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.
Crucifiction said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually you are continually committing logical fallacies in your arguments. You also obviously don't understand what logical fallacies are. They're errors in you logic. They cause you to draw inaccurate conclusions. You have presented nothing but a Wikipedia article, which from what I saw, showed some results to some tests which provided possibilities that might support the theory of evolution if nothing else comes into play to discount these results. You're not talking to a room full of scientists, and you've admitted you've never even taken a physics course in college, and I didn't even see you say you've ever taken biology. Everyone has presented reasons why they believe this can't be true. You answer with logical fallacies. You want to talk about straw man arguments? Yours represents the very definition of a "straw man argument." lol.
 
Crucifiction, I am not here to debate but when it comes evidence against evolution, it is not just the Bible. From evidence for evolution, the Christian creationist can see that the evidence that you have for evolution actually fits into a creationist framework. So the question is not that the evidence supports evolution, the question should be how one interprets the evidence that is found and is presented. Then based on the theory of evolution, that not all scientists believe in, from looking at the evidence, depending on ones viewpoint, it will either ''prove'' evolution or ''prove''. I put those ''proves'' in quotation to state that science cannot ''prove'' anything, which is why when it comes to science it annoys me when people take science to ''prove'' something instead of giving evidence. But Crucifiction, while I did not know all about the theory of evolution, I decided to read creationist books and examine things, and I found out that evolution did not make sense, based on the lack of evidence for evolution. But again if you continue to believe in evolution, fine. But understand that there is evidence for creationism, that not all scientists believe in evolution, and that science cannot prove anything.

Plus as one person mentioned, if one is a Christian, they have to believe that the Bible is true, that it should guide their life, that the moral law that stays the same in the New Testament and the Old Testament should be followed, that it should be read, and that prayer and thought and the Holy Spirit help determine what the Bible says plus comparing translations. If one claims a Christian but believes only parts of the Bible are true and the rest is false, they are only a Christian in name only and if they believe they should not believe the whole Bible at all. But that is all I want to say for now. I am not debating here, but please stop using logical fallacies and please listen to what the other side is saying, then think about what they are saying, and then decide if you want to reexamine the issue or stay where you are. The choice is yours. Thank you. God bless.
 
Crucifiction said:
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.
Click to expand...

Things tending towards disorder for 4.5 billion years translates into 1.4 million different species? That's how disorder works?
 
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...

Wow, Ariel82. Thanks for the info! I didn't realize that. Very good to know!
 
Georgiana said:
Things tending towards disorder for 4.5 billion years translates into 1.4 million different species? That's how disorder works?
Click to expand...

Thats not what entropy actually is! Entropy is a very difficult concept to try to explain, but in one sense its basically a way of talking about the tendency of a system to tend to move toward the lowest energy and therefore most probable state. It's not just "disorder." The classic example of this in statistical mechanics is the air in a room. There's a very very slim chance that all the air in a room will be scrunched up into a corner, but its much more probable to find them dispersed more or less evenly throughout the room. Some scientists have even started calling entropy a measure of the amount of "information" in a system, but what that means exactly I'm not entirely sure.

Lifeforms are entropy machines. We create ordered complex systems, at the expensive of heat from the environment. Entropy itself won't create life, but it determines how its organized. There have even been studies that show that intelligence can arise from entropic principles given the right environmental conditions.

Basically what Im saying is that entropy drives life, but doesn't like create it. It just kind of shapes how things in general tend to be organized.
 
Entropy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[h=2]Definition of ENTROPY[/h]1
: a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system

2
a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity
b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder

3
: chaos, disorganization, randomness
— en·tro·pic adjective

timarr.gif


entropy.gif


Entropy-Seminar_2788-l.jpg
 
Entropy | Free Full-Text | Entropy and Entropy Production: Old Misconceptions and New Breakthroughs

Persistent misconceptions existing for dozens of years and influencing progress in various fields of science are sometimes encountered in the scientific and especially, the popular-science literature. The present brief review deals with two such interrelated misconceptions (misunderstandings). The first misunderstanding: entropy is a measure of disorder. This is an old and very common opinion. The second misconception is that the entropy production minimizes in the evolution of nonequilibrium systems. However, as it has recently become clear, evolution (progress) in Nature demonstrates the opposite, i.e., maximization of the entropy production. The principal questions connected with this maximization are considered herein. The two misconceptions mentioned above can lead to the apparent contradiction between the conclusions of modern thermodynamics and the basic conceptions of evolution existing in biology. In this regard, the analysis of these issues seems extremely important and timely as it contributes to the deeper understanding of the laws of development of the surrounding World and the place of humans in it.
Click to expand...
 
Crucifiction said:
Why do men have nipples?
Click to expand...

because their DNA is majority the same except that they have an Y chromosome instead of an extra X.

therefore most of the characteristics (genes for organs, skin, bone, muscles, nipples, etc) are the same except for the ones controlled by the genes on the Y chromosome. However one must keep in mind that men have an XY combination and women have an XX. therefore men still have genes on the X chromosome they inherited from their mothers.
 
danschance said:
LOL, no it's not.
Click to expand...

1) that's kind of rude

2) it is at its core a higher level concept. At an introductory level it can seem fairly straightforward, but as you go into statistical mechanics and thermodynamics it gets much more complicated and intricate, both mathematically and conceptually. It mostly depends on the system your looking at.
 
apocalypseArisen said:
1) that's kind of rude

2) it is at its core a higher level concept. At an introductory level it can seem fairly straightforward, but as you go into statistical mechanics and thermodynamics it gets much more complicated and intricate, both mathematically and conceptually. It mostly depends on the system your looking at.
Click to expand...


1) No it is not rude. What is rude is atheists who come here day after day and try to prove evolution is true when this is a faith based forum.

2) Entropy is discussed in High school beginning chemistry, which for the most part is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics all about. It is a very simple concept which has broad brush implications.

I have taken 5 semesters of physics, 3 semesters of chemistry, algebra, trigonometry, geometry,probability and statistics, 4 semesters of calculus and many other classes on the sciences. So please don't insult my intelligence by saying it is too difficult to discuss because I know better. I could teach the concepts of entropy to 6th graders.

Here a man teaches entropy to kids in 2 minutes.
[video=youtube;RwQjNViBinE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwQjNViBinE[/video]
 
danschance said:
1) No it is not rude. What is rude is atheists who come here day after day and try to prove evolution is true when this is a faith based forum.
Click to expand...

We have as much a need to prove evolution as we do prove the earth isn't flat. I post on threads concerning evolution, not to "prove" anything, but clear up the misinformation campaign that was all to popular with me when I was a Christian.
 
danschance said:
I have taken 5 semesters of physics, 3 semesters of chemistry, algebra, trigonometry, geometry,probability and statistics, 4 semesters of calculus and many other classes on the sciences. So please don't insult my intelligence by saying it is too difficult to discuss because I know better. I could teach the concepts of entropy to 6th graders.
Click to expand...

Check your pride at the door, brother. You can't cut off somebody's nose and then hand them a rose to smell. :)
 
Grey said:
We have as much a need to prove evolution as we do prove the earth isn't flat. I post on threads concerning evolution, not to "prove" anything, but clear up the misinformation campaign that was all to popular with me when I was a Christian.
Click to expand...


In other words, you are trying to correct us in our belief that God created everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back