-
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 hate how christians argue against evolution, and yet they don't even bother reading up on the subject. Now please before i begin, understand i am not here to offend anyone. Nor do i wish to disprove god. However, i just want to set the record straight.
1: The belief is not that we evolved FROM apes. Its that we have a common ancestor, from which both our species evolved.
2: If evolution is true, then its a process that took bilions and billions of years from the time the earth was formed to now, for us to to have evolved. In the next 1000 years, we may see minor changes in apes, but unless something forces a certain genetic structure to become more dominant in their species, then chances are no great changers will happen. Even if apes are undergoing an evolutionary change right now, it takes generations for this to happen.
3: macro evolution and micro evolution are simply parts of the same mechanism. One is simply over a longer period of time. Humans are due for another evolutionary change in about 50 000 years, although this may be hampered by the development of modern society.
As i said, im just pointing out some errors in how you perceive an evolutionist viewpoint.
1: The belief is not that we evolved FROM apes. Its that we have a common ancestor, from which both our species evolved.
2: If evolution is true, then its a process that took bilions and billions of years from the time the earth was formed to now, for us to to have evolved. In the next 1000 years, we may see minor changes in apes, but unless something forces a certain genetic structure to become more dominant in their species, then chances are no great changers will happen. Even if apes are undergoing an evolutionary change right now, it takes generations for this to happen.
3: macro evolution and micro evolution are simply parts of the same mechanism. One is simply over a longer period of time. Humans are due for another evolutionary change in about 50 000 years, although this may be hampered by the development of modern society.
As i said, im just pointing out some errors in how you perceive an evolutionist viewpoint.
Heres a few more from wikipedia. Hope all the links are intact when i post this.
The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms.[131][132] Evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory, gravitation, or plate tectonics.
Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees[134] or any other modern-day primates. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor that lived about 40 million years ago.[135] This common ancestor diverged into separate lineages, one evolving into so-called New World monkeys and the other into Old World monkeys and apes.[136] Humans are part of the Hominidae (great ape) family, which also includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Similarly, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, which lived between 5 and 8 million years ago, evolved into two lineages, one eventually becoming modern humans and the other the two extant chimpanzee species.[137]
Evolution is not a progression from inferior to superior organisms, and it also does not necessarily result in an increase in complexity. A population can evolve to become simpler, having a smaller genome, but devolution is a misnomer.[138][139]
According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted.[140] However, the last of the non-avian dinosaurs died 65.5 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago.
Evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A common argument against evolution is that entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, increases over time, and thus evolution could not produce increased complexity. However, the law does not refer to complexity and only applies to closed systems,[141] which the Earth is not, as it absorbs and radiates the Sun's energy.
See also: Entropy and life
Evolution does not "plan" to improve an organism's fitness to survive.[143][144] For example, an incorrect way to describe giraffe evolution is to say that giraffe necks grew longer over time because they needed to reach tall trees. Evolution doesn't see a need and respond to it. A mutation resulting in longer necks would be more likely to benefit an animal in an area with tall trees than an area with short trees, and thus enhance the chance of the animal surviving to pass on its longer-necked genes. Tall trees could not cause the mutation nor would they cause a higher percentage of animals to be born with longer necks.[145] In the giraffe example, the evolution of a long neck may equally well have been driven by sexual selection, proposing that the long necks evolved as a secondary sexual characteristic, giving males an advantage in "necking" contests over females.[146]
Mammals did not evolve from any modern group of reptiles, just like humans have not evolved from chimpanzees (above). Very soon after the first reptiles appeared, they split into two branches.[147] The line leading to mammals diverged from the line leading to modern reptilian lines (the sauropsids) about 320 million years ago, in the mid Carboniferous period. Only later (late Carboniferous or early Permian) did the modern reptilian groups (lepidosaurs, turtles and crocodiles) diverge. The mammals themselves being the only survivors of the synapsid line make them the "cousins" rather than "siblings" of modern reptiles.[148] The confusion over the origin of mammals comes from conflicting definition of "Reptile". Under Linnaean taxonomy reptiles are all amniotes except mammals and birds, thus including the synapsids as well as the first basal amniotes.[149] With the rise of phylogenetic nomenclature in the 1990's, "reptile" also sometimes became use as a synonym for Sauropsida, which exclude the basal amniotes and the synapsid line.[150] The synapsids are popularly known as "mammal-like reptiles". An example is Dimetrodon, which is often thought of as a dinosaur, but is in fact neither a dinosaur nor closely related to modern reptiles.[151]
The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms.[131][132] Evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory, gravitation, or plate tectonics.
Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees[134] or any other modern-day primates. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor that lived about 40 million years ago.[135] This common ancestor diverged into separate lineages, one evolving into so-called New World monkeys and the other into Old World monkeys and apes.[136] Humans are part of the Hominidae (great ape) family, which also includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Similarly, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, which lived between 5 and 8 million years ago, evolved into two lineages, one eventually becoming modern humans and the other the two extant chimpanzee species.[137]
Evolution is not a progression from inferior to superior organisms, and it also does not necessarily result in an increase in complexity. A population can evolve to become simpler, having a smaller genome, but devolution is a misnomer.[138][139]
According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted.[140] However, the last of the non-avian dinosaurs died 65.5 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago.
Evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A common argument against evolution is that entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, increases over time, and thus evolution could not produce increased complexity. However, the law does not refer to complexity and only applies to closed systems,[141] which the Earth is not, as it absorbs and radiates the Sun's energy.
See also: Entropy and life
Evolution does not "plan" to improve an organism's fitness to survive.[143][144] For example, an incorrect way to describe giraffe evolution is to say that giraffe necks grew longer over time because they needed to reach tall trees. Evolution doesn't see a need and respond to it. A mutation resulting in longer necks would be more likely to benefit an animal in an area with tall trees than an area with short trees, and thus enhance the chance of the animal surviving to pass on its longer-necked genes. Tall trees could not cause the mutation nor would they cause a higher percentage of animals to be born with longer necks.[145] In the giraffe example, the evolution of a long neck may equally well have been driven by sexual selection, proposing that the long necks evolved as a secondary sexual characteristic, giving males an advantage in "necking" contests over females.[146]
Mammals did not evolve from any modern group of reptiles, just like humans have not evolved from chimpanzees (above). Very soon after the first reptiles appeared, they split into two branches.[147] The line leading to mammals diverged from the line leading to modern reptilian lines (the sauropsids) about 320 million years ago, in the mid Carboniferous period. Only later (late Carboniferous or early Permian) did the modern reptilian groups (lepidosaurs, turtles and crocodiles) diverge. The mammals themselves being the only survivors of the synapsid line make them the "cousins" rather than "siblings" of modern reptiles.[148] The confusion over the origin of mammals comes from conflicting definition of "Reptile". Under Linnaean taxonomy reptiles are all amniotes except mammals and birds, thus including the synapsids as well as the first basal amniotes.[149] With the rise of phylogenetic nomenclature in the 1990's, "reptile" also sometimes became use as a synonym for Sauropsida, which exclude the basal amniotes and the synapsid line.[150] The synapsids are popularly known as "mammal-like reptiles". An example is Dimetrodon, which is often thought of as a dinosaur, but is in fact neither a dinosaur nor closely related to modern reptiles.[151]
T
The Big Bang is not as solid as Mainstream science would like you to think. First of all they say that a speck of nothing spun so fast that it exploded and EVERYTHING came from that. (they already have a paradox... nothing can't become something unless acted upon by a force that we don't understand... hmmmm sounds like "let there be..." to me.) Second, IF the big Bang happened as they said it did, than every single galaxy and every single planet would be spinning in the same direction. Within our own solar system we have a planet (can't remember which) that spins (not orbits but simply rotates) in the opposite direction as the others. They claim a strike from a meteor could have done this. It's more likely that said meteor would have destroyed the planet, or ANY body that it's spinning the other way. And even if it didn't there are Galaxies that spin clockwise, and others that spin counter-clockwise. I'm a lover of science. I have always been fascinated by it. I'm just saying, don't take everything you hear as fact without actually checking the facts.
T
Actually, I DO read up, and THOROUGHLY so, on stuff before I argue it. I'm going to know my facts. I'm going to be able to use evidence. As far as the THEORY of evolution goes, your friend Darwin said in his own book that should foolproof evidence of his theory not show itself within 100 years than he was wrong. In studying the finches we have found that if what they feed on becomes scarce their beaks will change slightly to adapt to eating new food, BUT as soon as their original food becomes available again, guess what happens: their beaks revert back to normal. I will agree to Microevolution: small changes. And yes, while they DO believe that Humans and apes have a common ancestor it is still ridiculous to think that such DRASTIC changes would occur if one looks at the evidence in a LOGICAL manner instead of speculative. What's being done is similar to this happening during a Crime scene investigation: A man has a hole through his chest, evidence of burning around the hole (means gun was touching him) the bullets gone all the way through and is lodged, bloody, in the wall. There's some bullet fragments in his body, but the coroner decides he likes the idea of a crazed pygmy having come through and rammed a wooden spear through the dead man's chest, so that's what he calls.
Now, I give you your own advice but with amendment: before you go arguing things you don't understand, read up on it from varying sources and viewpoints, i.e Religious and Secular. You will likely find some interesting results. The Bible is historically accurate: this has been proven more times than scientists would like you to know, I promise.
Now, I give you your own advice but with amendment: before you go arguing things you don't understand, read up on it from varying sources and viewpoints, i.e Religious and Secular. You will likely find some interesting results. The Bible is historically accurate: this has been proven more times than scientists would like you to know, I promise.
Firstly, it takes many steps to go a mile. You'll agree with small changes over a short period of time, but not many changes over a long period of time.
Secondly, your capitalization of the word "theory" indicates that you haven't a clue what a scientific theory is. It is not your everyday joe schmoe "I have a theory!!". A scientific theory is an observation of FACTS and is among the highest level of observed data. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the FACT of evolution.
The bible being historically accurate is not a commonly accepted view among scientists. I assure you, you're out numbered on that one. The last study found less than 2% are evangelical or fundementalist, and over 72% full on Atheist 20% Agnostic. That's 92% by my math
Secondly, your capitalization of the word "theory" indicates that you haven't a clue what a scientific theory is. It is not your everyday joe schmoe "I have a theory!!". A scientific theory is an observation of FACTS and is among the highest level of observed data. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the FACT of evolution.
The bible being historically accurate is not a commonly accepted view among scientists. I assure you, you're out numbered on that one. The last study found less than 2% are evangelical or fundementalist, and over 72% full on Atheist 20% Agnostic. That's 92% by my math
J
You have to put this in the proper context though. Remember, we're dealing with genetics, not walking tracks. For the comparison to remain accurate, it'd have to go like..
"It takes small steps to get from one end of a football field to the other, but there is a barrier that get's in the way from going further."
I'll just leave some reading materials for you.
Instrumentalism: A Third Option <--- intro
Amazon.com: Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective eBook: Bas C. van Fraassen: Kindle Store <--- incase kids still read books these days
I'm not prepared to argue these though, just offering them as possible enlightment.
What does majority opinion matter on truth?
Also, what reason do you have for appealing to authority?
"It takes small steps to get from one end of a football field to the other, but there is a barrier that get's in the way from going further."
I'll just leave some reading materials for you.
Instrumentalism: A Third Option <--- intro
Amazon.com: Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective eBook: Bas C. van Fraassen: Kindle Store <--- incase kids still read books these days
I'm not prepared to argue these though, just offering them as possible enlightment.
What does majority opinion matter on truth?
Also, what reason do you have for appealing to authority?
S
Believing in literal 6-day creationism is not a prerequisite to be a Christian.
There is Old Earth Creationism and Young Earth Creationism - I belong to the former of these two schools of thought. There is nothing contradictory between Science and Christianity. Modern Science actually began within a Christian perspective, the Church at the time of Galileo engulfed incorrectly, the Philosophy of Science adhered to by Aristotle i.e. - an Aristotilian outlook of the 'Heavens', that the Earth, not the Sun was the Solar Systems center and that the Earth was undeniably flat as opposed to being spherical.
Galileo noted that the Holy Scriptures said nothing about the Earth being the center of the Solar System, he himself concluded that the Sun is actually the center of the Solar System, for this he was martyred. Not for denying the Holy Scriptures, but for embracing the conscience that God gave him. The rational mind that God gave him, and that God has given us all.
I think the problem with the current educational system, is that it sees Christianity as an outdated Religion which has no place in this advanced Technological and Scientific age. Yet the truth is far from such a blinded implication, Christianity is the practical means of exploring the world around us in all of Gods majestic glory, through the lenses of corresponding reality.
Modern Atheism, although classically finding its Philosophical roots within Ancient Greco-Roman Philosophy, is more of a recent development - which merely denies the existence of God, to encourage the thought that we as Humans are in fact "Gods".
There is Old Earth Creationism and Young Earth Creationism - I belong to the former of these two schools of thought. There is nothing contradictory between Science and Christianity. Modern Science actually began within a Christian perspective, the Church at the time of Galileo engulfed incorrectly, the Philosophy of Science adhered to by Aristotle i.e. - an Aristotilian outlook of the 'Heavens', that the Earth, not the Sun was the Solar Systems center and that the Earth was undeniably flat as opposed to being spherical.
Galileo noted that the Holy Scriptures said nothing about the Earth being the center of the Solar System, he himself concluded that the Sun is actually the center of the Solar System, for this he was martyred. Not for denying the Holy Scriptures, but for embracing the conscience that God gave him. The rational mind that God gave him, and that God has given us all.
I think the problem with the current educational system, is that it sees Christianity as an outdated Religion which has no place in this advanced Technological and Scientific age. Yet the truth is far from such a blinded implication, Christianity is the practical means of exploring the world around us in all of Gods majestic glory, through the lenses of corresponding reality.
Modern Atheism, although classically finding its Philosophical roots within Ancient Greco-Roman Philosophy, is more of a recent development - which merely denies the existence of God, to encourage the thought that we as Humans are in fact "Gods".
T
Science is the study of God's creation. I do not disagree with everything science has taught us. I belong to the Young Earth Creationism. They say that Earth is trillions of years old based on carbon dating by which they determine age based upon how much carbon is in the object tested. One little problem: Fire or high heat. They mess with an objects carbon levels. As for everything being made in six days: There is a ring of radiation found in certain rocks that can be found throughout the various layers of dirt and rock that the earth is made up of. This radiation would not be there if the earth had not formed and cooled within 24 hours: there goes it having taken millions of years to cool. As for the other 5 days I don't have anything to say but that if earth was physically created in a 24 hour period, who's to say that the water and life forms weren't? Adam and Eve were created AS adults. God can make things appear to have history/maturity.
S
Nice hits there brother,
Good for you, I applaud your evident contentment that you have found secured within the Christian Faith. I do not belong to what could be termed: "Orthodox Old Earth Creationism", speaking in detailed exactations I belong to a form of Old Earth Creationism called: "Progressive Creationism".
The reason for this is that upon reading the book of Genesis Chapters 1 onwards, the creation account read within literary context [Classical Hebrew], the account itself is actually Hebrew Poetry. So for me personally, to take this literally would be not a mistake, but a misinterpretation of the text at hand.
However - I would like to solidify my point that at the end of the day, Unity does not strictly mean Uniformity, and what we have in common is the belief in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.
Cheers.
Good for you, I applaud your evident contentment that you have found secured within the Christian Faith. I do not belong to what could be termed: "Orthodox Old Earth Creationism", speaking in detailed exactations I belong to a form of Old Earth Creationism called: "Progressive Creationism".
The reason for this is that upon reading the book of Genesis Chapters 1 onwards, the creation account read within literary context [Classical Hebrew], the account itself is actually Hebrew Poetry. So for me personally, to take this literally would be not a mistake, but a misinterpretation of the text at hand.
However - I would like to solidify my point that at the end of the day, Unity does not strictly mean Uniformity, and what we have in common is the belief in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.
Cheers.
G
Seroiously check this out!
YahTube: Walter Veith - Amazing Discoveries
Dr. Walter Veith has a PhD. in evolution - but gave it all up when he found more questions than answers. He turned his research toward the truth and what he found is nothing short of AWESOME!!!
YahTube: Walter Veith - Amazing Discoveries
YahTube: Walter Veith - Amazing Discoveries
Dr. Walter Veith has a PhD. in evolution - but gave it all up when he found more questions than answers. He turned his research toward the truth and what he found is nothing short of AWESOME!!!
YahTube: Walter Veith - Amazing Discoveries
I am addressing your appeal to an authority by claiming that most scientists acknowledge the bible as historically accurate.
Actually, before I submitted the answer, I realized that this would automatically be categorized as an appeal to authority, yet why do you make such a claim?... when the amount of people that believe in something, is irrelevant to the validity of the idea?
Again, you reject the FACT of evolution... why not the Theory of Gravity? or the Theory of Relativity? or Maybe Cell Theory?
These are facts, well substantiated, well supported
Actually, before I submitted the answer, I realized that this would automatically be categorized as an appeal to authority, yet why do you make such a claim?... when the amount of people that believe in something, is irrelevant to the validity of the idea?
Again, you reject the FACT of evolution... why not the Theory of Gravity? or the Theory of Relativity? or Maybe Cell Theory?
These are facts, well substantiated, well supported
J
Where did I do that? I think you are referring to the user: The_boy
See above.
I don't reject, Micro-Evolution. I question Macro-evolution.
I wouldn't be the first to question gravity, if I did.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf <--- paper by Erik Verlinde
Also, while I question certain parts of evolutionary theory, my reason for doing so isn't because it's a theory.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I see no reason as to why this should stop a person from believing in Christ.
See above.
I don't reject, Micro-Evolution. I question Macro-evolution.
I wouldn't be the first to question gravity, if I did.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf <--- paper by Erik Verlinde
Also, while I question certain parts of evolutionary theory, my reason for doing so isn't because it's a theory.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I see no reason as to why this should stop a person from believing in Christ.
rofl I'm sorry, you are correct... I wasn't paying attention to the user.. maybe I clicked the wrong quote button? oh well
Why do you question macro evolution? (horrible term) but not other facts?
And I agree with your last comment... I don't even know why people attack evolution, I swear it's because they think their religion is incompatible with it and therefore must be dismissed. Actually, I've seen people actually say that kind of crap sooo...
meh, need more hot wings!
Why do you question macro evolution? (horrible term) but not other facts?
And I agree with your last comment... I don't even know why people attack evolution, I swear it's because they think their religion is incompatible with it and therefore must be dismissed. Actually, I've seen people actually say that kind of crap sooo...
meh, need more hot wings!
J
Berkeley uses the term "Macro-Evolution"...
Not neccesarily in order..
Things I perceive to be problematic for macro-evolution.
My position in Philosophy of Science.
The Supremacy of Scripture.
Certain axiomatic assumptions I don't agree with.
Bias in science:
bylogos: Can We Trust Published Scientific Data? <--- example
The incompatability comes to understanding the relation between Genesis and creation.
bylogos: The Cost of an Old Earth: Is it Worth it? <--- just a bit on that
My comment, was aimed more at you though. Any other atheist in general as well.
Meh.
Last edited:
J
These are the reasons I cited.
Now, if I were to rank it..
My position in Philosophy of Science.
Things I preceive to be problematic for Macro-Evolution.
The Supremacy of Scripture
Certain axiomatic assumptions I don't agree with.
The usage of logic, and hence science(science is a product of philosophy) presupposes the existance of God.
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry <--- click for why rationality presupposes God
One issue to be ironed out, is how we are to understand Genesis and it's relation to creation.
Regardless of one's position, or the bibles position. I see no reason why this should stop you from believing in the resurrection of Christ, masterofthefret.
Now, if I were to rank it..
My position in Philosophy of Science.
Things I preceive to be problematic for Macro-Evolution.
The Supremacy of Scripture
Certain axiomatic assumptions I don't agree with.
The usage of logic, and hence science(science is a product of philosophy) presupposes the existance of God.
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry <--- click for why rationality presupposes God
One issue to be ironed out, is how we are to understand Genesis and it's relation to creation.
Regardless of one's position, or the bibles position. I see no reason why this should stop you from believing in the resurrection of Christ, masterofthefret.