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.
Ariel82 said:
haven't a clue what you are referring to

and you have probably made false assumption about my beliefs and position concerning evolution.

it happens when people group people in a "us" versus "them" false dicotomy.
Click to expand...

When you mentioned that it was a "money making scheme".
 
Crucifiction said:
It's funny how they say the dating methods are flawed but when they think
they've found Noah's Ark the dating results are perfectly acceptable.

Noah's Ark Found in Turkey?

"The team says radiocarbon-dated wood taken from the discovery site—whose location they're keeping secret for now—shows the purported ark is about 4,800 years old, which coincides roughly with the time of Noah's flood implied by the Bible."
Click to expand...

the irony is if you keep reading you will see the creationist objects and calls this "find" false....

it might help if you read ALL the article before you post it as your "proof"

Biologist Todd Wood is director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College in Tennessee, which pursues biology in a creationist framework.
As a creationist, Wood believes God created Earth and its various life-forms out of nothing roughly 6,000 years ago.
"If you accept a young chronology for the Earth ... then radiocarbon dating has to be reinterpreted," because the method often yields dates much older than 6,000 years, Wood said.
Radiocarbon dating estimates the ages of organic objects by measuring the radioisotope carbon 14, which is known to decay at a set rate over time. The method is generally thought to reach its limit with objects about 60,000 years old. Earth is generally thought to be about four and a half billion years old.
Across the board, radiocarbon dates need to be recalibrated, Wood believes, to reflect shorter time frames.
Given this perceived overestimation in radiocarbon dating, the wood the Noah's Ark Ministries International team found should have a "traditional" radiocarbon date of several tens of thousands of years if the wood is truly 4,800 years old, Wood said.
"I'm really, really skeptical that this could possibly be Noah's Ark," he added. The wood date is "way, way, way too young."
Wood thinks Noah's ark will never be found, because "it would have been prime timber after the flood," he said.
"If you just got off the ark, and there's no trees, what are you going to build your house out of? You've got a huge boat made of wood, so let's use that," he said. "So I think it got torn apart and scavenged for building material basically."
Click to expand...
 
Ariel82 said:
A common misunderstanding is that the fossils themselves are dated, when its actually the rock layer/ strata that the fossils are found in that are carbon dated. if they are older than 50, 000 years then they date the igneous rock layers above and below it. typically using uranium radioactive isotope decay. however once that reaches the lead stage its useless as well.

however that doesn't prove the age of the fossil. just the age of the rock the organism was fossilized in.
Click to expand...

Well, this rock is 4.4 billion years old.
The Oldest Rock In The World Tells Us A Story : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR

Does anyone here think the earth is 6,000 years old?
 
Grey said:
So what evidence do you have for this vast scientific conspiracy? Are you an insider perhaps?
Click to expand...

I actually wanted to believe they'd found the Ark. Maybe they did. Unfortunately, there's been a few articles on the internet that say it was all faked. Point is, it might well have been faked, so we can't use it in this debate. It may not have been, but again, there's no proof it's true either.
 
Can someone who believes in evolution please explain this, How did a symbiotic plant and insect "evolve" at the same rate so that neither killed each other off? They are dependent on each so if one changed how didn't it kill off the other?
 
If a Christian wants to believe that parts of evolution are true, that's fine by me.
If an atheist wants to believe in evolution, that is their choice.
The problem comes in when atheists/skeptics use evolution as a crutch to claim or believe God did not create the world or universe. That is a logical fallacy.
 
Grey said:
When you mentioned that it was a "money making scheme".
Click to expand...
in my opinion, this is the correct ark. You must compare it to the ancient Sumerian story "Enmerkar and the Lords of Arratu". The residents of Arratu (Egyptian for Arrarat) are stripping jipar (same as gopher with an accent) wood from somewhere, and Enmerkar threatens war if necessary, to get some jipar wood to make his temple "shine like the apsu(Primordial sky)". Fasold's gopher wood is concrete impregnated with metal, so the story dovetails perfectly.

Here is the story that is causing the comment: When Fasold found the ark, he attempted to raise funds to bribe the Trukish government (who actually calls this place "Noah's Ark National Park") to let him dig, by doing lectures. Scientists sued him in Australian Court. Their accusations were: "Everyone knows the Bible is a lie. Therefore,there is no flood and no ark. Therefore, Fasold is lying to swindle people." Five years went by, before the Australian court threw the lawsuit out, but only because they decided they had no right to rule of if the Bible is a lie. Fasold died during these five years, and sadly, one of his own expert witnesses had convinced him that the ark is just a natural formation. It is sad he never heard the story of Enmerkar, as his book and lectures are full of the same kind on comparative Egyptian and Sumerian cognate lore.
 
danschance said:
If a Christian wants to believe that parts of evolution are true, that's fine by me.
If an atheist wants to believe in evolution, that is their choice.
The problem comes in when atheists/skeptics use evolution as a crutch to claim or believe God did not create the world or universe. That is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

yeah i totally agree. its when they mix the theory of evolution with the theory of abiogenesis or the Big bang theory that I question why they make that link.

even if you believe in evolution, it doesn't support the idea that flies come from mud.

Biology teaches that flies come from the eggs laid in the mud, that become larvae and eventually grow and become flies. the inanimate mud does not produce the flies.

I find it interesting when "scientist" try and prove that live can be created from the basic building blocks of life, by introducing catalyst or stepping in to make the reaction happen. IF you look at the cell its so complex that you wonder why people don't see the unlikelihood that such things could have happened by random chance.

images
 
danschance said:
Is that a fact? So if one needs a biology class to understand evolution, then why are you in a faith based forum debating evolution?
Click to expand...

By all means you don't need it, but I found it odd that you said a physics class.
 
Ariel82 said:
yeah i totally agree. its when they mix the theory of evolution with the theory of abiogenesis or the Big bang theory that I question why they make that link.

even if you believe in evolution, it doesn't support the idea that flies come from mud.

Biology teaches that flies come from the eggs laid in the mud, that become larvae and eventually grow and become flies. the inanimate mud does not produce the flies.

I find it interesting when "scientist" try and prove that live can be created from the basic building blocks of life, by introducing catalyst or stepping in to make the reaction happen. IF you look at the cell its so complex that you wonder why people don't see the unlikelihood that such things could have happened by random chance.

images
Click to expand...

No one believes that flies come from mud, if thats what you think the abiogenesis theory is you have greatly misconstrued it.
 
sarcasm tends to be lost over the internet....<sigh>

the physics class comment if you missed it shouldn't be hard to figure out. just go back a few pages...

so tell me what is this "abiogenesis" theory and do you believe it is true?
 
HollyLoree said:
You said you haven't even taken physics. You call Wikipedia a peer reviewed cite? Do you realize that Wikipedia can't be used as a reference in college academia? It's not recognized by the academic world as competent!

Obviously you didn't know that. See the trend?

By the way, have I seen you post a peer reviewed article yet?
Click to expand...

Until you actually point out what's wrong with the arguments and science I am presenting
all you are doing is committing logical fallacies. This thread is full of ad hominem attacks,
red herrings, and straw man arguments.

It seems people on this forum think facts matter less than how you present them. Facts
are facts.
 
SarahM777 said:
Can someone who believes in evolution please explain this, How did a symbiotic plant and insect "evolve" at the same rate so that neither killed each other off? They are dependent on each so if one changed how didn't it kill off the other?
Click to expand...

Very good SaraM777! ;)
 
Ariel82 said:
sarcasm tends to be lost over the internet....<sigh>

the physics class comment if you missed it shouldn't be hard to figure out. just go back a few pages...

so tell me what is this "abiogenesis" theory and do you believe it is true?
Click to expand...

I see it as a very likely explanation as to why life arose, its the theory that life arose from simple organic compounds from 3-4 billion years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back