-
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.
My god! This forum is full of fail. 
When there are extraordinary claims made, there must be extraordinary evidence given to substantiate it.
So, for example, if I said "the Moon is a cube!" I'd have to be able to prove it . . . If I say that life evolved from a single cell into the diversity we now see, I'd HAVE TO prove it . . . If I said that god created everything, I'd HAVE TO prove it!
The thing is that the only evidence I've seen on this entire forum for creationism are Biblical quotations. Now, of course, I've seen no arguing about the Moon being squarular (I'll have to remember that's not a word) because we can all look up and see it -- and measure things using science and blah blah blah.
With evolution, we have reason to believe it. We have the "missing links," everywhere. We have genetics, we have theoretical proofs. (such as predicting chromosome loss when our ancestors branched off from chimpanzees and bonobos) All the evidence needed for it to be 'believed' is there AND MORE. But let me stop here for a second and clear something up.
"Missing link" is a misnomer. It implies that there's a single fossil, a single species, that connects one animal to another . . . well everything is a link to something else! Every single fossil of an extinct species we see has a link before and after it, connecting the flow of evolution to the present day. In that sense, there are no '"missing links" just links. When you say "missing link," what do you refer to?
When there are extraordinary claims made, there must be extraordinary evidence given to substantiate it.
So, for example, if I said "the Moon is a cube!" I'd have to be able to prove it . . . If I say that life evolved from a single cell into the diversity we now see, I'd HAVE TO prove it . . . If I said that god created everything, I'd HAVE TO prove it!
The thing is that the only evidence I've seen on this entire forum for creationism are Biblical quotations. Now, of course, I've seen no arguing about the Moon being squarular (I'll have to remember that's not a word) because we can all look up and see it -- and measure things using science and blah blah blah.
With evolution, we have reason to believe it. We have the "missing links," everywhere. We have genetics, we have theoretical proofs. (such as predicting chromosome loss when our ancestors branched off from chimpanzees and bonobos) All the evidence needed for it to be 'believed' is there AND MORE. But let me stop here for a second and clear something up.
"Missing link" is a misnomer. It implies that there's a single fossil, a single species, that connects one animal to another . . . well everything is a link to something else! Every single fossil of an extinct species we see has a link before and after it, connecting the flow of evolution to the present day. In that sense, there are no '"missing links" just links. When you say "missing link," what do you refer to?
Generally speaking, JaumeJ, you are quite right, with the proviso that evolutionary biologists generally don't speak of missing links anymore. That's an older term that leads to some misunderstanding, but it's still very popular with many media outlets and folks who don't have a solid handle on evolution. Scientists speak of transitional forms. Consider any animal for which we possess a good evolutionary record. Take these fossils and line them up and you find one continuous transformation from one form to another, rather like flipping through images of a cartoon character where each image is only slightly different from the one preceding. In any series of images where a figure is deliberately morphed into something quite different you would be hard pressed to pick out one picture that you would want to call the missing link. Missing links are really only transitional forms.
Would you mind restating this question. I don't really follow you. Are you asking if there is any evidence to link cave men to modern people? When you speak of cave men do you mean Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons or some other group? The latter share our genetic code and there is direct archeological evidence connecting them with ourselves. Neanderthals are different enough genetically that they are often considered a separate species.
That's really a matter where there is much disagreement. I actually see the opposite as being true.
Ow! Ouch! JaumeJ, point me to one evolutionist who has prayed to Darwin. Show me one person who thinks Darwin was resurrected. Point to one evolutionist who thinks Darwin is not dead, dead, dead! JaumeJ, he was just a man, and his work is a scientific theory, it is not sacred literature. I find it incredible you would even make such a claim. Perhaps you think Elivis is also a god? Popularity doesn't make one god-like, there must first be supernatural claims attached and with Darwin there are none. You know that. That is not something I have to tell you. You've made what can only be called a spurious claim.
This is brave coming from someone whose pretty much acknowledged that they have minimal understanding of evolution. I would challenge you to first pick up a copy from the library of Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters and read it. Then I will discuss with you whether evolution is full of holes.
Would you mind restating this question. I don't really follow you. Are you asking if there is any evidence to link cave men to modern people? When you speak of cave men do you mean Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons or some other group? The latter share our genetic code and there is direct archeological evidence connecting them with ourselves. Neanderthals are different enough genetically that they are often considered a separate species.
That's really a matter where there is much disagreement. I actually see the opposite as being true.
Ow! Ouch! JaumeJ, point me to one evolutionist who has prayed to Darwin. Show me one person who thinks Darwin was resurrected. Point to one evolutionist who thinks Darwin is not dead, dead, dead! JaumeJ, he was just a man, and his work is a scientific theory, it is not sacred literature. I find it incredible you would even make such a claim. Perhaps you think Elivis is also a god? Popularity doesn't make one god-like, there must first be supernatural claims attached and with Darwin there are none. You know that. That is not something I have to tell you. You've made what can only be called a spurious claim.
This is brave coming from someone whose pretty much acknowledged that they have minimal understanding of evolution. I would challenge you to first pick up a copy from the library of Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters and read it. Then I will discuss with you whether evolution is full of holes.
Hi Yeshy, I think we both know that Waters is just spouting off. It's likely he/she doesn't know enough about evolution to discus the matter, hence the unsupported statement. Just saying. Waters is free to prove me wrong of course, and I am more than willing to make a public apology for jumping the gun and passing judgement.
Actually I am familiar with the geologic time scale or column. Also I have studied stratigraphy and fossiliferous rock formation. This familiarity alone is enough to make any thinking person wonder just why the chain of evolution as per the theory has so many lengths of linking absent. You go ahead and believe in evolution, as for the mention of holding up Darwin as a religion, it is a faith to all who say it is true because, and you know, the theory is just that, a theory.
W
Absolutely. And let's not forget Piltdown Man. To quote from one website:
'In 1912 Piltdown Man hit the headlines. Evidence of the evolutionary 'missing link' between apes and humans had been found, in England. For the next 40 years this momentous discovery influenced research into human evolution. Then in 1953 Piltdown hit the headlines again, this time revealed as a hoax, a scientific fraud of shocking proportions'.
'In 1912 Piltdown Man hit the headlines. Evidence of the evolutionary 'missing link' between apes and humans had been found, in England. For the next 40 years this momentous discovery influenced research into human evolution. Then in 1953 Piltdown hit the headlines again, this time revealed as a hoax, a scientific fraud of shocking proportions'.
This cuts both ways, Naturalism makes much more extraordinary claims then does the existence of Santa Claus, not to even mention Creationanism. "Man came from Mud." Except life does not spontaneously compose in mud puddles. "But evolution doesn't cover that." If life did spontaneously pop into existence because of proper conditions of mud it would be included in evolution, but it doesn't and all the thousands of test to see if life "Popped" into existence "Naturally" all demonstrate that it did not. Since life could only have come into existence one of two ways, all of those thousands of scientific tests demonstrating that life did not come about "Naturally" are evidence for Creation.
Proving something that happened in the past is not possible. That is why we have forensic science. We can have theories about what happened in the past.
I can't speak for the others, but for me, this is just terribly uninteresting after the 2 billionth time. The arguments that you are making have been answered all over the web countless times. You can read about them and the counter arguments all by yourself and then when you have a educated question, bring it up.
Yikes. You should also learn more about your argument that you are making, than the cookie cutter public education propaganda bits that are being demonstrated.
Steven J. Gould, and that other guy that nobody knows, coined the idea of "Punk Eek", Punctuated equilibrium, stating that since the fossil records demonstrate that Gradualism (the idea you are putting forth) is not found in the fossil evidence, that "magic" transformation happened so that is why morphological changes are not in the fossil evidence.
This is not true, except in text books. In the real world, and in the field, species pop into existence fully complete and go extinct with no morphological changes implied by this naturalist view of evolution.
Proving something that happened in the past is not possible. That is why we have forensic science. We can have theories about what happened in the past.
I can't speak for the others, but for me, this is just terribly uninteresting after the 2 billionth time. The arguments that you are making have been answered all over the web countless times. You can read about them and the counter arguments all by yourself and then when you have a educated question, bring it up.
Yikes. You should also learn more about your argument that you are making, than the cookie cutter public education propaganda bits that are being demonstrated.
Steven J. Gould, and that other guy that nobody knows, coined the idea of "Punk Eek", Punctuated equilibrium, stating that since the fossil records demonstrate that Gradualism (the idea you are putting forth) is not found in the fossil evidence, that "magic" transformation happened so that is why morphological changes are not in the fossil evidence.
This is not true, except in text books. In the real world, and in the field, species pop into existence fully complete and go extinct with no morphological changes implied by this naturalist view of evolution.
Hi Waters, I'm a non-believer when it comes to Christianity, though I once counted myself Christian, some forty-seven years ago; and I am fully convinced of the reasonableness of evolutionary theory. Having studied both the Bible and evolution it's the latter alone that makes sense to me. I assure you evolutionary scientists know evolution is true, just as you know Jesus is the Way. They are not pretending anymore than you are – see, I accept your sincerity. On the other hand, I am not yet fully convinced of the Big Bang either. I'm rather partial still to some version of Fred Hoyle's hypothesis. Oh, Hoyle thought it was stupid too. That’s why he coined the derisive term for it that he did – The Big Bang! The name stuck.
Two things: 1 -- Origin of Life has nothing to do with evolution, and I know you said it does, but it really doesn't. It covers everything AFTER abiogenesis or genesis. 2 -- There have been many experiments that show abiogenesis is not possible under the circumstances that the experiment covers. However! -- as we learn more about what Early Earth Environments were like, we hone our ability to talk about it . . . The fact of the matter is we don't know how life got started, I'll be the first to admit it. Science is working on it. I'm not bothered by not knowing for a little while, and even if we NEVER discover how life on Earth formed, that's still no reason to believe in creationism . . . But once again, this is unrelated to evolution.
Excellent point, sir, excellent point! And just like a forensic science we look back and dive into the evidence, making claims that are 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Good point.
Like you said earlier, this cuts both ways. I too am disinterested in the same arguments being proposed; but for me, it's the creationist arguments.
I've watched some of Steven Gould's videos before. (Mount Saint Helens, Grand Canyon) He makes some interesting points, no doubt. But the thing is gradualism is clearly exhibited in the fossil record. We see the species slowly rise from the bottom to more complex. Now, in some cases there is practically no evolutionary change, but this just goes to show how evolution does not run off a standard and species can change faster or slower than others. The only way to explain how the strata go from aquatic to amphibian to reptilian to mammalian and on and on. The rising complexity is the greatest evidence and creationism's biggest failure as far as the geological record is concerned.
Well when you have an incomplete fossil record it is easy to assume that. We're lucky to have any fossils at all with the way the Earth has changed and shifted.
Thank you for your time, sir. I await your reply.
Excellent point, sir, excellent point! And just like a forensic science we look back and dive into the evidence, making claims that are 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Good point.
Like you said earlier, this cuts both ways. I too am disinterested in the same arguments being proposed; but for me, it's the creationist arguments.
I've watched some of Steven Gould's videos before. (Mount Saint Helens, Grand Canyon) He makes some interesting points, no doubt. But the thing is gradualism is clearly exhibited in the fossil record. We see the species slowly rise from the bottom to more complex. Now, in some cases there is practically no evolutionary change, but this just goes to show how evolution does not run off a standard and species can change faster or slower than others. The only way to explain how the strata go from aquatic to amphibian to reptilian to mammalian and on and on. The rising complexity is the greatest evidence and creationism's biggest failure as far as the geological record is concerned.
Well when you have an incomplete fossil record it is easy to assume that. We're lucky to have any fossils at all with the way the Earth has changed and shifted.
Thank you for your time, sir.
I await your reply.
2
Here let me help you with how things were created.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
pretty neat historical document, isn't it?
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
pretty neat historical document, isn't it?
What Maggie did, and what many creationists do is say, "Look evolutionists call evolution a theory; therefore, it is just guess work." That's the mistake, applying the colloquial meaning of theory as a guess instead of theory as the scientists mean it. In science theory is the highest form of understanding, underpinned by a tremendous amount of observation and experimentation. It brings us as close to truth as we are likely to come.
You need to listen to Eugenie Scott's explanation again. You seem to have missed the whole point, or you are simply disregarding the explanation.
***** 2. Evolution vs. Creationism:Is Evolution Just a Theory? ***** - YouTube
You need to listen to Eugenie Scott's explanation again. You seem to have missed the whole point, or you are simply disregarding the explanation.
***** 2. Evolution vs. Creationism:Is Evolution Just a Theory? ***** - YouTube