-
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.
G
@MaggieMye
Evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory...
We can see solid evidence, repeated through-out history by looking at fossils which can be dated and also by examining DNA structures.
Although their are a few exemptions, more and more is being discovered about this beautiful and inspiring process every day. (IDA for example)
To know that all life derived from a simple spark of nature is one of the simplest, most beautiful ideas ever to be discovered by man. In my opinion of course
I think everyone is free to their own opinion on this but really, you cannot refute the general theory.
Just my 2 cents (or pennies as i'm English!)
Evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory...
We can see solid evidence, repeated through-out history by looking at fossils which can be dated and also by examining DNA structures.
Although their are a few exemptions, more and more is being discovered about this beautiful and inspiring process every day. (IDA for example)
To know that all life derived from a simple spark of nature is one of the simplest, most beautiful ideas ever to be discovered by man. In my opinion of course
I think everyone is free to their own opinion on this but really, you cannot refute the general theory.
Just my 2 cents (or pennies as i'm English!)
dude, what are you smoking?
Actually Evolution DOES NOT QUALIFY as a theory
It is simply a disproven hypothesis
C
Macro-evolution is a theory without an engine. With gravity, we have an engine, they have an identified sub-atomic particle that drives gravity. Some of the proposed engines are: mutation--not likely on the massive scale neccesary; radiation--too chaotic, even if calculated based upon millions of exposure; inborn triggers--requires a system that moves from genetic complexity to genetic simplicity.
Regarding proof--they have not proven evolution using scientific method as that would require producing evolution in a controlled environment. concerning the work that has been done with fruitflies--without producing anything but fruitflies--it appears unlikely in the near future. Another choice is to use field methods, but since there has been no field observations of true evolution, that's probably not going to happen. What they try to use is a modified version of historical, preponderance-of-evidence proof. The problem is that the fossels, even if arranged according to a predetermined opinion, form a scant record if spread out over the supposed millions of years. It is not a missing link that they are looking for, but whole milennia.
Other problems include:
1. Origin of life.
2. Emergence of entire physiological systems.
3."Anti-adaptation" of man.
Regarding proof--they have not proven evolution using scientific method as that would require producing evolution in a controlled environment. concerning the work that has been done with fruitflies--without producing anything but fruitflies--it appears unlikely in the near future. Another choice is to use field methods, but since there has been no field observations of true evolution, that's probably not going to happen. What they try to use is a modified version of historical, preponderance-of-evidence proof. The problem is that the fossels, even if arranged according to a predetermined opinion, form a scant record if spread out over the supposed millions of years. It is not a missing link that they are looking for, but whole milennia.
Other problems include:
1. Origin of life.
2. Emergence of entire physiological systems.
3."Anti-adaptation" of man.
Gen 1:9 And God said, 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, ...'
This sounds like gravity to me; but, for any who would be contentious over any matter between the Word of God and the science of men, Paul warns to avoid 'profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely called so'. So it is clear, even considering science's 'track record' of being wrong, that GOD's knowledge is infallible.
Evolution cannot be true because the creatures God created reproduced after their own kind, and the three groups (sea creatures, birds, land creatures) were each created separately and at distinct times. Thus each was a serparate and special creation, not a mutation (evolution) of one into the other.
(GEN 1)
This sounds like gravity to me; but, for any who would be contentious over any matter between the Word of God and the science of men, Paul warns to avoid 'profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely called so'. So it is clear, even considering science's 'track record' of being wrong, that GOD's knowledge is infallible.
Evolution cannot be true because the creatures God created reproduced after their own kind, and the three groups (sea creatures, birds, land creatures) were each created separately and at distinct times. Thus each was a serparate and special creation, not a mutation (evolution) of one into the other.
(GEN 1)
C
I actually see five groups: the sea and air animals, and then three kinds of land animals: the wild beasts, the cattle, and the creeping things. Preditors, primary consumers, and recyclers. Of course, then, comes the sixth, man.
This is related to the creation of realms and rulers, an interesting study in itself.
This is related to the creation of realms and rulers, an interesting study in itself.
C
Actually there is no known mechanism for gravity, although there are plenty of theories . And let’s suppose that we postulate a subatomic particle as the mechanism of gravity. Does this make it any more certain? Subatomic particles are themselves theoretical entities. As Rosenberg explains, we might ask “by what right can we claim that theories invoking these theoretical entities and properties provide real explanations when we cannot have experience of them whatever? Why should a theory about electrons or genes we cannot see, touch, smell, taste or feel be any better at explanation than astrology, New Age mystery mongering, superstition or fairy-tales?” (85).
Again, my point isn’t to try and undercut the theory of gravity or atomic theory or anything else. I’m simply trying to put the theory language into perspective. Consider that Newton never gave us a mechanism; he gave us a mathematical law. Would anyone think gravity is less certain, not knowing the mechanism by which it operates? I doubt it.
But it’s still considered a theory by scientists. My point is simply this, “theory” in science is not primarily a statement about the uncertainty or the certainty of a thing, it’s a term used to describe a systematic explanation of some phenomena based on logic and evidence. When a YEC says about evolution “Oh, that’s just a theory” they are missing the point. Of course it’s a theory, this doesn’t mean it is uncertain or lacking empirical support. This is why evolutionists will always point out that gravity is a theory too.
There is nothing wrong with saying that theory of gravity has much better evidence than the theory of evolution (after all, I think that’s what I tried to do in my first post!). But trying to argue that gravity is not a theory, it’s a fact, or that we can prove gravity or that evolution is a "theory" iis missing the boat and you'll just end up spinning your tires with someone who believes in evolution.
. And let’s suppose that we postulate a subatomic particle as the mechanism of gravity. Does this make it any more certain? Subatomic particles are themselves theoretical entities. As Rosenberg explains, we might ask “by what right can we claim that theories invoking these theoretical entities and properties provide real explanations when we cannot have experience of them whatever? Why should a theory about electrons or genes we cannot see, touch, smell, taste or feel be any better at explanation than astrology, New Age mystery mongering, superstition or fairy-tales?” (85). Again, my point isn’t to try and undercut the theory of gravity or atomic theory or anything else. I’m simply trying to put the theory language into perspective. Consider that Newton never gave us a mechanism; he gave us a mathematical law. Would anyone think gravity is less certain, not knowing the mechanism by which it operates? I doubt it.
But it’s still considered a theory by scientists. My point is simply this, “theory” in science is not primarily a statement about the uncertainty or the certainty of a thing, it’s a term used to describe a systematic explanation of some phenomena based on logic and evidence. When a YEC says about evolution “Oh, that’s just a theory” they are missing the point. Of course it’s a theory, this doesn’t mean it is uncertain or lacking empirical support. This is why evolutionists will always point out that gravity is a theory too.
There is nothing wrong with saying that theory of gravity has much better evidence than the theory of evolution (after all, I think that’s what I tried to do in my first post!). But trying to argue that gravity is not a theory, it’s a fact, or that we can prove gravity or that evolution is a "theory" iis missing the boat and you'll just end up spinning your tires with someone who believes in evolution.
J
Lighten up! A place with "Christian" in its title doesn't have to be the classiest place on the 'Net, but I think it should try to be.
It is not a hypothesis, but a family of hypotheses. I should think that just about none of them have been disproved by the scientific method, although there are a great many that no one talks about anymore. Much of them are pure speculation, and some can be demonstrated over and over again in a laboratory (i.e. nature).
It is not a hypothesis, but a family of hypotheses. I should think that just about none of them have been disproved by the scientific method, although there are a great many that no one talks about anymore. Much of them are pure speculation, and some can be demonstrated over and over again in a laboratory (i.e. nature).
G
The issue really being discussed here isn't evolution, the issue is, is the Bible true or not. If evolutionists are right and we came from monkeys or dolphins, then the Bible is wrong. And if the Bible is wrong from the beginning, it would be something that can't be trusted.
Genesis 1:1 *¶In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 *¶In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
C
Actually there is no known mechanism for gravity, although there are plenty of theories . And let’s suppose that we postulate a subatomic particle as the mechanism of gravity. Does this make it any more certain? Subatomic particles are themselves theoretical entities. As Rosenberg explains, we might ask “by what right can we claim that theories invoking these theoretical entities and properties provide real explanations when we cannot have experience of them whatever? Why should a theory about electrons or genes we cannot see, touch, smell, taste or feel be any better at explanation than astrology, New Age mystery mongering, superstition or fairy-tales?” (85).
There used to be a poster here who denied the existance of gravity. He also believed that the sun rotated around the earth. I would suggest that if you have something better, you contribute to the conversation rather than just being the debate judge.
Again, my point isn’t to try and undercut the theory of gravity or atomic theory or anything else. I’m simply trying to put the theory language into perspective. Consider that Newton never gave us a mechanism; he gave us a mathematical law. Would anyone think gravity is less certain, not knowing the mechanism by which it operates? I doubt it.
Actually, Newton did not give us the mathematics of gravity, he postulated the laws of motion. Concepts of gravity are as old as science. Gravity isn't postulating an unobserved phenomina.
But it’s still considered a theory by scientists. My point is simply this, “theory” in science is not primarily a statement about the uncertainty or the certainty of a thing, it’s a term used to describe a systematic explanation of some phenomena based on logic and evidence. When a YEC says about evolution “Oh, that’s just a theory” they are missing the point. Of course it’s a theory, this doesn’t mean it is uncertain or lacking empirical support. This is why evolutionists will always point out that gravity is a theory too.
You can claim that everything is a theory on some level but it contributes nothing to the discussion.
There is nothing wrong with saying that theory of gravity has much better evidence than the theory of evolution (after all, I think that’s what I tried to do in my first post!). But trying to argue that gravity is not a theory, it’s a fact, or that we can prove gravity or that evolution is a "theory" iis missing the boat and you'll just end up spinning your tires with someone who believes in evolution.
. And let’s suppose that we postulate a subatomic particle as the mechanism of gravity. Does this make it any more certain? Subatomic particles are themselves theoretical entities. As Rosenberg explains, we might ask “by what right can we claim that theories invoking these theoretical entities and properties provide real explanations when we cannot have experience of them whatever? Why should a theory about electrons or genes we cannot see, touch, smell, taste or feel be any better at explanation than astrology, New Age mystery mongering, superstition or fairy-tales?” (85). There used to be a poster here who denied the existance of gravity. He also believed that the sun rotated around the earth. I would suggest that if you have something better, you contribute to the conversation rather than just being the debate judge.
Again, my point isn’t to try and undercut the theory of gravity or atomic theory or anything else. I’m simply trying to put the theory language into perspective. Consider that Newton never gave us a mechanism; he gave us a mathematical law. Would anyone think gravity is less certain, not knowing the mechanism by which it operates? I doubt it.
Actually, Newton did not give us the mathematics of gravity, he postulated the laws of motion. Concepts of gravity are as old as science. Gravity isn't postulating an unobserved phenomina.
But it’s still considered a theory by scientists. My point is simply this, “theory” in science is not primarily a statement about the uncertainty or the certainty of a thing, it’s a term used to describe a systematic explanation of some phenomena based on logic and evidence. When a YEC says about evolution “Oh, that’s just a theory” they are missing the point. Of course it’s a theory, this doesn’t mean it is uncertain or lacking empirical support. This is why evolutionists will always point out that gravity is a theory too.
You can claim that everything is a theory on some level but it contributes nothing to the discussion.
There is nothing wrong with saying that theory of gravity has much better evidence than the theory of evolution (after all, I think that’s what I tried to do in my first post!). But trying to argue that gravity is not a theory, it’s a fact, or that we can prove gravity or that evolution is a "theory" iis missing the boat and you'll just end up spinning your tires with someone who believes in evolution.
C
lol!
This theory is such a JOKE!
only made by those who does not believe in God and finding a reason not to believe in Him.
well, I better live as a stupid as I am knowing that there is a God rather than know everything or gain the whole world but then lose my soul!
This is such a joke,
If evolution is true, then this process should never end, and if so we should see some more evidences like;
A MONKEY (OR IF YOU WANT "LEMUR") GIVING BIRTH OR BREASTFEEDING HER HUMAN CHILD!
lol such a joke
and if others will say "It will took time for a monkey/lemur to born a human"
well, obviously it already took longer time now than before then why we cant see things like this if it had happened already in the past?
Everything disproves the theory of Evolution (only because this is just a fallacy, a fairy tale that has no happy ending), it is just LIES that was "LINKED" to some scientific knowledge that make it sounds like that it's true.
"Everything proves that God created everything (how could we live if there is no Living God that will sustain us), whether you want to believe it or not, it will still be TRUE forever."
well it is our own choice to believe in the truth or to lies, just be ready to accept corrections if you're wrong or if not, be ready for a punishment that will last for eternity
i don't know why scientists try to prove and prove some lies, what benefit would they get into it if in the end they will just lose their soul.
what a bad ending for them!
This theory is such a JOKE!
only made by those who does not believe in God and finding a reason not to believe in Him.
well, I better live as a stupid as I am knowing that there is a God rather than know everything or gain the whole world but then lose my soul!
This is such a joke,
If evolution is true, then this process should never end, and if so we should see some more evidences like;
A MONKEY (OR IF YOU WANT "LEMUR") GIVING BIRTH OR BREASTFEEDING HER HUMAN CHILD!
lol such a joke
and if others will say "It will took time for a monkey/lemur to born a human"
well, obviously it already took longer time now than before then why we cant see things like this if it had happened already in the past?
Everything disproves the theory of Evolution (only because this is just a fallacy, a fairy tale that has no happy ending), it is just LIES that was "LINKED" to some scientific knowledge that make it sounds like that it's true.
"Everything proves that God created everything (how could we live if there is no Living God that will sustain us), whether you want to believe it or not, it will still be TRUE forever."
well it is our own choice to believe in the truth or to lies, just be ready to accept corrections if you're wrong or if not, be ready for a punishment that will last for eternity
i don't know why scientists try to prove and prove some lies, what benefit would they get into it if in the end they will just lose their soul.
what a bad ending for them!
S
Gravity is a law, we explain it via theory because we don't understand how/why it works. We know there are laws of gravity because it can be observed.
Evolution is not a law, it is a theory and can not be observed.
And here is a nice graph for anyone who believes in evolution.
(http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/evolution.gif)
Evolution is not a law, it is a theory and can not be observed.
And here is a nice graph for anyone who believes in evolution.
(http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/evolution.gif)