Science Proves Evolution

  • 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 pointed out the lack of thoroughness (by not testing the Bible before rejecting it as a source of evidence) and the inconsistency of the logic (by assuming that what is true today was always true, when there may have been some reason for it to have changed).
 
Siberian_Khatru said:
But isn't the premise of this whole thread to explore what is ,and why?
Click to expand...

I couldn't resist...


80629401.jpg
 
Crucifiction said:
I've just posted 29+ evidences of macroevolution. Just because you don't understand how a heart or
lung could evolve doesn't automatically mean a rib created an entire woman.

Early life experiment
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I read through your article. These could much more easily be evidence of microevolution rather than macro! The article itself says that! You call this proof?

Did anyone suggest this argument had anything to do with women coming from ribs?
 
(Posted to post #82) See we are evolving. With each successive generation we realize more how our words are useless to figure out God.
 
Crucifiction said:
Just to be clear here what part of science do you people disagree with?
Is it being thorough?
Using careful observation?
Being systematic?
Or using consistent logic?
Click to expand...

wow you need to take a class on logic and debating tactics.

cuz right now you are just being offensive and rude.
 
Crucifiction said:
I am a female and I don't have faith in science. I am actually looking at the evidence
and trying to understand it. Faith is defined as belief without evidence.
Click to expand...

Well I just finished taking an Ecology course at a major university under a secular instructor that has a doctorate in Ecology, and the first thing he told the class was this: "don't ever let anyone tell you that a theory is an absolute fact! A theory only involves that which can be studied in a laboratory setting under limited circumstances. It is impossible to take all possible variables into account within that laboratory setting that must be taken into account in order to prove that theory is absolutely a fact!"

This man was not a Christian. This man has a doctorate in Ecology. There you are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crucifiction said:
And where are the creationist papers/journals that have been peer reviewed by actual scientists?
Click to expand...

"Actual scientists"

Obviously your definition of "actual scientists" only involves those that believe in macro-evolution.
 
natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation.

if we are going to discuss evolution we should define the above words...

think you can do it without cutting and pasting an article or video?

cuz at this point all i see is a bunch of parroting.
 
Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin
Click to expand...

lol


notice the above statement? your article says the chicken came first.

I really wish people would remember this part...

Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
Click to expand...
 
Crucifiction said:
I've just posted 29+ evidences of macroevolution. Just because you don't understand how a heart or
lung could evolve doesn't automatically mean a rib created an entire woman.

Early life experiment
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I've always heard that one of the basic laws of physics basically says, "things tend to fall apart--not put themselves together." Have you stopped to consider the phenomenal improbability involved in this supposedly entirely uphill climb into mere existence you're striving to believe in? Let alone a single-celled organism multiplying, separating, and evoluting to such a massive degree, virtually thousands upon thousands of distinctive species eventually come into play? You're asking me to believe something of which the chances involved demand odds beyond the number scale. It's gonna take you phenomenally more faith to believe in this theory than it does in a divine creator. You want to put your money on that horse? You go right ahead. I'll keep mine.

By the way, where are these 29+evidences you speak of? I keep looking and looking at your posts, and can't find a single one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ariel82 said:
I'd love to see a phylogenetic tree done on this guy....

images
Click to expand...

Well quite obviously a duck crossed with a beaver. Use your imagination! (Except for the insignificant fact that their mating parts as well as patterns are impossibly different). But hey! That's where faith comes in. Right??
 
Crucifiction said:
I've just posted 29+ evidences of macroevolution. Just because you don't understand how a heart or
lung could evolve doesn't automatically mean a rib created an entire woman.
Click to expand...

UMM Where does any of us say that a rib created a woman? Now many of us believe that God took a rib from Adam and made a woman,but that is not a rib itself that created a woman,I mean that would just be silly.
 
Christabel said:
I read through your article. These could much more easily be evidence of microevolution rather than macro! The article itself says that! You call this proof?

Did anyone suggest this argument had anything to do with women coming from ribs?
Click to expand...

Sorry you won't be able to see macroevolution take place
because it takes too long. Just as the theory of evolution
predicts. You won't find a croc-o-duck or anything of that
sort. All of that is evidence that you would expect to find
if evolution were true so, yes, it is proof.
 
Christabel said:
"Actual scientists"

Obviously your definition of "actual scientists" only involves those that believe in macro-evolution.
Click to expand...

Real scientists don't have beliefs. They follow the evidence
wherever it lies. Real scientists don't assume to know the
answer without performing tests first. Scientists must leave
their faith at the door of the lab.
 
Crucifiction said:
Real scientists don't have beliefs. They follow the evidence
wherever it lies. Real scientists don't assume to know the
answer without performing tests first. Scientists must leave
their faith at the door of the lab.
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with my point? You're assuming then that those that believe in macro-evolution are the only ones that leave their faith at the door? Again and again, you assume an awful lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back