda[/h]I copied just 4 of many issues that have arisen from reading this propagation of false materail. With questionable data, obvious bias and very poor work we can see how critics tend not to regard creationist science as actual science.
Does the theory of evolution mean God doesn't exist? Technically not. The theory of evolution and the big bang theory are correct, but you ask does that mean God doesn't exist. Well it depends on God. It makes no notion towards the deist God but with natural occurances being documented consistantly then we can make a probable case against the deistic God.
For a theistic God like The God of the bible, well in fact the theory of evolution presents a very interesting problem. Would a loving God use a natural mechanism which has a high waste low productivity. A merciless mechanism with a 99% mortality rate of entire species, the creation and wide spread re-production of virus' and bacteria. A very obvious natural mechanism with no supernatural element to be documented. So in fact the theory of evolution would be a contradictory and very poor invention of a loving God.
Regarding the age of the earth, firstly we must look at a few things. Firstly the RATE group are creationist scientists who have a biased agenda, which is to prove a young earth. Now scientists don't work on that principle, they would never insist they have the answer and then attempt to force or manipulate information in order to achieve a set goal and answer. So my first point if the scientific community don't regard creation science as science then why should we consider it science?
This isn't an ad populum, this is simply a case regarding objectivity and reliable information. With no controversy within the scientific community regarding both the theory of evolution or the age of the earth I don't see any obvious case being made against it.
I googled RATE's findings and regarding its Helium diffusion rates which seemingly they spent a numerous amount of years on I noticed alot of bad assumptions and very questionable data. Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. unpacks the entire study and details its numerous flaws. To list but a few as I cannot dissect the entire 8 year study by RATE.
[h=3]Humphreys (2005a) Corrects an Erroneous Unit of Measure in the Appendix C of Humphreys et al. (2003a)[/h][h=3]Missing and Questionable a Values[/h][h=3]Poorly Defined Average b Value[/h][h=3]Dr. Humphreys Fudges Soviet Helium Diffusion Data to Support his Agenda[/h]I copied just 4 of many issues that have arisen from reading this propagation of false materail. With questionable data, obvious bias and very poor work we can see how critics tend not to regard creationist science as actual science.
Does the theory of evolution mean God doesn't exist? Technically not. The theory of evolution and the big bang theory are correct, but you ask does that mean God doesn't exist. Well it depends on God. It makes no notion towards the deist God but with natural occurances being documented consistantly then we can make a probable case against the deistic God.
For a theistic God like The God of the bible, well in fact the theory of evolution presents a very interesting problem. Would a loving God use a natural mechanism which has a high waste low productivity. A merciless mechanism with a 99% mortality rate of entire species, the creation and wide spread re-production of virus' and bacteria. A very obvious natural mechanism with no supernatural element to be documented. So in fact the theory of evolution would be a contradictory and very poor invention of a loving God.
P
Hey there
Ya know I rememeber being where you're at and it takes time , looking at everything, gathering all the information .. and your very " smart " to do that .. im 43 and if I were trying to go into a room with young adults your age thinking i was going to be instantly transformed into something new ( perhaps you guys know things in your age bracket that I don't know about) I'd be pretty skeptical .. I'd be sitting among you thinking " I could sit here all day and it still wouldn't change me into what you guys know)
I'd have to gather information , talk to you guys about what you know, And then make a decision if I want to believe you
Or not ..
Well Same goes for anyone coming to know Who God is- none of us knew Him automatically .. When I was your age I kinda felt like someone going to sit in a garage thinking I'd turn into a car.. Sounds pretty ridiculous doesnt it ? I mean I sat in church my whole life and nothing ever happened.. I still didn't know who God was..
What made it worse was sitting in a place watching people doing the rude things to one another .. Talking smack and saying " I'll be sure and pray for you" gimme a break!
God has done a lot for me.. I went through foster care, abuse, parents divorcing , hard times in school.. So I had a lot of doubts about God at your age.. in time you will find the answers you're looking for .. And things will make more sense hearing more information and making a mature decision for yourself ..believe it or not , you're already showing many good
Signs and further along in your process than you think ., so take your time and ask questions .. lots
Of them ..
hey glad you came to the forums.. Don't hesitate to ask all the questions you want .
hope to see you around more often ..
Take care
Ya know I rememeber being where you're at and it takes time , looking at everything, gathering all the information .. and your very " smart " to do that .. im 43 and if I were trying to go into a room with young adults your age thinking i was going to be instantly transformed into something new ( perhaps you guys know things in your age bracket that I don't know about) I'd be pretty skeptical .. I'd be sitting among you thinking " I could sit here all day and it still wouldn't change me into what you guys know)
I'd have to gather information , talk to you guys about what you know, And then make a decision if I want to believe you
Or not ..
Well Same goes for anyone coming to know Who God is- none of us knew Him automatically .. When I was your age I kinda felt like someone going to sit in a garage thinking I'd turn into a car.. Sounds pretty ridiculous doesnt it ? I mean I sat in church my whole life and nothing ever happened.. I still didn't know who God was..
What made it worse was sitting in a place watching people doing the rude things to one another .. Talking smack and saying " I'll be sure and pray for you" gimme a break!
God has done a lot for me.. I went through foster care, abuse, parents divorcing , hard times in school.. So I had a lot of doubts about God at your age.. in time you will find the answers you're looking for .. And things will make more sense hearing more information and making a mature decision for yourself ..believe it or not , you're already showing many good
Signs and further along in your process than you think ., so take your time and ask questions .. lots
Of them ..
hey glad you came to the forums.. Don't hesitate to ask all the questions you want .
hope to see you around more often ..
Take care
B
There isn't any tranistional fossils for humans. How do I know? I know because God exists. I know because God has responded to me. What do you make of the truth of God's existance? The fact that he does respond to people?
Maybe there are arguments against the RATE group's findings and perhaps they are good or terrible. The bottom-line is this... you present the thoery of evolution and other "maybe/possible" response but I tell you what I KNOW. That's the difference. That I know that God exists and you give a thoery (extremely unlikley explanation). Again, how do I know? Because the truth is God acted, and responded to me. I witnessed God's existence.
So, what's more fundementally important to this topic... what I actually saw, in real life, never doing drugs or anything to alter my mind. Or just some extremely weak "thoery" that practically has no evidence (real evidence would be hundreds of fossils, not a hand-full) but a few bones that can reasonably dismissed as deformed apes or humans. I think reality wieghs a lot more. So, let's look at reality instead of thoery... let's look at the solid truth... I had a vision. No thoeries from me... just truth. What do you think of that truth? Why do you keep fighting against God? Why do you reject him? He definitely, no doubt exists, I know... so what's your problem with God?
D
If you rather base your entire belief on a subjective questionable experience than scientific fact, I cannot stop you. But I will not admit that you have a monopoly on truth based on an experience which cannot be repeated or transfered for actual scrutiny.
Let us postulate that I claimed to have the exact same experience but in my case it was the God of the Islamic faith. Now when two people both claiming similair experiences and crediting them to different things we are now faced with a problem.
1. Both claims cannot be repeated or tested.
2. We have no mechanism or structure for actually comparing both experiences. i.e apart from us claiming the same thing we cannot actually know if the experiences are in fact alike.
3. Truth and evidence are not subjective. Evidence which can only be recieved or experienced by one person, is by nature not tangible or useful evidence.
Now when I take a step back and weigh the claims,the evidence for those claims and validity of the evidence, I am inclined to side with the evidence which supports the origin of species by means of Natural Selection.