-
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.
A very important point that seems to NEVER get addressed (imagine that). Consider a starting point...
"The earliest documented members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis, which evolved around 2.3 million years ago; the earliest species for which there is positive evidence of use of stone tools. " - (good ole) Wikipedia
Now consider modern man. One would think that in 2.3 MILLION years of evolution that there should be such a MOUNTAIN of intermediate fossils that one could not walk out in there back yard without tripping over the fossilized bones, yet there are very few bones.
Most of the so called fossil evidence is a shard here and fragment there that ENTIRE replicas are built from.
About like finding a broken bolt and reconstructing an entire 747 from it.
"The earliest documented members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis, which evolved around 2.3 million years ago; the earliest species for which there is positive evidence of use of stone tools. " - (good ole) Wikipedia
Now consider modern man. One would think that in 2.3 MILLION years of evolution that there should be such a MOUNTAIN of intermediate fossils that one could not walk out in there back yard without tripping over the fossilized bones, yet there are very few bones.
Most of the so called fossil evidence is a shard here and fragment there that ENTIRE replicas are built from.
About like finding a broken bolt and reconstructing an entire 747 from it.
K
A few years ago I read up on this,dusty on it now.The main problem as you say is that there are no transitional fossils.Darwin himself said his theory could be false if this were the case.Most people dont know about the hoaxes,still believing it to be true.Like the moth that was glued in place.I met a teacher that use to teach evolution in collage and then became a Christian.He went around teaching against evolution.We went out with him as a family and he said he had a debate with an evolutionist at a collage.He said the man did not know how many things had been disproved.He said he felt bad for him because he was so embarrassed at what he did not know.Its been years since Ive been up on this but I was amazed at what I had learned in high school as fact was now disproved.
This, pretty much. Posts in this thread only serve to reiterate that people here don't tend to have a working, knowledgeable idea as to what evolution even is as far as the theory's underpinning mechanisms go. And, as these ridiculously bitter, sarcastic posts illustrate, the more ignorant people are, the more opinions they tend to have -- and the more vocal and bitter they tend to be about such opinions.
Honestly, people. Ask yourselves whether you know what genetic drift is without resorting to a webpage. Ask yourselves whether you could discuss, in any measure of detail at all, what gene flow is. Ask yourselves if you could correctly describe what speciation is, and what its significance is to the theory is as a whole. How many of you could pass the most rudimentary of tests on the subject of evolution?
Honestly, people. Ask yourselves whether you know what genetic drift is without resorting to a webpage. Ask yourselves whether you could discuss, in any measure of detail at all, what gene flow is. Ask yourselves if you could correctly describe what speciation is, and what its significance is to the theory is as a whole. How many of you could pass the most rudimentary of tests on the subject of evolution?
Well, in reality, the purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain the diversity of life. Nothing more, nothing less. It's merely what the abundant material evidence suggests. You're free to go out on a limb and suggest that it implies any number of things, but it won't really change anything -- including the validity of the theory.
you're right; and we should be more educated about the difference evolution within family/species (which makes sense IMO) and evolution across phyla/class/order etc (which doesn't make sense IMO) , and how that the idea of spontaneous origin of life is an whole other ball of wax, not necessarily a part of what a biologist might call "evolution"
biological evolution ≠ origin theory
the scientific term gets misused by atheist human-worshipers and nature-worshipers just as much as it does by believers. "evolution disproves creation" is a bunch of hooey. adaptive change of biological life over time has absolutely squat to do with how life began.
even if you can show that one type of cell could evolve into another type, it doesn't explain how the first cell got there. it doesn't remove the need for a Creator.
don't get me wrong john832 -- i think when you say "evolutionary theory" you're referring to a much broader, naturlistic & godless theory that entails evolutionary mechanisms, but when i say "evolutionary theory" i mean a more narrow, biological adaptation mechanism.
i agree with what you say, but i disagree with the broad use of the word. i think it's that broader definition of 'evolution' that trips up atheists & believers alike. any time anyone talks about science, a need arises to have very specifically defined language, that's all.
biological evolution ≠ origin theory
the scientific term gets misused by atheist human-worshipers and nature-worshipers just as much as it does by believers. "evolution disproves creation" is a bunch of hooey. adaptive change of biological life over time has absolutely squat to do with how life began.
even if you can show that one type of cell could evolve into another type, it doesn't explain how the first cell got there. it doesn't remove the need for a Creator.
don't get me wrong john832 -- i think when you say "evolutionary theory" you're referring to a much broader, naturlistic & godless theory that entails evolutionary mechanisms, but when i say "evolutionary theory" i mean a more narrow, biological adaptation mechanism.
i agree with what you say, but i disagree with the broad use of the word. i think it's that broader definition of 'evolution' that trips up atheists & believers alike. any time anyone talks about science, a need arises to have very specifically defined language, that's all.
Goodness.
Not a tad elitist, smug, or condescending are we?
: )
Hmmm... lets see...
Most atheists, who believe in evolution, ALSO could not explain "gene flow" or "genetic drift".
I guess that makes them all ignorant by YOUR definition?
I guess that makes most atheists simply ignorant and opinionated, by YOUR definition?
And by implication, the point you're obviously trying to make, people who are merely ignorant and opinionated simple aren't informed enough to DISCUSS ANY BELIEF SYSTEM... maybe they aren't even informed enough to deserve to HAVE a belief system.
I guess by your definitions, and your clear implications, MOST ATHEISTS, because of their ignorance, have no right to go around arguing with Christians about ANYTHING! And just maybe, since they're so ignorant, MOST ATHEISTS don't have a right to any belief system at all.
Seriously, the logic you pretend to convey isn't so brilliant OR so logical.
Seriously, your smug, arrogant elitism is tiresome.
You should take your nonsense back to some atheist forum and play with people who lap it all up and tell you how brilliant you are.
Not a tad elitist, smug, or condescending are we?
: )
Hmmm... lets see...
Most atheists, who believe in evolution, ALSO could not explain "gene flow" or "genetic drift".
I guess that makes them all ignorant by YOUR definition?
I guess that makes most atheists simply ignorant and opinionated, by YOUR definition?
And by implication, the point you're obviously trying to make, people who are merely ignorant and opinionated simple aren't informed enough to DISCUSS ANY BELIEF SYSTEM... maybe they aren't even informed enough to deserve to HAVE a belief system.
I guess by your definitions, and your clear implications, MOST ATHEISTS, because of their ignorance, have no right to go around arguing with Christians about ANYTHING! And just maybe, since they're so ignorant, MOST ATHEISTS don't have a right to any belief system at all.
Seriously, the logic you pretend to convey isn't so brilliant OR so logical.
Seriously, your smug, arrogant elitism is tiresome.
You should take your nonsense back to some atheist forum and play with people who lap it all up and tell you how brilliant you are.
Last edited:
Origin of species or kinds?
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 1:21 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 1:24 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.
Now we come to the most important part of this passage...
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.
Man was not made after any animal kind. Man was created after the God kind.
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 1:21 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 1:24 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.
Now we come to the most important part of this passage...
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.
Man was not made after any animal kind. Man was created after the God kind.