-
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.
First of all most of your statements on this list have nothing to do with evolution.
Does anyone actually claim that it did?
Most likely protein. I think it is important to note here that you don't need DNA to make proteins and that DNA is not made out of proteins. DNA needs proteins to duplicate itself, but it isn't protein in and of itself.
Yeah, in a closed system. This would apply to the universe as a whole, but that doesn't mean there can't be pockets of complexity. The factors involved in evolution does not lower the entropy of a system, so it doesn't even violate the 2nd law. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
I don't know what you are trying to say here either. Can you rephrase it?
Last time I checked, human understanding of evolution has been extremely useful in almost all fields of biology.
Does anyone actually claim that it did?
Most likely protein. I think it is important to note here that you don't need DNA to make proteins and that DNA is not made out of proteins. DNA needs proteins to duplicate itself, but it isn't protein in and of itself.
Yeah, in a closed system. This would apply to the universe as a whole, but that doesn't mean there can't be pockets of complexity. The factors involved in evolution does not lower the entropy of a system, so it doesn't even violate the 2nd law. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
I don't know what you are trying to say here either. Can you rephrase it?
Last time I checked, human understanding of evolution has been extremely useful in almost all fields of biology.
It is not just the male peacock who is more showy than the female of his species, many male birds are more showy. Let me ask you. Why do you think God made them that way. I want to see if the creationist explanation matches the evolutionary one. There is an evolutionary explanation. Is there a creationist one?
Megaman, that makes no sense. It is not even a proper sentence. Did you accidentally post an incomplete response?
Megaman, that makes no sense. It is not even a proper sentence. Did you accidentally post an incomplete response?
i) Evolution is a theory. It is not an hypothesis. You should know the difference if you are going to discuss evolution.
ii) The acretian model is not one model. There are a number of competing hypotheses regarding the processes involved. All the details are still being worked out.
So you are claiming that science does not teach competing hypotheses to students in science classes? Or is it that you are not aware of competing hypotheses in the various fields of science?
Hypotheses are put forward to account for observable data. Sometimes there is a great deal of data that needs to be understood. Other times the data is sketchy. In either case there will typically arise a number of hypotheses that attempt to explain the observations. Researchers often spend years attempting to prove their pet hypotheses while groups representing competing views work to disprove them. Reputations are built on who turns out to be right and who is wrong. One by one those hypotheses that can’t stand close examination fall and the remaining researchers line up behind the surviving hypotheses. The process can last decades. Research papers must pass peer review. That means they must stand up to the critical examination of every other scientist in the field researching the same problem. A friend of mine, a biologist, told me about his experience. He presented his paper to about 100 scientists in a packed room and was absolutely terrified his hypothesis would be ripped to shreds. As it turned out is data was solid and his hypothesis (which was only a small piece of a larger picture) was well reviewed. Once an hypothesis is arrived at that perfectly matches the available data, and once every one lines up behind that on hypothesis, then we are about as close to truth as we are likely to get.
If you can’t accept that process as truth then I think you must have some other agenda; and we both know what it is.
ii) The acretian model is not one model. There are a number of competing hypotheses regarding the processes involved. All the details are still being worked out.
So you are claiming that science does not teach competing hypotheses to students in science classes? Or is it that you are not aware of competing hypotheses in the various fields of science?
Hypotheses are put forward to account for observable data. Sometimes there is a great deal of data that needs to be understood. Other times the data is sketchy. In either case there will typically arise a number of hypotheses that attempt to explain the observations. Researchers often spend years attempting to prove their pet hypotheses while groups representing competing views work to disprove them. Reputations are built on who turns out to be right and who is wrong. One by one those hypotheses that can’t stand close examination fall and the remaining researchers line up behind the surviving hypotheses. The process can last decades. Research papers must pass peer review. That means they must stand up to the critical examination of every other scientist in the field researching the same problem. A friend of mine, a biologist, told me about his experience. He presented his paper to about 100 scientists in a packed room and was absolutely terrified his hypothesis would be ripped to shreds. As it turned out is data was solid and his hypothesis (which was only a small piece of a larger picture) was well reviewed. Once an hypothesis is arrived at that perfectly matches the available data, and once every one lines up behind that on hypothesis, then we are about as close to truth as we are likely to get.
If you can’t accept that process as truth then I think you must have some other agenda; and we both know what it is.
M
Sounds like an escape hatch for those who know no other way to respond. 
Megaman, I will pose the same question to you that I asked CoooCaw. Why did God give the peacock showy feathers? I know the evolutionary response, but I wonder what a creationist would say.
Megaman, I will pose the same question to you that I asked CoooCaw. Why did God give the peacock showy feathers? I know the evolutionary response, but I wonder what a creationist would say.
I understand. You will reject out of hand any scientific claim, no matter how good it is, if it is contrary to your biblical understanding. A creationist friend once told me much the same thing. Even if biologists, he said, learned how to make life appear spontaneously in the laboratory in conditions that might once have matched conditions upon the earth, he still wouldn't believe life had begun that way. That's like you, isn't it?
The God of the Gaps argument applies every time someone sites the lack of a scientific explanation to explain some aspect of nature and then slips God in as the explanation. That is exactly what you did. You observed that there were no scientific explanations for how early organisms went from an asexual to a sexual mode of reproduction. Then you slipped God in as the explanation. You gave a classic God of the Gaps argument.
The God of the Gaps argument applies every time someone sites the lack of a scientific explanation to explain some aspect of nature and then slips God in as the explanation. That is exactly what you did. You observed that there were no scientific explanations for how early organisms went from an asexual to a sexual mode of reproduction. Then you slipped God in as the explanation. You gave a classic God of the Gaps argument.
Think about it. You said, "why did God give them showy feathers instead of something else to accomplish the same function." Think about the function of the feathers. What function are they serving? If God gave them such showy feathers he must have done it for a reason.
No Megaman. He had to have done it for a reason. This is God's creation, yes? He didn't just throw things together willy-nilly. He had a reason.
Of course it doesn't, but it might invalidate your own understanding of God.
No Megaman. He had to have done it for a reason. This is God's creation, yes? He didn't just throw things together willy-nilly. He had a reason.
Of course it doesn't, but it might invalidate your own understanding of God.
M
Why would any of that matter to you, huh? After all, you're not here to change our beliefs, right? So why do you care so much about what we do or don't believe? And don't tell me it has to do with being intellectual. Believing in evolution doesn't make you any smarter or dumber than someone who doesn't believe the claims about events of billions of years ago.
I mentioned nothing about God in the whole asexual to sexual discussion. I simply pointed out it was a completely valid reason to not believe evolution, and I made no further conclusions than that. You're the one that's now inserting God into that argument and create your own charade where I supposedly used a "God of the gaps" arguement, which I didn't. You're just pretending that I did to try and cover your flawed evolution.
I don't believe they evolved showy feathers. That's your department. Unless you would rather explain why God designed them to have showy feathers? (see what I did there?)
So what's your point? I don't need to know everything about everything, and the fact that I don't doesn't invalidate God's existence or the Bible in any way.
Not at all. Me not knowing everything only validates my faith in God, because that is God's department, not mine.
I mentioned nothing about God in the whole asexual to sexual discussion. I simply pointed out it was a completely valid reason to not believe evolution, and I made no further conclusions than that. You're the one that's now inserting God into that argument and create your own charade where I supposedly used a "God of the gaps" arguement, which I didn't. You're just pretending that I did to try and cover your flawed evolution.
I don't believe they evolved showy feathers. That's your department. Unless you would rather explain why God designed them to have showy feathers? (see what I did there?)
So what's your point? I don't need to know everything about everything, and the fact that I don't doesn't invalidate God's existence or the Bible in any way.
Not at all. Me not knowing everything only validates my faith in God, because that is God's department, not mine.
C
Sounds like an escape hatch for those who know no other way to respond.
Megaman, I will pose the same question to you that I asked CoooCaw. Why did God give the peacock showy feathers? I know the evolutionary response, but I wonder what a creationist would say.
Megaman, I will pose the same question to you that I asked CoooCaw. Why did God give the peacock showy feathers? I know the evolutionary response, but I wonder what a creationist would say.
now, come out and make a statement
according to YOU....
why does the peacock have showy feathers???
Josh321, alot of things have happened keeping population down, flood, wars, and other things, i believe that a lot of wars have been started because of over population. i'm not siding with the atheist, its just that none of us really know how old the earth is. been in Gods word a long time, and the age of the earth is still a mystery, but age of the earth doesn't really matter, because God is eternal.