-
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.
I have more questions than answers actually:
If evolution (the one taught in schools that is) is correct, and man evolved from apes, and the survival of the fittest mean the less fit die, why are there still so many kinds of apes? And why were not all the half- evolved animals killed by those better evolved (i.e: how did the half- fish half- landliving ones survive predators? )
If evolution (the one taught in schools that is) is correct, and man evolved from apes, and the survival of the fittest mean the less fit die, why are there still so many kinds of apes? And why were not all the half- evolved animals killed by those better evolved (i.e: how did the half- fish half- landliving ones survive predators? )
and humans didn't evolve from apes, modern hominids which includes human being and apes evolved from a common ancestor
If there was proof that would convince you friend than you would have already found it... but sence we can nether see man evolving from a certain ancestor or God creating the universe than is prettr much a pointless debate because nether side will belive what they cant see.
But one can readily see evidence for evolution.
What evidence can be offered up for Creationism?
K
Many people are missing the point. Suppose there is a third way the universe could be here? It did not evolve, and it was not created?
I want to show you that such a theory has been advanced, although in sci-fi. Douglas Adams in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", has the earth destroyed by an alien construction crew to make room for a hyperspace bypass (in the first chapter). Later, the earth is back again in its position in space. The explanation of the first earth is that it was created as part of a computer circuit by technologists hired by white mice to program a supercomputer to solve the riddle of "life, the universe, and everything". But the SECOND earth just appeared without any apparent cause. Apparently, the need of destiny of the white mice required it. So there is a third possibility out there.
For centuries, philosophers have dealt with the idea that reality isn't there at all. The earth, anyone except me, including all you CC folk, are just figments of my imagination. God is a figment of my imagination, as is the earth.
These are two other theories. Please don't think I believe them. I am stating that they exist, not that they are even reasonable. But proof does not go by "reasonable". It goes by evidence. The point of the OP is very serious. You cannot prove creation by God, by disproving evolution, since there are other options for ways the earth might have gotten here.
I want to show you that such a theory has been advanced, although in sci-fi. Douglas Adams in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", has the earth destroyed by an alien construction crew to make room for a hyperspace bypass (in the first chapter). Later, the earth is back again in its position in space. The explanation of the first earth is that it was created as part of a computer circuit by technologists hired by white mice to program a supercomputer to solve the riddle of "life, the universe, and everything". But the SECOND earth just appeared without any apparent cause. Apparently, the need of destiny of the white mice required it. So there is a third possibility out there.
For centuries, philosophers have dealt with the idea that reality isn't there at all. The earth, anyone except me, including all you CC folk, are just figments of my imagination. God is a figment of my imagination, as is the earth.
These are two other theories. Please don't think I believe them. I am stating that they exist, not that they are even reasonable. But proof does not go by "reasonable". It goes by evidence. The point of the OP is very serious. You cannot prove creation by God, by disproving evolution, since there are other options for ways the earth might have gotten here.
Many people are missing the point. Suppose there is a third way the universe could be here? It did not evolve, and it was not created?
I want to show you that such a theory has been advanced, although in sci-fi. Douglas Adams in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", has the earth destroyed by an alien construction crew to make room for a hyperspace bypass (in the first chapter). Later, the earth is back again in its position in space. The explanation of the first earth is that it was created as part of a computer circuit by technologists hired by white mice to program a supercomputer to solve the riddle of "life, the universe, and everything". But the SECOND earth just appeared without any apparent cause. Apparently, the need of destiny of the white mice required it. So there is a third possibility out there.
For centuries, philosophers have dealt with the idea that reality isn't there at all. The earth, anyone except me, including all you CC folk, are just figments of my imagination. God is a figment of my imagination, as is the earth.
These are two other theories. Please don't think I believe them. I am stating that they exist, not that they are even reasonable. But proof does not go by "reasonable". It goes by evidence. The point of the OP is very serious. You cannot prove creation by God, by disproving evolution, since there are other options for ways the earth might have gotten here.
I want to show you that such a theory has been advanced, although in sci-fi. Douglas Adams in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", has the earth destroyed by an alien construction crew to make room for a hyperspace bypass (in the first chapter). Later, the earth is back again in its position in space. The explanation of the first earth is that it was created as part of a computer circuit by technologists hired by white mice to program a supercomputer to solve the riddle of "life, the universe, and everything". But the SECOND earth just appeared without any apparent cause. Apparently, the need of destiny of the white mice required it. So there is a third possibility out there.
For centuries, philosophers have dealt with the idea that reality isn't there at all. The earth, anyone except me, including all you CC folk, are just figments of my imagination. God is a figment of my imagination, as is the earth.
These are two other theories. Please don't think I believe them. I am stating that they exist, not that they are even reasonable. But proof does not go by "reasonable". It goes by evidence. The point of the OP is very serious. You cannot prove creation by God, by disproving evolution, since there are other options for ways the earth might have gotten here.
A theory is awell-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of scientific knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and/or and experimentation.
To be a theory it must:
Make verifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad areaof scientific inquiry
Be well supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.
Be consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results.
Be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered
It must be falsifiable.
Creationism failson all these points.
It is not a well substantiated explanation
It is not based abody of scientific knowledge.
There is no observation and/or experimentation involved
Creationism can make no predictions
Creationism is not supported by any evidence much less multiple threads of evidence.
It is inconsistent with every other theory of the natural world
Creationism cannot be adapted or modified for new evidence
Creationism cannot be flasified
M
Creationism failson all these points.
It is not a well substantiated explanation
It is not based abody of scientific knowledge.
There is no observation and/or experimentation involved
Creationism can make no predictions
Creationism is not supported by any evidence much less multiple threads of evidence.
It is inconsistent with every other theory of the natural world
Creationism cannot be adapted or modified for new evidence
Creationism cannot be flasified
It is not a well substantiated explanation
It is not based abody of scientific knowledge.
There is no observation and/or experimentation involved
Creationism can make no predictions
Creationism is not supported by any evidence much less multiple threads of evidence.
It is inconsistent with every other theory of the natural world
Creationism cannot be adapted or modified for new evidence
Creationism cannot be flasified
R
I find this unnerving. It's not an argument, it's a question on a forum which is meant for these types of discussions. I think it's very important to ask questions no matter what your religion is so you can better understand and defend it. How are you supposed to fully understand something if you refuse to ask these kinds of questions??
There is nothing wrong with questions, and if you think that there is then you're probably afraid of the answer.
There is nothing wrong with questions, and if you think that there is then you're probably afraid of the answer.
Creation shows there is a Creator. A simple pencil has a creator, so is it logical to believe that the universe, something so much more grand and complex, doesn't have a creator? That's what the atheists would have us believe, but it's quite nonsensical. You can't even show me a simple pencil creating itself, let alone the universe, full of its many complexities.
Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the form of earthly based DNA life-forms.
2. Things that have a complex design, have and intelligent designer
A non-sequitur (it does not follow). Designs do not require a monogenetic single designer even for human design. Designs usually come about from many designers. A Boeing 747, for example, required many designers. In fact no one single person could have had all the knowledge required to design its entirety. Even inventions usually thought of as designed by one person (light bulb by Edison, the telephone by Bell, etc.) derive from the knowledge accumulated by many persons and many disciplines. Edison, for example, could not have invented the light bulb without prior knowledge of electricity brought about by scientists before him. I defy anyone to give an example of any physical invention created solely by a single inventor without annexing prior knowledge from others.
Taking the analogy to its extreme, everything in the universe could have come from pantheistic designers, trillions of them, where each designer (god) would consist of the dumbest possible entity needing only "knowledge" of one or two things (to react or not to react). Each designer here would consist of a subatomic particle. Thus we could have an entire universe built from many unintelligent gods. This would also explain their silence, and agrees perfectly with the science of physics.
Complex "designs" can come about without an intelligent designer at all. Snowflakes, crystals and life-forms for example. Order and complexity can even come out of disorder; for example, galaxies, star and solar systems, the Red Spot on Jupiter, hurricanes, etc. These all show order emerging from disorder.
3. Therefore, the universe has an intelligent designer
Another non-sequitur. Simply because complexity exists, says nothing about intelligence or a designer. Again, designs do not require a monogenetic single designer, much less an intelligent one. Complexity and order occurs many times without a designer at all. All present workable scientific theories about the universe and life-forms do not require a Designer for their understanding, much less from an intelligent designer or many designers.
Problems with Creationism
D
Because if you truly were a Christian, there would be no debate.
This points out to the fact that the vast majority of Christians in the world support evolution. Your statement therefore does not make sense.
This isnt proof it suggest the possibi,ty of evolution but dosent prove it as far as sharing genetics with apes humans an apes are quit similar an from an unbiasied prospective it makes just as much sence that God would have used similar geneeic sequnces when forming both ape an man as it does that they both evolved from commo. Ancestors.... as far as proof of creation there isnt any thatd be any more convinceing to you than your argument for evolution was to me ether you know Gods real so you belive he created the univerae or you dont an you dont the only way youlll every have proof of creation is if you started beliving i God which is why there is no point arguing it no side has any actuall proof we just decide what is true an what isnt depinding on are biased.. i belive in God so i belive in creation you dont belive in God so you belive in evolution it has nothing to do with proof friend simply what we be,live
- This creationist argument is a misunderstanding of the evidence for evolution. That evidence is not about mere similarity, but rather a very specific pattern of similarity: the twin-nested hierarchy. The vast majority of possible patterns of similarity would not be consistent with common descent. For example bats with feathers would be hard to explain via common descent since feathers evolved after the last common ancestor of birds and bats. For more on this see 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution by Douglas Theobald.
- Most anti-evolutionists believe the common designer is all-knowing and all-powerful. But consider that a great deal of the reason why common design in human creations exists is that humans are finite beings with finite abilities, finite resources, and finite time. For this reason humans almost never create from "scratch" but modify previously-existing designs. The omnipotent designer envisioned by most creationists could have created each species from scratch, using radically different design philosophies.
- In evolution, the theory of descent clearly requires a particular pattern of similarity. Intelligent design, however, has an omnipotent creator which is capable of anything, so there is no reason to assume that each organism would have to be very similar to others at all.
- The patterns of similarities and differences in question, particularly in genetics, appear to extend even to areas in which there are many different independent structures that would all do the same things or that do not actually do anything. For instance, many proteins can have different amino acid sequences without this affecting the way they fold and hence what they do. However, species thought to be more closely related by common descent have sequences more like each other than they do with species that are more distantly related, which may have different sequences that do the same things. A common designer would have no reason not to simply use the exact same sequence over and over, or at least would not have any reason to create a pattern of differences that belies a specific cladistic ancestry that just so happens to be consistent with all the other apparent patterns of ancestry found elsewhere.
- Different forms also (it is claimed) come from the same designer, so similar forms are not evidence of a common designer. Evidence for a designer must begin by specifying (before the fact) what is expected from the designer. When do we expect similar forms, and when do we expect different forms? "Intelligent design" theory will not answer that. Evolution theory has made that prediction, and the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe accords with what evolution predicts.
- There are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design. For example, an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome. There are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the same type of ERV at the same location in the genome (D. M. Taylor 2003).
- The "form follows function" principle is the opposite from what we expect from known design.
CI141: Similar form, similar designer?
D
That's all just your ear plugging denialistic opinion. Prove to us that your word on this is trustible. Until you can actually prove something instead of just assert that your views are true, I see no reason for any Christian here to drop their views and follow your word.
I want this thread to be for the creationist to do the same. Denying evolution does not prove creation. I want creationists to show me why they believe in creation, how they can prove creation is true and not just another myth. There are many creation myths why is the biblical one true?
M
We are getting away from my original intent for this thread. There are other threads on this site where others and myself have shown that evolution is true using facts, figures and verifiable sources.
I want this thread to be for the creationist to do the same. Denying evolution does not prove creation. I want creationists to show me why they believe in creation, how they can prove creation is true and not just another myth. There are many creation myths why is the biblical one true?
I want this thread to be for the creationist to do the same. Denying evolution does not prove creation. I want creationists to show me why they believe in creation, how they can prove creation is true and not just another myth. There are many creation myths why is the biblical one true?
How about we play my game instead. Let's see if you can prove to me that evolution is true. Remember, you have to convince me, from my perspective, that it's true.
M
There is none - Creationism is a matter of faith - faith being something that is believed in the absence of all proof.
K
Actually no. Creationismisn’t a theory at all.
A theory is awell-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of scientific knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and/or and experimentation.
To be a theory it must:
Make verifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad areaof scientific inquiry
Be well supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.
Be consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results.
Be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered
It must be falsifiable.
Creationism failson all these points.
It is not a well substantiated explanation
It is not based abody of scientific knowledge.
There is no observation and/or experimentation involved
Creationism can make no predictions
Creationism is not supported by any evidence much less multiple threads of evidence.
It is inconsistent with every other theory of the natural world
Creationism cannot be adapted or modified for new evidence
Creationism cannot be flasified
A theory is awell-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of scientific knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and/or and experimentation.
To be a theory it must:
Make verifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad areaof scientific inquiry
Be well supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.
Be consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results.
Be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered
It must be falsifiable.
Creationism failson all these points.
It is not a well substantiated explanation
It is not based abody of scientific knowledge.
There is no observation and/or experimentation involved
Creationism can make no predictions
Creationism is not supported by any evidence much less multiple threads of evidence.
It is inconsistent with every other theory of the natural world
Creationism cannot be adapted or modified for new evidence
Creationism cannot be flasified
Webster does not agree. This is defintion 5 and 6. I used it in the sense of definition 2 and 4, placed first because they are more common. Theory - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
The complete opposite of "just a guess."
That Webster link doesn't define or list all the requirements for an established scientific theory.
This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.
That's all just your ear plugging denialistic opinion. Prove to us that your word on this is trustible. Until you can actually prove something instead of just assert that your views are true, I see no reason for any Christian here to drop their views and follow your word.