Science Proves Evolution
- Thread starter Crucifiction
- Start date
-
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.
S
Siberian_Khatru
Guest
D
DannyC
Guest
'Dr' Kent Hovind, the guy who has produced solid scientific facts, like the Lock Ness monster is in fact evidence of dinosaurs and man co-existing. Or the notion that the moon is gradually distancing itself from the earth so therefore, if we go back billions of years it would be skimming the earths surface. So this proves the earth is roughly 6,000 years old. Forgeting to consult any physicists or astronomers.
This is without a doubt pseudo-science and has no place in rational discussions. The video about the chromosome is good but it is only a tiny portion of evidence for evolution. Geology, cosmology, biology chemistry and physics all support the theory of evolution and also the big bang theory.
T
TomH
Guest
Bro, I think evolution is the basis for the faith (belief) of atheism. I believe the word of God about creation.
It's no wonder that video doesn't allow comments. It's complete bunk and the uploader
doesn't want to allow honest debate so he just disables comments. If evolution is so
stupid what is the uploader afraid of? This is a dishonest tactic and brings up a red
flag to the merits of the video.
Kent Hovind is still in prison for tax evasion so probably isn't the best role model
to look up to. Anyhow, I know that's an ad hominem attack so let's look at his merits.
Hovind graduated from Patriot Bible University — an auspicious degree for any enterprising huckster.[SUP][12][/SUP] The preceding cite may make the University look like little more than a trailer. In the interest of balance, we cite Patriot Bible University's own reply.[SUP][13][/SUP]
While most doctoral dissertations are readily available to the scientific community and the public at large, Kent Hovind and Patriot Bible University refused to publish his dissertation for some reason. People who have reviewed his doctoral dissertation, which Hovind claims is on the dangers of teaching evolution to children,[SUP][14][/SUP] have remarked that it is of substandard quality, with spelling mistakes and poor grammar.
Kent Hovind - RationalWiki
Kent Hovind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kent Hovind is to science what Dr. Pepper is to doctors.
The most convincing evidence imo.
[video=youtube;JqxCoibTtaI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqxCoibTtaI[/video]
[video=youtube;JqxCoibTtaI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqxCoibTtaI[/video]
D
DannyC
Guest
I already explained to you clearly and fairly that atheism is a lack of belief, and even if evolution was disproved it wouldn't change most atheists mind, not to mention I few atheists who reject evolution.
K
kenisyes
Guest
i don't have time to listen to all of the hour long 2nd video you found, so I will provide the answer that the OP claims is lacking.
He says all creationists can do is shrug their shoulders and say God put it that way, and give no reason.
First, the only proof that we did in fact evolve is if we were there to watch it happen. That is clearly impossible, since we could not watch it until after we evolved. No matter what the DNA tell us, it our assumption that this particular assemblage happened by evolution. The best we can say, is that it might have happened that way.
So here is the other theory: God had the earth make animals. (Gen. 1:24). He then used the ones He wanted to create the body for man. Now, here's why He waited. God knew what our DNA must look like, and that it must have this "fused gene" of the ape, long before the earth ever made the ape, if man was to be what God wanted for the earth. But the earth did not know this. If earth was to accept man's rule (vs. 26 and 28), He needed to make sure that earth considered our bodies compatible with it. Hence, His command to earth to create animals. See, I can give a reason. That restores both creationism and evolution to a theory.
Now, let's get to theory vs. fact. There is no such things as facts discoverable from earth observation. That's because our mind is always part of the observation process. Let me get more specific:
There are four kinds of knowing:
1. You know something because you discovered it, like that gravity pulls things down (watch a baby when he loses a toy: he cries until you come in and look on the floor for it).
2. You know something because it is socially convenient to do so, like Columbus discovered America.
3. You know something because there is no reason to question it. You would never doubt your own name, until the police show up with the records that show you were kidnapped as a 3 year old and renamed.
4. You know something because it is imprinted on your soul. Like 2+2=4. Problem is, these are not facts in the real world. We all know, that if you have 2 trillion dollars on one side of town, and 2 trillion on the other side, and bring them together to count them, the government will find out you have that much money (by watching the trucks hauling it through satellite) and tax you and take half away, so 2+2=2. Einstein has a famous quote to the same effect, which is too long for here.
For Plato, such knowledge as imprinted in our soul, not part of the real world, proved the existence of the eternal, and thus of at least some kind of creator.
Scientific knowledge, by definition, is all of type 1. It is all theory. in fact, even they tell us things do not fall down in open outer space.
The decision for me is simple. Evolution, and even a punishing creator, cannot account for human creativity. We have the ability to envision new worlds that cannot possibly exist, and then to act in them (like in video games). That ability serves no worldly function, so cannot come from natural selection. It is also a waste of time for a creator to put it there, unless we are to be one day co-creators of something better.
We have two incompatible theories: 1. Everything is an accident, so I therefore serve no ultimate purpose, 2. God created me, so I have a wonderful ultimate purpose. But I see myself create new worlds. Since neither theory can be proven or disproven, I will pick the one that agrees with what I can see, not with something no one has ever seen, but just supposes by inference.
He says all creationists can do is shrug their shoulders and say God put it that way, and give no reason.
First, the only proof that we did in fact evolve is if we were there to watch it happen. That is clearly impossible, since we could not watch it until after we evolved. No matter what the DNA tell us, it our assumption that this particular assemblage happened by evolution. The best we can say, is that it might have happened that way.
So here is the other theory: God had the earth make animals. (Gen. 1:24). He then used the ones He wanted to create the body for man. Now, here's why He waited. God knew what our DNA must look like, and that it must have this "fused gene" of the ape, long before the earth ever made the ape, if man was to be what God wanted for the earth. But the earth did not know this. If earth was to accept man's rule (vs. 26 and 28), He needed to make sure that earth considered our bodies compatible with it. Hence, His command to earth to create animals. See, I can give a reason. That restores both creationism and evolution to a theory.
Now, let's get to theory vs. fact. There is no such things as facts discoverable from earth observation. That's because our mind is always part of the observation process. Let me get more specific:
There are four kinds of knowing:
1. You know something because you discovered it, like that gravity pulls things down (watch a baby when he loses a toy: he cries until you come in and look on the floor for it).
2. You know something because it is socially convenient to do so, like Columbus discovered America.
3. You know something because there is no reason to question it. You would never doubt your own name, until the police show up with the records that show you were kidnapped as a 3 year old and renamed.
4. You know something because it is imprinted on your soul. Like 2+2=4. Problem is, these are not facts in the real world. We all know, that if you have 2 trillion dollars on one side of town, and 2 trillion on the other side, and bring them together to count them, the government will find out you have that much money (by watching the trucks hauling it through satellite) and tax you and take half away, so 2+2=2. Einstein has a famous quote to the same effect, which is too long for here.
For Plato, such knowledge as imprinted in our soul, not part of the real world, proved the existence of the eternal, and thus of at least some kind of creator.
Scientific knowledge, by definition, is all of type 1. It is all theory. in fact, even they tell us things do not fall down in open outer space.
The decision for me is simple. Evolution, and even a punishing creator, cannot account for human creativity. We have the ability to envision new worlds that cannot possibly exist, and then to act in them (like in video games). That ability serves no worldly function, so cannot come from natural selection. It is also a waste of time for a creator to put it there, unless we are to be one day co-creators of something better.
We have two incompatible theories: 1. Everything is an accident, so I therefore serve no ultimate purpose, 2. God created me, so I have a wonderful ultimate purpose. But I see myself create new worlds. Since neither theory can be proven or disproven, I will pick the one that agrees with what I can see, not with something no one has ever seen, but just supposes by inference.
The fact of evolution
Notice how there are no human or mammal fossils at the bottom of the
geologic column. All it would take is one fossil out of order and evolution
could be disproved. However, the geologic column reflects exactly what
evolution predicts - the gradual rise of complexity.
Notice how there are no human or mammal fossils at the bottom of the
geologic column. All it would take is one fossil out of order and evolution
could be disproved. However, the geologic column reflects exactly what
evolution predicts - the gradual rise of complexity.
K
kenisyes
Guest
Or, it proves that the more advanced creatures were able to run inland longer as the rising flood waters piled the dying creatures up. By the way, these organized fossils only really work on the Atlantic rim. Things are much more mixed together on the Pacific rim.
L
livingepistle
Guest
Questions:
Scientifically, has it been proven that genetic recidivism is inevitable among all life on this planet?
Is it true that without genetic manipulation, DNA is the building blocks of all life on this planet?
Is it also true that DNA sequencing in its natural state within each species is a mystery when considering evolution; e.g., the DNA sequence was arranged with intent?
Is it true that scientifically, the only way to arrive at a plausible hypothesis is that DNA sequencing must have either been created that way or arranged that way for each species to anatomically exist in its current state/appearance/makeup?
Please provide references to your answers should you chose to answer my questions. Thanks and I look forward to your responses.
T
TomH
Guest
I know Dr. Dino got busted for tax evasion, but there are credible scientists on both sides of this debate accusing each other of pseudoscience. Evolution has not been proven. It is not fact. It is a hypothesis. It is faith based. Your saying that atheism is just a lack of belief, not belief, does not negate the fact that atheists believe there is no God that created the universe just like they believe that, instead of God creating everything, everything just came from nothing and magically changed from chaos into complex order without any intelligent design or operation involved. It really just comes down to whether you believe Charles Darwin or God. I choose God. I was taught evolution as fact when I was in school and even did a paper on it, but, like some other crazy things I used to believe, I know better now. If you want to believe evolution, bro, go for it, but it ain't fact. It is a belief system based on disbelief in God. I prefer the word of God.
L
livingepistle
Guest
<I am not a geneticist but do believe in Creation by the will of a greater external force--Jesus>
Scientific observation alone does not prove anything where evolution is concerned. All this and your other data proves is that each macro-evolution process is specific and restricted to the particular species of-which-it-belongs. You are making the case for creation; exempli gratia, never in the history of science have we seen any force able to break the DNA sequence of the gene; if you have data more recent than what is being stated in this paragraph, please share.
Consider the facts of genetic engineering: Scientist can change the sequence of the DNA spiral by the technique of gene splicing. They can create by these processes hybrid life forms. Changing the sequence was not done naturally neither can it be--it must happen by external influence and must have happened at the will of that external (force) influence that has an understanding of its structure. Nature as an "environmental force" has "no-conscience" but function by the laws of physics.
Please, share your thoughts they are respected.
What's the point to feeding this thread? The op is not an honest skeptic and has no desire to seek the Lord. Who knows what spirit drives him. The whole intent is to waste time, create confusion, and insult those who love Jesus.
May God bless my brothers and sisters in the Lord and may He use us for His glory in bringing others to Christ with love and grace. In Jesus name. Amen
May God bless my brothers and sisters in the Lord and may He use us for His glory in bringing others to Christ with love and grace. In Jesus name. Amen
1. The fossil record clearly demonstrates in an unambiguous way that animals have been changing over time. It clearly shows speciation and evolution. The dating of rocks is verified by several different methods. We would have to throw out the book on nuclear physics, chemistry, and geology to deny the ages.
2. There are several types of evidence involving genetics beyond the ones I listed.
a. Humans have a different number of chromosomes than the other great apes but the evidence is very compelling that one of our chromosomes is the result of fusion of two ape chromosomes. It is beyond difficult to explain the fused chromosome without admitting that humans and apes share a common ancestor.http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome…
b. Mitochondrial DNA studies have been done on thousands of different species. There is a section of DNA on the mitochondria that doesn't code for proteins and is free to randomly accumulate mutations. It is used as a sort of clock to show evolutionary relationships. When they sequence a few hundred base-pairs as is common, the odds of one of those sequences occurring randomly is one over a number with hundreds of zeros. The sequences show humans are 91% similar to chimps. We are less closely related to gorillas. They are not just randomly different. They are different in a way that suggests a common ancestor of humans and chimps. Chimps and humans share many of the differences between themselves and gorillas but have had enough time to accumulate many separate differences. That pattern is consistent with all other animals. It is powerful mathematical proof of evolution.
c. Many genes and genetic markers are shared by closely related animals. Some genes are maintained by virtually all animals but the number of genes that are similar or the same increases as they are more closely related. That also applies to non-coding regions so the argument that a similar animal will have similar genes is just distortion of actual data.
3. The logic in the writings of Darwin was so persuasive that it is impossible to ignore without just ignoring the evidence. We can see it in our domesticated animals and it is silly to think that nature can't select desirable characteristics. We know the time frames involved and we see how animals, including people, are adapted with regional differences. If there are persuasive arguments about errors in Darwin's simple logic, I haven't heard them.
About the most persuasive argument against evolution is that we don't know how life first started. That may be so but we know that the life equivalent to modern bacteria started about 3.5 to 3.9 billion years ago. If God created life, he create bacteria almost 4 billion years ago and humans have only been around a tiny percentage of that time. The same egocentric view believing humans are the center of the universe falls flat on its face when you consider the hundreds of billions of other galaxies and the vast time they have been around.
2. There are several types of evidence involving genetics beyond the ones I listed.
a. Humans have a different number of chromosomes than the other great apes but the evidence is very compelling that one of our chromosomes is the result of fusion of two ape chromosomes. It is beyond difficult to explain the fused chromosome without admitting that humans and apes share a common ancestor.http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome…
b. Mitochondrial DNA studies have been done on thousands of different species. There is a section of DNA on the mitochondria that doesn't code for proteins and is free to randomly accumulate mutations. It is used as a sort of clock to show evolutionary relationships. When they sequence a few hundred base-pairs as is common, the odds of one of those sequences occurring randomly is one over a number with hundreds of zeros. The sequences show humans are 91% similar to chimps. We are less closely related to gorillas. They are not just randomly different. They are different in a way that suggests a common ancestor of humans and chimps. Chimps and humans share many of the differences between themselves and gorillas but have had enough time to accumulate many separate differences. That pattern is consistent with all other animals. It is powerful mathematical proof of evolution.
c. Many genes and genetic markers are shared by closely related animals. Some genes are maintained by virtually all animals but the number of genes that are similar or the same increases as they are more closely related. That also applies to non-coding regions so the argument that a similar animal will have similar genes is just distortion of actual data.
3. The logic in the writings of Darwin was so persuasive that it is impossible to ignore without just ignoring the evidence. We can see it in our domesticated animals and it is silly to think that nature can't select desirable characteristics. We know the time frames involved and we see how animals, including people, are adapted with regional differences. If there are persuasive arguments about errors in Darwin's simple logic, I haven't heard them.
About the most persuasive argument against evolution is that we don't know how life first started. That may be so but we know that the life equivalent to modern bacteria started about 3.5 to 3.9 billion years ago. If God created life, he create bacteria almost 4 billion years ago and humans have only been around a tiny percentage of that time. The same egocentric view believing humans are the center of the universe falls flat on its face when you consider the hundreds of billions of other galaxies and the vast time they have been around.
Francis Collins is a Christian and also headed the human genome project. He has no problem
reconciling his faith with evolution and neither do I. This thread is in response to Pahu's thread
http://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/27991-science-disproves-evolution.html which is, at this
time, about 20 pages of misinformation.
Anyway, here is some more actual evidence:
If you look at chromosome 2 in chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans there are two telomeres. Humans have the same two telomeres except that ours are noticeably and obviously fused together. That is the smoking gun evidence to shows that humans evolved from common descent.
