Evolution is change over time. The earth is 4.5 billion
years old. That's A LOT of time! So yes it makes sense
that the diversity of life can be explained by evolution.
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.
Evolution is change over time. The earth is 4.5 billion
years old. That's A LOT of time! So yes it makes sense
that the diversity of life can be explained by evolution.
real scientists said asbestos was ok, real scientists base there findings on previous presumed to be proved evidence, real scientists can change there opinions in a moment when new evidents is discovered, your believe in real scientists takes some faith. real scientists cant create a man out of basic ingredients in a lab. Real scientists cant see a rock heading out the sky and hitting russia but apparently can see billions of light years away, theses same telescopes cant even show us a mans foot print on the moon. So you believe in your real scientists and i'll trust my God. and maybe we'll see one day whose deluded.
C
Christabel
Guest
What proof? I saw no proof in that article whatsoever! I kept searching and searching, but saw nothing. There is evidence, true. But there's no proof! The front door left open is evidence my friend left my house by my front door. But the back door closed doesn't mean he didn't leave that way! All variables must be weighed out, and I do mean ALL applicable variables before a theory graduates to a recognized fact. I don't get this. People apparently believe what they want to OBVIOUSLY even if takes an impossible amount of faith to believe in it; and in this case, that obviously includes science. You've ignored all arguments presented to you and continue to doggedly defend that which is nothing more than a theory. Potential evidence is not proof that a theory is a fact! There's no point in debating something with someone that refuses to acknowledge any points presented to them other than to brush them off without ever addressing anything other than their own side of the argument. *sigh*
C
Christabel
Guest
Are you here simply to fight the Christian belief in the Bible? You say you're a Christian? You obviously don't believe in the story of Noah's Ark now as well? If you're not a believer, then say so. But you can't claim to believe, but at the same time, discount everything the Bible teaches. Doesn't work that way.
Somehow you missed the mountains of evidence here:
[TABLE="class: outline, width: 1322"]
[TR]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Introduction
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 2. Past history
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 4. Molecular evidence
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 5. Change
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Introduction
- Universal Common Descent Defined
- Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
- What Counts as Scientific Evidence
- Other Explanations for the Biology
- How to Cite This Document
- Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
- Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
- Statistical support for phylogenies
- Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
- Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree
- Unity of life
- Nested hierarchies
- Convergence of independent phylogenies
- Transitional forms
- Chronology of common ancestors
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 2. Past history
- Anatomical vestiges
- Atavisms
- Molecular vestiges
- Ontogeny and developmental biology
- Present biogeography
- Past biogeography
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism
- Anatomical parahomology
- Molecular parahomology
- Anatomical convergence
- Molecular convergence
- Anatomical suboptimal function
- Molecular suboptimal function
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 4. Molecular evidence
- Protein functional redundancy
- DNA functional redundancy
- Transposons
- Redundant pseudogenes
- Endogenous retroviruses
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 5. Change
- Genetic
- Morphological
- Functional
- The strange past
- Stages of speciation
- Speciation events
- Morphological rates
- Genetic rates
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Take some time to familiarize yourself with it instead of being willfully ignorant.
Yes, they can. Human Cloning Likely Possible Though Unethical, Experts Say
Yes, they can. NASA - NASA-Funded Asteroid Tracking Sensor Passes Key Test
You know that cell phone, computer, and car you use is all based on science? The medicine
that keeps people alive and medical procedures that lengthen our lifespan, it's all based on
science! Evolution is based on the SAME science, the same scientific principle. It works!
Logical fallacy police!
Citation issued: Violation of Ad Hominem attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I can't believe in God without believing the Noah's Ark story? What if I want to believe in God
but believe the Noah's Ark story is most likely a fictional fairy tale? And the flood was most
likely a local one instead of global because there is no geological evidence for a global flood?
There are people here that believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the sun revolves
around the earth. I get called a non believer when I point out the platypus is indigenous to
Australia?
A
Ariel82
Guest
not going to address these point made in the article YOU posted?
"Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one ancient, original species (broadly defined as a communal population of organisms exchanging genetic material)."
.........
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.
all the "evidence" you have doesn't address the possibility that GOD created two of each kind of creature and had them populate the world. The article you quote starts after "a communal population of organisms exchanging genetic material)." has already been established.
therefore it has no relevance on Genesis or creation but merely explains what happens to he animals after they disembarked from the ark.
look at human migration population studies. there are numerous papers that trace the mitochondrial DNA back to an "Eve" or common ancestor in Africa.
The DNA evidence doesn't disprove the Bible. most articles will admit that they can only trace it as far back as the communial gene pool.
you want to show that you know what you are talking about please in your own words without the use of a cut and paste option define the words I posted previously. I'll go back and get them for you....
"Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one ancient, original species (broadly defined as a communal population of organisms exchanging genetic material)."
.........
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.
all the "evidence" you have doesn't address the possibility that GOD created two of each kind of creature and had them populate the world. The article you quote starts after "a communal population of organisms exchanging genetic material)." has already been established.
therefore it has no relevance on Genesis or creation but merely explains what happens to he animals after they disembarked from the ark.
look at human migration population studies. there are numerous papers that trace the mitochondrial DNA back to an "Eve" or common ancestor in Africa.
The DNA evidence doesn't disprove the Bible. most articles will admit that they can only trace it as far back as the communial gene pool.
you want to show that you know what you are talking about please in your own words without the use of a cut and paste option define the words I posted previously. I'll go back and get them for you....
A
Ariel82
Guest
Look up abiogenesis. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
I will help you get started.
Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life
Abiogenesis - RationalWiki
A
Ariel82
Guest
you don't even see your illogical statements.....
the platypus ... ever heard of bottleneck?
explaining how the platypus evolved doesn't change the fact that Evolution tries and trace things back to a "common ancestor"
who then could have been on Noah's ark.
Do want to talk about speciation?
its really simple my seven year old could explain it to you.
Colossians 4:6:
"Let your utterance be always with graciousness, seasoned with salt,
so as to know how you ought to give an answer to each one."
A
Ariel82
Guest
dear girl Abiogenesis was proven false by Pasteur and Redi's experiments.
want to try and have a conversation without your website blankets?
A
Ariel82
Guest
You mean the Redi who died in 1697 and Pasteur who died in 1895?
I'm afraid modern science has changed a lot since then. The study
of abiogenesis is still ongoing.
What part does light have with darkness...what part christ with baal.
Deal with it
Evolution stinks.
is it me are do you smell fish?
I thought it was platypus? Can you explain how the platypus went from the middle east
and Noah's ark to Australia along with the kangaroo, wallaby, koala, wombat, tasmanian
devil, and native hopping mouse?
Jerry Coyne talks about speciation in the videos I posted. Take it up with him he's
an actual biologist!
A
Ariel82
Guest
so you don't actually have a clue?
don't need the videos, actually have a degree in Biology. just wanted to see if you were being honest or a parrot.
would you really like a lesson about the platypus?
I have more articles on human migrational patterns but you won't be able to access them without a password since they are actually published in scienitific journals and not just the internet.
it almost midnight and you still haven't any of the points I asked you to.
the animals of Australia are explained by the bottleneck effect.
if you truly understood evolution and the terms posted above, I wouldn't have to explain how animals could have migrated from one point of origin such as the Middle east to Australia and resulted in the native animals there.
however I find that a lot of people just post articles but never bother really reading and understanding what is being said in any of the articles.
don't need the videos, actually have a degree in Biology. just wanted to see if you were being honest or a parrot.
would you really like a lesson about the platypus?
I have more articles on human migrational patterns but you won't be able to access them without a password since they are actually published in scienitific journals and not just the internet.
it almost midnight and you still haven't any of the points I asked you to.
the animals of Australia are explained by the bottleneck effect.
if you truly understood evolution and the terms posted above, I wouldn't have to explain how animals could have migrated from one point of origin such as the Middle east to Australia and resulted in the native animals there.
however I find that a lot of people just post articles but never bother really reading and understanding what is being said in any of the articles.