-
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.
- Status
How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? Most geologists give the oldest living organism to have begun about 5 billion years ago. And yet, prior to the Cambrian explosion (580-510 million years ago), only single celled organisms existed. Suddenly, in a geologic instant, most of the animal phyla that is found in the fossil record appeared, not slowly, as Darwin predicted, but rapidly. Single celled organisms became exceeding complicated organisms, with compound eyes, and articulated legs, in just a couple of million years, and many of them exist, in their original form, even up until today. Evolutionionists, who love Uniformitarianism, insist that at this time the evolution speeded up. For what reason? And why did it slow down again?
A rational person who throws out data that has supernatural implications, just because he doesn't like that data for philosophical reasons, is not a real scientist, in my opinion.
Neo-Darwinism postulates that natural selection acts on genetic variations within individuals in populations and that mutations are the main cause of these genetic variations. Because positive mutations are rare, (in fact most mutations cause serious difficulties for the organism), Neo-Darwinism contends that evolution will be a slow, gradual process. Any geneticist who is not brain washed will tell you that the rapidity at which the variety of organisms entered the scene during the Cambrian explosion, cannot be explained by genetic mutations.
Modern views of macroevolution contend that all life came about as chance genetic mutations in an undirected process that requires enormous periods of time. How can you say that God directs an undirected process that's dependent on random events?
G
The Cambrian explosion insists that certain fossils are found in certain layers in a certain order. I defy you to find an example of the model.
Now think about it, what does a fossil of a ONE CELLED ANIMAL(you know, like a bacteria) look like.
I bet all they find is that all of a sudden there were lots of creatures - I have heard that idea somewhere before.(frowns in puzzlement)
Now think about it, what does a fossil of a ONE CELLED ANIMAL(you know, like a bacteria) look like.
I bet all they find is that all of a sudden there were lots of creatures - I have heard that idea somewhere before.(frowns in puzzlement)
Scientifically speaking, you can't assume evolution is directed without evidence. Short of finding God's blueprints, there's no way we can scientifically postulate a guiding intelligence for evolution. Scientists are obligated to stick to the empirical evidence.
Philosophically speaking, those of us who believe in God can, in faith, suppose direction. Why did the compound eye develop so rapidly? The scientific explanation says that, by chance, the right series of mutations happened at the right time. We can postulate and choose to believe in faith that God willed those particular mutations to happen in rapid sequence.
You're acting like the only options are completely supernatural creation, or completely random evolution, but that's a false dichotomy.
The point is that evolutionists have NO empirical evidence to back up their claims. NONE!! It is proposed because the only other choice is that God created the world in six days. In a world that is increasingly secular, most scientists, who get paid by secular governments, refuse to accept this. I challenge you to find anywhere where evolution between phyla has occured. There is zero evidence in the lab, and zero evidence in the fossil record. And what about irreducable complexity? Microbiologists have shown that there are biological machines that could not have evolved. For example the bacterium flagellum. This biological machine is composed of over 40 protein parts. Take any of those parts away, and the machine doesn't work. How could all of those 40 parts come together randomly through natural selection to make this machine work? Natural selection says that two or three of the parts would have to come together first, giving the organism an advantage, and then more parts. But if any of the 40 parts are missing, the machine doesn't work. Where's the advantage in the interim stages? Even Charles Darwin said that if it could be shown that a life system exists that could not have come about in a random way, through natural selection, than his theory would absolutely fall apart. It has.
...What are you talking about? There are numerous lines of evidence for it.
What? No it's not! There are hundreds, if not thousands, of creation stories throughout the history of the world, and there are (discredited) scientific theories about the origin of species that don't involve evolution. You're creating another false dichotomy.
I've already mentioned the link between reptiles and birds. They've also discovered fossils that seem to be the intermediary stages between fish and amphibians and between amphibians and reptiles.
Once again, how could it not have done so? God wanted to create a biosphere full of life on this planet. The proteins had no choice but to come together.
Darwin's theory has been revised, sure, but if evolutionary theory had fallen apart, then scientists would have rejected it and research would have continued along a different line.
What? No it's not! There are hundreds, if not thousands, of creation stories throughout the history of the world, and there are (discredited) scientific theories about the origin of species that don't involve evolution. You're creating another false dichotomy.
I've already mentioned the link between reptiles and birds. They've also discovered fossils that seem to be the intermediary stages between fish and amphibians and between amphibians and reptiles.
Once again, how could it not have done so? God wanted to create a biosphere full of life on this planet. The proteins had no choice but to come together.
Darwin's theory has been revised, sure, but if evolutionary theory had fallen apart, then scientists would have rejected it and research would have continued along a different line.
- Status