-
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.
There is a lot of complaint about how Christians dont know enough about evolution. Well you know what? All Christians learn about evolution in school. If it fails to convince them, then it means it is faulty science, simple as that... when I studied about it in school, I was an agnostic so I was as unbiased as one can be. It did not convince me then, it does not convince me today, because it is not based on facts. Adaptation aka development of different species is a scientifically proven and established thing (just look what cat and dog breeders can do in only 100 years), while adding new genetic information, which would be required to make people of amebas, has never been proven. Only loss of information occurs. But in order to con people, they call adaptation "evolution" and then based on adaptation try to defend the theory how we all emerged from soup, which is something entirely different. This is as biased and opinionated as it can get.
I dont see many atheists going to Bible seminaries either to be experts and get their facts from Bible scholars. So really, atheists dont have any right to complain.
I dont see many atheists going to Bible seminaries either to be experts and get their facts from Bible scholars. So really, atheists dont have any right to complain.
Something very important to understand, how many dogs did Noah take on the ark?
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
He took two. A male and female. The capability of a kind to produce many, many different breeds within that kind was built into the animal kingdom. The ability to cross kind boundaries was not. Birds did not come from lizards.
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
He took two. A male and female. The capability of a kind to produce many, many different breeds within that kind was built into the animal kingdom. The ability to cross kind boundaries was not. Birds did not come from lizards.
I hear a whole lot of talk about coming from monkeys (not what evolution supports), apes turning into humans (that would disprove evolutionary theory because that isn't what it supports) and other silly misrepresentations about evolution.
What so many seem to not realize is that evolution does not mean one animal giving birth to another species or humans evolving from chimps. According to evolutionay theory, modern humans and modern apes/monkeys of other species all evolved from a common ancestor who was not anything like the common species.
I also see posts about adaptation being true, but evolution not being true. That is like saying the second hand ticks but a minute never passes. You can take constant steps forward, and never walk a mile. These adaptations are precisely what lead to new species.
People also say there is no evidence, no transitional fossils, and missink links. None of this is true. There is overwhelming evidence, if you take the time to look for it. There are plenty of transitional fossils, and supposed missing links have been found since he term was first used to oppose evolution many years ago. Evolutionary theory continues to be supported by new evidence, and has predictive power about new evidece as well. Being a lab technologist and working in microbiology, I personally witnedd evolution happening over generations of bacteria.
You don't have to believe in evolution. I wouldn't expect anyone to believe something for which they have not seen convincing evidence. But you can't justifiably say it is false or that there is no evidence when:
1) There is tons of evidence, and it is well known among those who have done the research on it.
2) You don't even know what evolutionary theory is, what it supports, what it predicts, etc.
If you have ever asked why there are still monkeys, talked about a gorilla birthing a human, or something evolving within a single generation, then you truly have no idea what evolutionary theory is.
What so many seem to not realize is that evolution does not mean one animal giving birth to another species or humans evolving from chimps. According to evolutionay theory, modern humans and modern apes/monkeys of other species all evolved from a common ancestor who was not anything like the common species.
I also see posts about adaptation being true, but evolution not being true. That is like saying the second hand ticks but a minute never passes. You can take constant steps forward, and never walk a mile. These adaptations are precisely what lead to new species.
People also say there is no evidence, no transitional fossils, and missink links. None of this is true. There is overwhelming evidence, if you take the time to look for it. There are plenty of transitional fossils, and supposed missing links have been found since he term was first used to oppose evolution many years ago. Evolutionary theory continues to be supported by new evidence, and has predictive power about new evidece as well. Being a lab technologist and working in microbiology, I personally witnedd evolution happening over generations of bacteria.
You don't have to believe in evolution. I wouldn't expect anyone to believe something for which they have not seen convincing evidence. But you can't justifiably say it is false or that there is no evidence when:
1) There is tons of evidence, and it is well known among those who have done the research on it.
2) You don't even know what evolutionary theory is, what it supports, what it predicts, etc.
If you have ever asked why there are still monkeys, talked about a gorilla birthing a human, or something evolving within a single generation, then you truly have no idea what evolutionary theory is.
Either is a condescending "super smart and superior" genius atheist attitude that frequents Christian sites to try to what? Impress us with a sophisticated vocabulary while simultaneously saying absolutely nothing of substances at all? Maybe to make yourself feel good about….yourself? It makes you seem really sad in my opinion, but at least you are around God and His people I guess. I have asked you a couple questions that never got answered when I first started this site before I knew you were an atheist, but I can’t figure out a logical reason for your comments here other than you just like you make yourself seem smart amidst what you see as unintelligent people. If that’s not your purpose here I would like to know what it really is, because this just makes you seem really pathetic and I honestly feel much pity for you if your life is this sad. Jesus can help that too by the way, and He’s drawing you here for some reason. Please do yourself the biggest favor of your life, drop your foolish pride and seek Him in truth, because you have already demonstrated Romans 1:22 perfectly. Look at that, you can add Bible teacher to your resume.
You are having wrong logic there.
Because Christianity is not science and its epistemological method is FAITH. God is qualitative not quantitative and you cannot use science to prove God but He will work in other ways to prove Himself.
While science is empirically based. Repeatable, and such and so forth. And evolution theory fails because they dont have the facts.
Because Christianity is not science and its epistemological method is FAITH. God is qualitative not quantitative and you cannot use science to prove God but He will work in other ways to prove Himself.
While science is empirically based. Repeatable, and such and so forth. And evolution theory fails because they dont have the facts.
So would you say that when people tried to convince others that the earth was round, then the science (i.e. the earth is round) was faulty on the grounds that those others weren't convinced? Facts, whatever they may be, are not facts by virtue of one's acceptance of them as such. They are facts by virtue of them being facts, regardless of whether one fails to be convinced, whether out of ignorance, stupidity, or stubbornness.
On the contrary, really -- evolution is quite testable and repeatable. Speciations from one major organism to another, as well as different evolutionary adaptations, have in fact been observed on numerous occasions, including different types of Primroses, Brassica plants, and the well-documented E. coli bacteria from Richard Lensky's long-term experiments. What "facts" does evolution lack that serves to discredit the theory?
Oh, come on, now. 
Instead of rambling about the notion that I have no life, or that I'm "pathetic" or "sad," try pointing out what I've said that might be construed to imply that I'm saying "nothing of substance." AFAIK, I've been adequately responding to the vitriol on this thread, and I'd like to think I've been sufficiently clear and precise.
This doesn't have to devolve into ad hominem attacks and bitter sarcasm.
Instead of rambling about the notion that I have no life, or that I'm "pathetic" or "sad," try pointing out what I've said that might be construed to imply that I'm saying "nothing of substance." AFAIK, I've been adequately responding to the vitriol on this thread, and I'd like to think I've been sufficiently clear and precise.
This doesn't have to devolve into ad hominem attacks and bitter sarcasm.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure there haven't been any experiments demonstrating biogenesis; the prevailing theory is actually that of abiogenesis which states that life cannot come from non-life. And even if an experiment were to be conducted to that effect, it would have ultimately been set up, administered, and monitored by intelligent human beings...which would be the metaphorical 'intelligent designer'...so i guess a scientific experiment that proves life comes from non-life and that there is no intelligent designer would basically need to occur on its own without any 'intelligent' intervention?
Btw Liza I wanted to continue our discussion about this topic in general
Btw Liza I wanted to continue our discussion about this topic in general