-
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.
P
Really? you have great evo understanding?
Could you direct us to a transition fossil?
Could you site the errors of carbon dating?
Could you explain the presence of heium in the rocks that should not be there?
You have been duped my friend. Evo is Godless man's attempt to southe the consciene.
But really, just one trans fossil would be nice,would it not?......since the earth should be littered with them....miliions?
Could you direct us to a transition fossil?
Could you site the errors of carbon dating?
Could you explain the presence of heium in the rocks that should not be there?
You have been duped my friend. Evo is Godless man's attempt to southe the consciene.
But really, just one trans fossil would be nice,would it not?......since the earth should be littered with them....miliions?
P
Says the man with no trans fossils or PROOF of any kind.
You are bankrupt through bankrupt men with great immaginations.They took you to the place God said;
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
You are bankrupt through bankrupt men with great immaginations.They took you to the place God said;
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
V
That's always the answer, isn't it? "You can't argue against evolution because you don't understand it." Same with warmists. They use the same argument regarding the "science" they claim "proves" their case.
Nothing you can point to as proof of evolution can be empirically tested. Therefore it remains theory, and theory is not science. Theory is a search for science, and in 160 years, no one has been able to put Darwin's conjectures into a workable empirical model that can be tested. Therefore, just as with creationism, it not proven.
Nothing you can point to as proof of evolution can be empirically tested. Therefore it remains theory, and theory is not science. Theory is a search for science, and in 160 years, no one has been able to put Darwin's conjectures into a workable empirical model that can be tested. Therefore, just as with creationism, it not proven.
M
If you are going to keep integrity to the discussion then at least stick to facts
1/ The so called theory of evolution is not a single theory at all, it is a rag bag of different hypotheses from common descent, natural selection, genetic processes, abiogenesis all with varying amounts of evidence - some are just conjecture pure hypothesis, since the processes have never been observed, never repeated nor are they repeatable, and on that basis (or so a ridiculous ID court ruling decided) neither are they science at all because of that! Not that I agree with that court.. So evolution is not a fact, it is not a single entity. And some of it is pure hypothesis not supported by anyfacts. Take the processes of increasing chromosome numbers, all we have is a guess.
2/ Gravity as a model for motion and cosmological evolution, accounts for the results and predictions in too many experiments to mention are they facts? and diverse things like every asteroid tracked.
It is a fact that many predictions are consistent with the model. So in terms of pure facts gravity wins by a long way.
But gravity is a concept, not a fact, and indeed is better considered as a symptom of the concept of space time curvature, which is why light does not travel in straight lines either when influenced by a large mass. There are also observations that do not work. Like galaxy rotation is simply not modelled by present understanding of mass, and there is only hypothesis as to why.The universe is not expanding at the right rate for the mass we observe predicted by the cosmological constant in the relativistic equations. So if mass in the universe is wholly unaccounted, gravity can no longer be regarded as fully understood eithe. In short gravity is a concept on paper, in heads, and in computers - just a symptom not the reality of the structure of the underlying universe, some parts of which do not add up.
Like most of science it is a good tool, but it has limitations!
So In short , you are comparing apples with oranges, and your comparison is specious.
Neither is completely accounted.
So being rude "use your brain" really is not called for!
Is it not possible to have a discussion on this forum without someone being insulting?
1/ The so called theory of evolution is not a single theory at all, it is a rag bag of different hypotheses from common descent, natural selection, genetic processes, abiogenesis all with varying amounts of evidence - some are just conjecture pure hypothesis, since the processes have never been observed, never repeated nor are they repeatable, and on that basis (or so a ridiculous ID court ruling decided) neither are they science at all because of that! Not that I agree with that court.. So evolution is not a fact, it is not a single entity. And some of it is pure hypothesis not supported by anyfacts. Take the processes of increasing chromosome numbers, all we have is a guess.
2/ Gravity as a model for motion and cosmological evolution, accounts for the results and predictions in too many experiments to mention are they facts? and diverse things like every asteroid tracked.
It is a fact that many predictions are consistent with the model. So in terms of pure facts gravity wins by a long way.
But gravity is a concept, not a fact, and indeed is better considered as a symptom of the concept of space time curvature, which is why light does not travel in straight lines either when influenced by a large mass. There are also observations that do not work. Like galaxy rotation is simply not modelled by present understanding of mass, and there is only hypothesis as to why.The universe is not expanding at the right rate for the mass we observe predicted by the cosmological constant in the relativistic equations. So if mass in the universe is wholly unaccounted, gravity can no longer be regarded as fully understood eithe. In short gravity is a concept on paper, in heads, and in computers - just a symptom not the reality of the structure of the underlying universe, some parts of which do not add up.
Like most of science it is a good tool, but it has limitations!
So In short , you are comparing apples with oranges, and your comparison is specious.
Neither is completely accounted.
So being rude "use your brain" really is not called for!
Is it not possible to have a discussion on this forum without someone being insulting?
Last edited:
hmmm... I think our communication may have gotten crossed somewhere... jaybird wrote:
so I wrote:
so, the question I was asking is, what is jaybird's (or anyone's) source for saying 'most of the science world are starting to lean more to the theory of intelligent design.' I think it's an interesting idea, if it can be supported...
so I wrote:
so, the question I was asking is, what is jaybird's (or anyone's) source for saying 'most of the science world are starting to lean more to the theory of intelligent design.' I think it's an interesting idea, if it can be supported...
Ceolocanth. 400 million years old. Still swimming, not just a fossil.
Unfortunately it cannot read, so it has not read origin of species yet, so it does not know it supposed to evolve!
Unfortunately it cannot read, so it has not read origin of species yet, so it does not know it supposed to evolve!
More importantly, you need to prove humans lived with these fish's 400 million year old ancestors, not that their decendents live at the same time as modern man.
1. Abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution.
2. Everything else you mentioned is well supported by science. As we learn more, we find new questions, but this is standard in science.
We don't have to create a star to understand what stars are made of, nor do we have to travel to the sun to understand how far away it is from the Earth. We never observed a single one of Pluto's revolutions around the sun, yet we were able to figure out how long it would take for it to revolve. Science does not demand total replication. Often, we must replicate things on a much smaller scale.
It's not nearly as simple as it sounds. Science is much more complex than you can imagine and the methods of determining the age of fossils as well as tests to verify the dating methods are far beyond what you understand.
In short, we don't understand everything there is to know about gravity. Well done, you're right. But this doesn't mean we don't understand anything about gravity.
There's a wonderful essay online called "Relativity of Wrong". You should read it.
Science isn't infallible, but it is a method we use to get as close to understanding the world as we can with as much accuracy as possible.
This. Exactly. Using what we don't fully understand (gravity) as an argument to say ''evolution is not correct as a theory'' is to assume that our level of understanding of gravity is equitable to our level of understanding of evolution, since both are ''science''.
It's quite faulty, when you think about it. We understand evolution to a degree far beyond the degree to which we fundamentally understand gravity. Yes, evolution is a theory, but the facts and body of knowledge therein are based upon tangible realities and proven hypotheses. For instance, the further you go down the strata, the older things are, since the oldest depositions will be topped by new depositions, as is the nature of the effects of time and mass; the further you go down the strata, the less variability and diversity there is in the fossil record; the further you go down in the strata, the less species exist, thus not all species were on Earth at the same time, and many species came to exist long after other species existed (which when considered alongside the dating data we have, disproves the idea of a seven day en-masse creation of all species, straight off the bat providing that evidence and natural laws in the context of their applications on OUR planet are constant. If a person argues they are not, then we go beyond applicable science and into fanciful rumination).
It's quite faulty, when you think about it. We understand evolution to a degree far beyond the degree to which we fundamentally understand gravity. Yes, evolution is a theory, but the facts and body of knowledge therein are based upon tangible realities and proven hypotheses. For instance, the further you go down the strata, the older things are, since the oldest depositions will be topped by new depositions, as is the nature of the effects of time and mass; the further you go down the strata, the less variability and diversity there is in the fossil record; the further you go down in the strata, the less species exist, thus not all species were on Earth at the same time, and many species came to exist long after other species existed (which when considered alongside the dating data we have, disproves the idea of a seven day en-masse creation of all species, straight off the bat providing that evidence and natural laws in the context of their applications on OUR planet are constant. If a person argues they are not, then we go beyond applicable science and into fanciful rumination).
Since no human has ever been to Pluto, is Pluto's existence dubious?
You do realize that ''the theory of evolution'' is based upon laws and principles established from observation and experimentation? For instance:
The law of superposition; the principle of lateral continuity; the the principle of cross-cutting relationships; the principle of faunal succession; the Canfield ocean model; the general principle of ocean stratification; the Suess effect; radiometric dating; the logarithmic timeline; the observation of significant biological phenomena; the fossil record; the diversification of life upwards through the strata and hundreds if not thousands of other evidences, studies, principles and laws.
Creationism is based upon the seed-writings originating from unsubstantiated metaphysical claims in a text written by an unknown author several millenia ago.
You do realize that ''the theory of evolution'' is based upon laws and principles established from observation and experimentation? For instance:
The law of superposition; the principle of lateral continuity; the the principle of cross-cutting relationships; the principle of faunal succession; the Canfield ocean model; the general principle of ocean stratification; the Suess effect; radiometric dating; the logarithmic timeline; the observation of significant biological phenomena; the fossil record; the diversification of life upwards through the strata and hundreds if not thousands of other evidences, studies, principles and laws.
Creationism is based upon the seed-writings originating from unsubstantiated metaphysical claims in a text written by an unknown author several millenia ago.
Ceolocanth. 400 million years old. Still swimming, not just a fossil.
Unfortunately it cannot read, so it has not read origin of species yet, so it does not know it supposed to evolve!
Unfortunately it cannot read, so it has not read origin of species yet, so it does not know it supposed to evolve!
Unfortunately the creature can not read, so it has not read the Young Earth Creationist's bible so the creature does not know that it is a whole lot younger than it thinks it is.
For any evolutionisrs on the thread.
If you believe that Creationism is unscientific please account for the fact that Linus Pauling, a double Nobel Lauriate in Biology. and Bio-chemistry in separate years, was a full professor at Stanford U., and an outspoken creationist.
Shortly after I accepted the Lordship of Jesus, I attended a Bible study he taught at Peninsula Bible Church in Palo Alto , CA.
20 years later, my daughter ctudied Chemistry under his daughter, also a creationist.
If you believe that Creationism is unscientific please account for the fact that Linus Pauling, a double Nobel Lauriate in Biology. and Bio-chemistry in separate years, was a full professor at Stanford U., and an outspoken creationist.
Shortly after I accepted the Lordship of Jesus, I attended a Bible study he taught at Peninsula Bible Church in Palo Alto , CA.
20 years later, my daughter ctudied Chemistry under his daughter, also a creationist.
Last edited:
Because some (very few, relatively) scientists are creationists, but generally, if you pick their arguments apart, they are logically flawed (Ken Ham, for instance, whose arguments jump and change and move between scientific evidence and blind religious assertion, or scientific evidence and implantation of divinity in the gaps). Then there's always the alternative type of creation scientist, the one who says ''everything happened exactly like all the secular scientists say it did, but GOD WAS INVOLVED AND MADE IT HAPPEN''.
In all cases, they are implanting their belief into the science; the science is not necessarily bringing them to a conclusion of religious belief, and if it is, it's almost always out of ''wow I just can't get my head around this, it must have been God''.
In all cases, they are implanting their belief into the science; the science is not necessarily bringing them to a conclusion of religious belief, and if it is, it's almost always out of ''wow I just can't get my head around this, it must have been God''.
Science doesn't say anything - people do
Science is a tool - people use
If it isn't observable, testable, or repeatable it's not Science
Evolution and Creation are historical accounts - which one are you going to believe?
I wish we could learn the difference here and stop saying Religion says - that assume false religion says, and then Science says that assumes Science to be the end all be all. I find it hard to take anyone serious who uses the term religion when referring to Christianity or the Bible
Science is a tool - people use
If it isn't observable, testable, or repeatable it's not Science
Evolution and Creation are historical accounts - which one are you going to believe?
I wish we could learn the difference here and stop saying Religion says - that assume false religion says, and then Science says that assumes Science to be the end all be all. I find it hard to take anyone serious who uses the term religion when referring to Christianity or the Bible