GOD and science

maybe it doesn't say it straight out, maybe it does. but we are. if we were good then He wouldn't have needed to die, right?

I get what you're saying, but I think 'evil' would be the wrong term considering the Bible teaches us to hate what is evil.

This is false.

This one is not only false, it's been proven false on my own personal webstie, which I'll link.

Genesis 1:16

The most relevant thing you have. Unfortunately for you, this is just man's reclassification of bats from birds to mammals. If scientists were to reclassify bats as something else 500 years from now, does that mean it's wrong for us to classify bats as mammals today? Of course not, that's just foolishness. Likewise, this isn't a scientific inaccuracy, it's nothing more than man reclassifying bats.

Once again, this is false. I'll also point out that you have not posted any Bible verses, you're just claiming that the Bible says these things.

Something accurate. The only problem with this is that we have evidence for a young earth. If you're as researched as you claim to be, then you should already be familiar with some of this evidence. Or are you biased and only look at one side?

And this depends on pretending that poetry and sybolism doesn't exist when it's convient for your denial.

There is not only records of a global flood, there's evidence for it. Once again, refer to my comment about how well researched you are. Other than that, the only other thing I have to say on this right now is that the only reason you deny a global flood is because you weren't told about it in school, which is nothing more than poor logic.

A woman was found alive in a body bag one year after she was pronounced dead from a tornado. Given this, surviving 3 days inside a fish isn't much of a stretch, but rather just a typical atempt of denialists using mockery.

Yahoo! Video Detail for WOMAN FOUND ALIVE IN BODY BAG

All of the above could be a topic on its own, so if you'd like to discuss any of these, it will be one at time, since I'm not going to deal with massive 20 page long walls of text all at once, and I don't think you'd want to either. But if you wish to pursue one of the above topics, I'll let you pick one, then we can go to another after finishing the first.

Of course, you have no interest in changing your mind since you're so biased and in denial of anything and everything related to God. It's typical behavior of the typical denialist. So if you're not going to be open minded about anything, then in that case, don't bother with any of the above topics.



Ok, so I asked for specific evidence, and even told you what that evidence would look like, you claim that you have loads of good evidence, and then you fail to provide the evidence that was asked for. (And you even admit that you didn't provide it). Then the evolutionists sit around wondering why we ask for evidence, it's becuase we can't find any, and apparently neither can they.

If that was true, then why can't you provide the evidence I asked for? All I'm left with is to assume that asexual reproducing organisms evolved into having male and female reproductive parts, just for the sake of assuming it's true. If you don't have evidence, there's no basis to take this on other then blind faith, and just believing what you're dogmatically told to believe.

Of course it's convincing to someone who is biased in that direction.

What evidence? Show me fossils that prove the evolution of asexual reproducing organisms to male and female reproductive organs. How many times do I have to keep asking for evidence? And to think, I said that this was just one of many holes I could punch in the theory of evolution.

There's no evidence for what I asked for here either. And given how this site is written, most of it is just speculation/hypothesising. I asked for evidence, not "We think it might be..." or "It appears to be." Those statement don't help me believe evolution, it only opens up more holes for doubt.

TalkOrigins is a ficticious website.

Oh of course, I agree with this. The problem is that now you're not talking about using the scientific method, and if that's the case, then it's not science.

Unless the E. coli became something that is not E. coli, then all you have is microevolution. That's not the type of evidence I was asking for.

Well, given your biased research and close-mindedness, apparently you haven't researched anything contrary to the old earth idea.

I never claimed they were. Try reading my post again. I said the DEVELOPING male and female reproductive organs would be unfunctional and useless during the millions of years it takes to devolope them.

Well, if you can't use the scientific method to test it, then it's not science.

Once again, this is an unproven assumption. Why do I have to believe it takes a really long time? Why even assume it's true at all?


You keep saying that yet you failed to provide the evidence I was asking for, and I asked for specific evidence, it's not like I was vauge. Or if it was vauge, just ask me what you don't understand and I'll try to clarify it, don't post a bunch of links that are irrelevant to what I was asking for.


Sure, a quick copy/paste from wikipedia is a good starting point.

The word "faith", translated from the Greek πιστις (pi'stis), was primarily used in the New Testament with the Greek perfect tense and translates as a noun-verb hybrid; which is not adequately conveyed by the English noun. The verb form of pi'stis is pisteuo, which is often translated into English versions of the New Testament as 'believe'. The adjectival form, pistos, is almost always translated as 'faithful'. The New Testament writers, following the translators of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) rendered words in the Hebrew scriptures that concerned 'faithfulness' using pi'stis-group words. The pi'stis-group words are most appropriately translated into English by a range of words, depending on the context in which they occur. In both the New Testament and other Greek texts, pi'stis describes connections of firmness that can form between a wide variety of entities: people, traditions, practices, groups, purposes, facts or propositions. The appropriate English translation is often evident from the relationship between the two entities connected by pi'stis. The pi'stis-group words in the New Testament can thus be interpreted as relating to ideas of faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, commitment, trust, belief, and proof. The most appropriate interpretation and translation of pi'stis-group words in the New Testament is a matter of recent controversy, particularly over the meaning of pi'stis when it is directed towards Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Christianity

"and proof," huh? Seems to me that faith in the Bible is thought of to be rational faith, supported by proof and evidence.

Yes, we should hate evil things, but we are not to hate the person. We are called to love the people, but we don't have to love their actions.

Ok, please provide some links to evidence. I actually have researched and I don't consider myself extremely bias. I'm talking to you because I like having my views challenged. I'm happy to look at anything you provide with an open mind! I'm interested in why you think the earth is 6000 years old when I have found all the evidence that points to this is false or skewed.

I'm not pretending symbolism doesn't exist. That kind of proves my point. I don't think the Bible is meant to be taken entirely literally.

No, I wasn't told about it in school, you're correct. Ok, please link me some articles that you think explain it well and I will love to look over them because all the research I've done has taken me to a dead end.

The computer I'm on isn't streaming videos. Is it the same as this?:

Nurse recounts moment she found woman in body bag ALIVE after Georgia tornado in April 2011 | Mail Online

If it is then this happened a year ago, she wasn't in the body bag for a year. I'll watch the video you linked when I'm back on my computer, though.

I think I'm being very open minded. I said I'm probably not going to change my mind because I have been studying this for some time now. I'm not objected to the idea that I could be wrong. It's very possible. I'm only human. However, I think it's rude of you to say I'm "so biased and in denial of anything and everything related to God." That's a pretty big judgement seeing as you don't know me at all.

However, I don't really want to go on. I'm not interested in arguing the specifics in the Bible because I can already tell you what will happen. You'll provide evidence, I'll counter that, you'll counter THAT, and we will get absolutely nowhere. We can if you want, I'm open to it, but I think it's rather pointless considering I've had this argument and researched it many times. I don't want you to see me as close minded, though, so I will proceed if you insist.

First off, I'm not an evolutionist (I'm not even entirely sure what that is. Does believing in gravity make one a gravitist?). But you're right, rereading my post I did not give you sufficient evidence. Sorry about that.

As I'm sure you know, evolution occurs through series of mutations. You ask why does an asexual organism need to evolve into a sexual organism. The truth is it doesn't, but it happened through, like I said, mutations. There are currently two theories for how meiosis (what allows any living thing to produce sexually) came into existence. If we're using wikipedia as a source here's a great article explaining it:

Origin and function of meiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first theory is called transformation, where meiosis came from bacteria. The second is where meiosis evolved from mitosis. If wikipedia doesn't do it for you I have other sources, but they're long and I'm reading through them now because you bring up a good point that I hadn't researched before and I find it interesting, so hopefully I'll be way more informed on this particular topic by the end of the night.

Please stop saying I'm bias. I actually find it insulting. I'm trying to have a very open-minded conversation, I'm listening to what you say and I'm giving it all good thought. You bring up some excellent points and I thank you for that because I think it's important to have ones beliefs challenged. However you're making it difficult to continue on with our discussion by insulting me. Please stop.

To my understanding that's not at all how it works. Male and female reproductive organs did not come from asexual beings. It all started with single-celled and multi-celled organisms evolving from asexual ones to sexual ones (which then thrived because sexual reproduction allows two organisms to pass on genetic makeup as opposed to just one, which helps with chances of survival and more easily allows species to adapt to environments). After that animals evolved, and with it reproductive organs. Before that sexual reproduction was done through isogamy. Anisogamy, reproduction between males and females, came later.

Fossils aren't the only way for us to know what took place. In this case there is only room for speculation because science is not there yet. I implore you not to take this as scientists making stuff up or jumping to conclusions. The fact that scientists do not yet know everything is NOT hidden from public knowledge. As I said before, a large part of science is trying to disprove claims. Actually most of science is this. Also I'm not sure what kind of fossils you're wanting me to provide here. There are fossils showing asexual organisms and fossils showing sexual organisms millions of years ago. So tell me, what fossils do you want me to show you and I can track them down (if what you're asking for exists. If you asking for a fossil that shows "the evolution of asexual reproducing organisms to male and female reproductive organs", then you're never going to get that and you clearly don't know how evolution works). However, here is a link to an article published in National Geographic that shows the first found organism that reproduces sexually:

"First Sex" Found in Australian Fossils?

Why do you say that?

Why? You can observe fossils. You can observe carbon dating. You can't observe evolution happen but you can observe evidence that leads one to that logical conclusion.

Micro evolution and macro evolution are the exact same thing. The difference is simply time. Macro evolution is noticeable and micro evolution isn't noticeable to the naked eye. However it's the same thing, macro evolution is just what occurs after a long time. What do you think will happen to that E. coli in 10,000 years left in the same environment? If small changes occurred then why on earth wouldn't bigger changes occur over longer time?

Again I don't think I'm being close minded at all. However, please give me some good evidence "contrary to the old earth idea" and I will very OPEN-MINDEDLY review it.

Certainly not. Evolution didn't start off with meiosis, intending to reach anisogamy organisms. It began with single-celled organisms reproducing sexually and over time forming sexes by random chance. That's like saying the brain would be useless until it was "evolved" into being, because single-celled organisms don't have brains in the sense of how we view brains today. Evolution does not work like that. Correct me if I'm wrong of course, but that sounds like what you're saying. Species, over time, evolved to have the reproductive organisms we have today.

I linked, in my previous post, the E. coli experiment. Tell me again what's wrong with this? It shows evolution in a very basic way because it's impossible to replicate evolution creating an entirely new species during one lifetime. It takes a really, really long time. However, the E. coli experiment proves that change over time is real.

You don't have to believe it. Clearly you don't. But if you understand evolution then you will understand that of course it takes a really long time! If you're looking for something to evolve into another species in front of your eyes for proof then, sorry, but you're never going to get that. Unless you get a time machine, you'll have to rely on fossils and other evidence.

I'm sorry if you think I'm not providing good evidence. I guess I don't understand what you want so yeah, like I said above if you can tell me exactly what you're looking for I can certainly find it for you (although the internet works both ways. You can find the evidence too. If not I'll find it for you).

I'm not really sure what that wikipedia article was trying to demonstrate. When I said please provide evidence I meant evidence that supports your faith. "Seems to me that faith in the bible is thought of to be rational faith, supported by proof and evidence". That's all I'm asking for is this proof and evidence.

I just stumbled upon this website. It does a great job explaining what a theory is in the field of science, and is a really quick read. If you're confused on whether the Theory of Evolution is true or not, please read this. It will clear it up for you in two minutes.

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

You say that you have looked up the evidence, and claim that it's "false or skewed." Whenever I ask someone to disprove the evidence for a young earth, they usually have to do it based on ad hominems or insults, and not with evidence. This only tells me that they know they can't debate based on evidence. So go ahead, please show me how it's false or skewed.

You claimed it was a scientific innaccuracy, but that depends on assuming sybolism doesn't exist. Now you're back pedalling on that. So make up your mind, is it a scientific inaccuray, or is it poetic symbolism?

Someone has already given you the link to answers in genesis. That site has a lot of good information and evidence for the global flood.

Ok, seems I was a bit misstaken, or misled by the media's phrasing. It actually doesn't say how long it was she was in the body bag. Still, my point remains that if something like this can happen, then I see no basis for the mockery of Jonah being inside a fish.

I'm a moderator for another Christian chat room, and we have people that come in all the time, using the same lines you're using, the same denial tactics, etc. Forgive me, but you didn't stand out among the crowd of all those typical denialists who are close minded. Although, given this post, perhaps you are more open-minded than I first thought.

Well, I did tell you to pick one of those topics, which you really didn't. But I'll pick one, the moon reflecting vs. emitting light. I already provided a link for it. So I'd like to see you counter it. Go ahead, explain what's wrong with it.

You accept the historic claims of the theory of evolution, that makes you an evolutionist. You are the first one to admit to not providing the evidence I asked for. Usually, evolutionists just won't provide the evidence, and then get mad when I still won't believe due to the lack of evidence.

That's not what I asked. I did not ask why it needed to evolve. I asked for evidence that it actually did evolve.

Well, even according to that wikipedia article, it admits to not having suffiecent evidence.

Wait, what? Now you're contradicting yourself. First you tell me that the first living cell reproduced asexually (and I'm fine with that idea), and then it eventually evolved into having sex organs. Now you're saying the opposite.

And now you're back to saying sex organs did evolve from asexual organisms. So which one is it?

So if the science isn't there yet, why are we concluding and believing this stuff is true? So you're saying that the scientists are biased since they're starting with the conclusion they want and trying to find evidence for it?

I don't see how else one could take it. The scientific method doesn't start with the conclusion, and then later have the science to back it up. This is not science, it's just bad science, which is something that should be thrown out, not accepted as truth.

I'd be glad to clarify what fossil evidence I'm looking for. We have fossils of asexual organisms and fossils of sexual organisms. If the sexual organs developed over millions of years, then we should expect to see trasitional fossils which show these things devoloping, since it wasn't just an asexual organism popping out something with sexual organs. If it devoloped over a long time, we should see that, so where is the evidence for it?

I was wondering when you'd pull this typical line. If micro evolution leads to macro, how do you KNOW this if there's no scientific evidence (observations and experiments) that show this? Once again, it seems like we're left to just assume that micro leads to macro, just because that's what we're told to believe. If the E. coli were left in the same environment for 10,000 years, I would expect them to still be E. coli, since there's no evidence to the contrary, only assumptions.


Now you're changing your story again, now the single-celled organisms are reproducing sexually? Huh?

Also, you don't get to use random chance, I'm taking that away from you. Chance is not a force, it doesn't have the power to make something happen, or stop something from happening. In fact, if you try to use chance, what you're really saying is that God did it, because God is in control of random chance (and I can prove that biblically if you'd like).

So how did the evolution of the sexual organs work? The single-celled organism that started off didn't have sexual organs, so according to evolution it developed or evolved over time. If that's true, then the sexual organs would be unusable while they were developing. Or are you trying to say that an asexual organism reproduced one offspring and it suddenly had fully functioning sex organs? And if that's the case, once again, I'd ask for observations and experiemnts (scientific evidence) to confirm that this sort of thing can actually happen.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, I just said it wasn't the evidence I was asking for. I did not ask for evidence of micro evolution, but that's what you gave me for some strange reason.

I don't deny that change over time is real. I deny the extent of those changes. There's no scientific reason to conclude that micro leads to macro. This is just something that you're asking me to assume that is true based on nothing more than the assumption.

Once again, you have not proven this. You're just telling me that I have to assume that it happened in history over a long time.

So I'm left with assuming it's true without suffient evidence to support it? Evolutionists like to use millions of years as a catch all answer to sweep all their problems under the rug. Ask for evidence for these extraordinary claims? "Millions of years did it." Ask for details of how it evolved? "Millions of years did it." Sorry, but I'm not going to accept something just because someone tells me to assume that millions of years did it, because you have not confirmed that these things did indeed happen over millions of years, you just have to assume that it happened over millions of years.

The thing is, I've gone through this exact same thing with evolutionists hundreds of times. And everytime I ask, I never get evidence. Look, if you don't have scientific evidence (observations and experiments that confirm these things), then it's simply not science.

I was talking more of the definition of faith. I though that's what you were referring to, since many typical denialists always say "faith in the Bible means believing it without any evidence." If you'd like to discuss this topic, I'd be glad to, just not at this moment. Please don't take this as me evading, it's just that this discussion has already turned into massive walls of text, so I'm trying to narrow this down into 1-2 topics at once. We can come back to this if you'd like when (and maybe if) we finish discussing evolution.

Exactly. We should hate the sin, but not the sinner. Because it is the sin that is evil, not the person.. So.. Do the Bible ever state that we are evil? Where does it say that? Cause that wouldn't make much sense.
Do you understand what I am saying?

I have a scientific background, even have a (neurological) research paper published by 'Journal of Anatomy', I have absolutely no conflictions between science and the Scriptures...

Yahweh Shalom...

I find the information false and skewed. That's my own opinion and I'm really sorry if you're insulted because I promise that's not my intention. However, I find you saying the same thing about what I'm providing you, which is fine because your opinion differs. I'm asking you, personally, for good evidence for a young earth and when I said what I've found is skewed I'm asking you to give me what you consider factual so I can have a good look at it so I'm not misinforming myself with bad sources. That's all. If you've researched this then surely you have some good links you can post.

I think it's poetic symbolism. In fact I think most of the bible is. I'm saying people who take the bible literally don't see it as symbolism because then that makes the bible not literal. Are you saying that some parts are symbolism or that all of it is literal?

Ok, I'm going to tell you the problem with that site. I actually mentioned it earlier but not in a post to you. The site is written by creationists. Why is this bad exactly (well not BAD perse, but can easily lead to wrong information)? Well, when studying Christianity do you go to sources written by atheists or Muslims or Buddhists? No, you go to sources written by Christians. When I study Islam I go to sources written by Muslims and when I study Buddhism I go to sources written by Buddhists. It's absolutely no different. If you get your information filtered through someone else's beliefs there is always an increased chance that it will lead to falsified information. Because of that I would like some sources that aren't written by creationists. Otherwise I'm sorry but I just can't take it as a reliable source.

This is kind of why I didn't want to get into specifics of the bible. On you're website you're absolutely right, if you interpret the bible to say it's reflecting rather than emitting then it is scientifically accurate. It just comes down to interpretation. There's really no argument to be made because you just can't argue against how someone interprets text (well you can if it's a longshot but in this case it's certainly not)

Ok lol. Keep calling me that if you want, I feel like you're giving me this title or something. But whatever, it's a free country.

Sufficient evidence for what? That it's 100% true? Nobody claims it's to be definitely a fact! There's always room for speculation, that's science! However we come to this conclusion because we have fossils of asexual organisms then simpler sexual organisms then gradually more complex sexual organisms. The best explanation to fit with the evidence is that they evolved. What on earth do you want???

No, I may have used bad phrasing. They did EVENTUALLY evolve to have sexual organs. However, sexual organs did not DIRECTLY come from asexual organisms.

I'm saying science isn't at the point that we have all the answers. And if you say that this is poking another hole in evolution then you're being ridiculous. Science never ever claimed to have all the answers. If you're going to nit pick every small flaw with evolution then of course you're going to have a picture of science where there is no evidence and no answers. Scientists don't know exactly how meiosis evolved. Using evidence they've formed two conclusions. I'm sure there are still researchers studying to find out exactly which one it is and maybe some day we'll know exactly how meiosis evolved, but we don't know for sure. I'm not hiding it. Scientists don't totally know. This is out there for anyone to see.

They're not starting with conclusions and trying to find evidence. It's exactly the opposite. They've found evidence and they've formed two likely conclusions. And right now I'm sure scientists are working to DISPROVE them. As I've said before, most of science is disproving hypothesis.

Read above. You're right, science doesn't start with the conclusion. Unless you count the conclusion as a hypothesis, which scientists don't. Scientists form conclusions based on evidence. You're right, if a scientists does this then it is bad science, but this is not the case with anything I have provided for you.

I offered you the first known sexual organism that we've discovered so far. And yes, from my understanding (again I'm not a scientist), this began with single-celled organisms. There isn't going to be transitional fossil evidence...

Let me throw this out there. We don't have fossil evidence for every single thing we believe to be true about evolution. Fossils are extremely hard to make and rarely happen. However, considering how many transitional fossils we do have of various species and organisms, finding only asexual organisms and then, later in history, finding a mix of both asexual organisms and sexual organisms, the evidence points to sexual organisms evolving from asexual ones. Is there proof for this exact situation definitely happening? No, I don't think there is. That's why there is more than one idea as to how this happened, and scientists are working to find out EXACTLY what happened. If this is you poking a hole in a theory of evolution then, I'm sorry but you're not proving absolutely anything because it is no secret that science doesn't have all the answers.

What about all the transitional forms we do have? What about all the evidence for a earth that is billions of years old? What about the fact that we have transitional forms millions of years ago that are in chronological order? You can nit pick some flaws with the theory of evolution and claim that science doesn't have all the answers because of it. OF COURSE science doesn't have all the answers! But considering the evidence that science has gathered, evolution is the most logical conclusion!

No, NOT just because "that's what we've been told to believe". Because we have fossils that show species changing over time in order leading eventually to new species. E. coli is a good example because it shows evolution in it's most basic form, but if you're looking for proof that species will change over time then look at all the fossils we have that demonstrate this! Do you want me to provide some? I'd be happy to! More than happy to!

What on earth...

Evolution is all based on random chance! Here's a stupid example but if you roll dice what determines what numbers you will get? God? I consider it chance. Any of the numbers are possible, it's just chance that you ended up with two ones or two sixes or whatever it might be.

Evolution is completely random. And in that sense yes, we are here by chance! No, you're right, chance isn't a force but it does have power to make something happen. There will be random mutations in organisms over time, and if that mutation is beneficial to the species and allows it to better survive then that species will be able to breed and pass on it's genomes to it's offspring. Why can't I use chance? Without random chance there is no evolution!

This suggests that evolution was on a path of some sort aimed towards the sexual organs we see today. Once again that's not how evolution works. The earliest species probably had very basic sexual organs that were refined over time until we reached what we have today. If we have sexual organisms that require more than one to reproduce, then once small animals evolved they needed a way to pass on their offspring, too, so it only makes sense that sexual organs had to go along with that. Just like they needed a brain to think, but single-celled organisms didn't have brains. So the first brains were probably very basic. As time went on organisms became more and more complex as they competed with other evolving species, and we have the animals we see today.

Because, once again, micro evolution and macro evolution are the same thing. You want a list of transitional fossils? Here we go.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then you admit evolution is real.

Oh lord. What do you want to have it proven???

But we do! What more do you want??

Ok, well I would later on because if you have proof that the bible is completely true I would love to hear it because I've never seen any for myself.

I asked you what YOU researched on the topic, and WHY you consider it false. All you've told me is that it's false just because you think it's false. And you were trying to claim that you're not biased.

1. All of the Bible is literal.
2. All of the Bible is symbolic.

Stop pretending that one of those extremist statements have to be true. 1 symbolic thing in the Bible does not make the whole Bible symbolic. And 1 literal thing in the Bible doesn't make it all literal. Terrible logic is terrible.


So it's automatically false because it was written by creationists? That's the most biased and bigoted thing you've said thus far. If that's the nonsensical logic you're going to use to deny young earth, global flood, and creation, then I get to use that same logic. All of your sources are automatically false because they were written by evolutionists, and it's biased towards evolution. If you don't take it as a reliable source just because it was written by creationists, then you're not being open-minded at all.



Did you even read that link, because that's not what it says at all. It has nothing to do with interpreting the text, and I certainly didn't interpret it to say it's reflecting light. I simply pointed out the fact that the Bible doesn't state ANYTHING in regards to emitting OR reflecting light. There's no interpretation done except by the one claiming "the Bible says the moon is emitting light." You're the one adding your own words and interpretations to the Bible.


Ah, so now you just want to brush any issue aside. "Don't worry about those problems, just ignore them and believe in evolution anyways." I said this was one of many problems. You claimed your evidence was so strong, yet you didn't have any evidence, and now you just want to run from the problem and pretend evolution is still strong.

You haven't presented one piece of evidence that even suggests that asexual organisms can evolve into sexual organisms. All you've presented is "we have fossils of asexual and sexual organisms, just assume that they evolved." That's not evidence, it's just speculation and blind faith.


Hey look, more typical lines from typical evolutionists. "Fossils are rare, so just believe that it's true anyways."

You don't have any transitional forms. All you do is line up different fossils and say "assume that they evolved into each other."




No, they're not the same thing, and there's no reason to assume that micro automatically leads to macro. This is just another blind faith typical statement evolutionists make.

Most of those aren't even fossils, they're just man made drawings. Man made drawings are not actual fossils. The fossils you do have you just line them up and say "assume that the evolved into each other, despite the fact that there's no scientific evidence that animals can evolve like that."



And here you're being deceptively tricky again, failing to make a critical distinction between micro evolution and macro. Then again, you buy into the whole "micro automatically leads to macro" just because that's what you were told to believe.


I want scientific evidence (observations and experiements) that confirm that it's possible for asexual organisms to evolve into sexual organisms.


Well, you already admitted you deny anything by creationists, so anything I present to you would be automattically denied due to your bias. I have no desire to waste my time on such a thing when you're close minded and won't accept it anyways. This isn't an issue about evidence at all.

Ok seriously, dude, if you're going to call me close minded or biased one more time I'm going to end this. I have not called you one negative name yet you do over and over after I've asked you to stop. Please, stop.

Give me a link to something and I will read through it and if I find it false I will explain why, and if I don't I will give you credit where credit is due.

Then whose to say which is which and what's right and what's not?

No, that's not at all what I said. Please stop putting words in my mouth (and once again please stop calling me names. I'm trying to be civil and polite and you're making it really difficult. Just because we have different opinions doesn't mean either of us is bias or bigoted). The fact of the matter is, creationists aren't typically scientists, scientists are where you should look for SCIENCE. Like I said, would you get information on Christianity though an atheist source? I certainly wouldn't.

Ok...

You're putting quotes in there like that's what I said, when that's not what I said at all and once again you're putting words into my mouth and being extremely disrespectful! I still don't know what evidence you're looking for. We don't have fossils that show asexual organisms becoming sexual organisms that I know of. We don't have fossils for everything. But this proves nothing, because there are still PLENTY of fossils that provide evidence for evolution. You can't find one fault in evolution and say that evolution is therefore false when there is still a huge amount of evidence of the contrary.

Seriously, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. If that's really what you believe I'm saying then no wonder your idea of evolution is skewed. We have fossils of asexual organisms billions of years ago and chronologically sexual organisms appeared, so the logical conclusion is that they evolved. It's not blind faith, it's logic. Where else would they have come from? Seriously, provide me another option. Because trust me, scientists are looking at all the options. That's why they aren't all on the same page about this, because they have different ideas of where sexual organisms evolved from. You seem, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have the idea that scientists are out looking for a specific answer and will change evidence to fit this answer. Like I've said countless times, that's not science at all, and whoever taught you this is true were wrong!

Fossils are rare, not nonexistent. We don't have fossils for absolutely everything but what about the fossils we do have??

No. I'm sorry but once again, and I mean no disrespect, but you are WRONG. Seriously. You're ill-informed. You're incorrect. You're just flat out, and I know this for a fact, you are wrong.

We do have transitional forms. We have a lot of transitional forms.

Here are some: PHOTOS: 7 Major "Missing Links" Since Darwin

Here are some more: Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | LiveScience

Some more: Show me the transitional fossils! - Phoenix evolution | Examiner.com

Here's even a youtube video of some! Richard Dawkins: Show me the intermediate fossils! - Nebraska Vignettes #1 - YouTube

Why is there no reason to?

THEY ARE FOSSILS!!!! I don't even know what to say to you at this point, because this is getting rather frustrating. The drawings are BASED ON FOSSILS!!

No, it's because it makes a lot of sense! You said "I don't deny that change over time is real". That's a direct quote from you. Evolution is change over time! Saying evolution is real is not necessarily the same as saying that we are a result of evolution. Please don't think that's what I'm saying. However, if you admit that change over time is real then you admit that evolution is real! Even if you just believe in micro evolution, change over time is a fact!

And no, it's not "just because that's what [I was] told to believe"! It's because I've researched this a lot and it makes a ton of sense!

Ok then you're never going to get that unless you can somehow live for millions of years, which I doubt you can so I guess you're out of luck. However I still think it's ridiculous that because you haven't seen asexual organisms evolve into sexual organisms you're going to toss out the theory of evolution. What about all the other evidence that may be more substantial for you?

If you insult me one more time then I'm done talking to you. I deserve better than that.

That's not at all what I said. I don't. At all. I don't care what religion someone is as long as their science is accurate and they have proper creditably from the scientific community.

I would love to see the evidence. I don't get why you're so reluctant to give it to you when I've provided as much evidence as you want to the best of my ability and you're so reluctant to give me any. I'm trying to be open minded. Like I said I don't think I'm a very bias person. Just because I am not necessarily going to change my opinion doesn't mean I'm close minded. If you provide facts that are reliable of course I'm going to look over them just like I'd review something written by an atheist or a muslim or jew or whatever! I don't care who it's by, I care about the information!

I told you before, I've talked with many people such as yourself. Everytime I ask for specific evidence, I'm met with the same typical lines, the same typical denial. They all claim to be open minded and looking for evidence, but yet whenever they're presented with such, they plug their ears because their mindset is "anything but God." The only way you've been different from the rest of the typical crowd is when you admitted you didn't provide the evidence I asked for, but then you continued to fight tooth and nail over the subject instead of just admitting that there is no evidence and no basis to believe it (referring to the asexual vs. sexual).

You've been given a link, but you brushed it aside because it was written by creationists. You also keep evading what I'm asking you, and I don't know why. I want to know what YOU have reasearched about the subject so far. Why is that so hard for you to answer? I just want to know where you are so I'm not wasting time presenting something you've already seen before.

Are you still clinging to the idea that everything in the Bible must be literal, or everything in the Bible must be symbolic? Why are you clinging to one of these extremist views, when it's so clear that the Bible is a massive book, such that neither of those extremist views would be accurate?

Creationists aren't scientists? Let's see, there's Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and Louis Pasteur, all of them were scientists, and all of them were creationists. If you want to say that you're open-minded, then you HAVE to admit that creationists can be scientists, those aren't mutually exclusive terms. If you don't want to admit that creationists can be scientists, then quite simply you are being biased and close minded. You can keep claiming that you're open minded, but the rest of your words are contrary to that.


So are you admitting that Genesis 1:16 is not a scientific inaccuracy?

Those aren't your exact words, of course not, but that's the message you're sending. You have no evidence for the things I ask for, but you still fight tooth and nail and insist that it's true and did happen.

If you don't have the evidence, then why do you keep insisting that it's true and that we should all believe it? When you have no evidence, we're left with just blindly assuming it's true.

I didn't ask for fossils for everything. This is just another typical statement of evolutionists trying to sweep their problems under the rug. As I said, I've gone through this with many evolutionists in the past, and it never matters what I ask for, they always fail to provide the evidence, and then make some cop-out excuses like this. I ask for fossils of asexual organisms transitioning to sexual organisms, I get nothing. I ask for fossils the demonstrate a particular animal evolving, I get nothing. I ask for fossils that demonstrate a particular structure evolving, I get nothing. I could even leave it open ended for you. Show me a fossil that shows 1 bone evolving, any animal you want. I can save you the time of searching if you'd prefer, because like the hundreds of people I've talked to before, you'll come up with nothing. All you have for "fossil evidence" are radically different fossils, and all we can do is assume that they evolved into each other.


It's not "just one fault," it's many. You couldn't even overcome the first problem I presented, and during this conversation, more holes have been exposed. Let's see:

1. There's 0 scientific evidence that asexual organisms have evolved into sexual organisms, and 0 evidence that such a thing is even possible.
2. There's no transitional fossils. Anything that is claimed to be such is just the result of lining up radically different fossils and animals and saying "just assume they evolved."
3. You claimed that it took 2.5 billion years for single celled organisms to evolve into multi celled organisms, yet you've provided no evidence to back up this claim, only speculation. Once again, we're just left to assume that this is true despite the lack of evidence.
4. You claim that micro evolution leads to macro evolution, yet you have zero evidence for this. It's just another assumption.



Your conclusion is based on presupposing that evolution is true and happened as the theory claims.

Intelligent design.

That's been documented to happen. Have you looked up the schandle about Lucy being doctored up by a bone saw? They used a bone saw to make the fossil Lucy into what they wanted it to be. Or how about the archeopterix hoax, where evolutionists try to claim it's a transition into birds, but the fact is that bird fossils have been found that were dated to be older than archeopterix.

If I lined up a knife, a fork, and a spoon, and said "look, the silverware evolved into different utensils. The knife evolved into the fork." That would be completely ridiculous. But yet, this is exactly what happens with the fossils we do have. Just line up radically different fossils and say "look, they evolved." That's just presupposing evolution.

Once again, you're not presenting anything new to me here. Like I said, this isn't my first conversation with an evolutionist. Take this first link, it's an example of exactly what I've been talking about. Those aren't fossils, they're just man made drawing. I did not ask for fantasy book pictures, I asked for real and actual fossils. Then they have a man made picture of fossils of radically different animals, and saying "look, they evolved," but like I've been saying, that's just presupposing evolution.


You haven't presented any scientific, objective evidence that micro evolution leads to macro. It's just an assumption and speculation.

Man made drawing are not actual fossils. If they had the actual fossils, then why can't we ever see them? If the actual fossils are there, then there's no need for the pretty pictures, that's just what they would EXPECT the fossils to look like if they ever found them. I'm asking for real and actual fossils here, and I don't think that's an unreasonable standard for evidence.

Oh sure, micro evolution is change over time, and I already accepted that from the get go of this conversation. Macro evolution could also be called "change over time." Heck, the phrase "change over time" itself is very vauge. You could look at the standard bicycle design from the 1900's, 1910's, 1920's etc. to the modern day and call that "change over time." Does that mean the bicycle evolved by a process of unguided changes and mutations? No, all the bicycles were designed. And once again, Micro =/= Macro, even though you keep claiming it does, you have provided 0 evidence for it.

If I may, I'd like to suggest to you the possibility that it makes sense to you becuase you presuppose evolution, and it doesn't make sense to me because I don't presuppose that evolution is true. What do you say to that idea?

I wouldn't expect to see the whole thing if it did take millions of years. Once again we come to the "millions of years" as a catch all excuse to sweep the problems and lack of evidence under the rug. Look, if an asexual organism was starting to evolve sexual organs, we should expect to see some sort of change in the physical structure of their systems regarding those organs. We should be able to see SOMETHING. But all we have are 2 complete opposite ends of the spectrum, finished products if you will. Those opposite ends being asexual organisms and sexual organisms, with nothing inbetween. If an asexual organism was starting to evolve into having sex organs, we should be able to physically see SOMETHING in regards to those organs beginning to develope. Where is the evidence for this?


Uh oh, this sounds like hints of the peer review fallacy (it's an appeal to authority fallacy). Please don't tell me you subscribe to the typical mindset of "if it's peer reviewed, then it's automatically true, and if it doesn't have the peer review stamp on it, then it's automatically false."

I am reluctant because every indication you've given me so far is that you're not open-minded, especially with your comments about automatically discarding anything from creationists, for the sole reasoning being that they're creationists (since you haven't presented anything wrong creationists as a whole). I'm not convinced that it would be worth my time to talk about evidence for the Bible with you (that and I'd prefer to finish up the talks about evolution first since these posts are already getting really long, and I don't want to make them longer by talking about another 20 topics simultaneously). Or if you really want to have a conversation with me, I could invite you to the chat room where I'm a moderator.

You people scare me.

...*backs away*

Batman vs Megaman... lol

I hate to get involved in such long posts, but I love the topic. Here are a couple things I can add you may not be aware of:

In Plato's Laches, he claims that pistis is the word that it is in Greek, because it is a contraction of "pos estis" meaning "in order that things may come to be". That's a neat comparison to Heb. 11:1, I think.

Pliny's Natural History (the ancient Roman encyclopedia) is a great way to investigate theories. It says gravity is heaven pushing things away. It also says that people who say the earth goes around the sun (proving right there the idea did not start with Copernicus) are in error because the deny the gods their personalities (it makes planetary orbits, like Mars and Mercury regular circles rather than irregular idiosyncrasies). It further states that the earth is round; the proof is that God loves everyone equally, so wants to be equally close to everyone. (Note the difference: these theories presuppose that the gods' existence is an important fact that needs to be considered. Our scientists do not consider this important if even true, so are different.)

The nice website someone found proving evolution is not a theory, has a small problem. Even if evolution is proven, it is only proven to work now. You still need to prove scientific laws did not change back then. There is nothing to work with except written records, since you can't trust the scientific laws that support the dating, and those start in around 3300BC. Even archeological stratification cannot be trusted before the recorded flood date (3122), unless you don't trust the written records.

Here's a nice example: The continents are believed by science not to have moved more than a few inches in the last few milennia. So, the sun could have not stood still for Joshua, and the sun could not have moved back ten steps for Hezekiah, because of continental drift. That would be fine, except every sundial and every astronomical table we possess from before 720 BC is off by a half-hour. They can't explain that either. But since the continents did not move, the Bible is a lie, so the flood is a lie, so it is not an acceptable fact for a theory. But now, if you assume they moved, then why do the pyramids face the cardinal points, and the dolmens and stonehenge face the winter sunrise? These were all built before the presumed continental movements of the Bible. [Before someone says the earth or the sun could have stood still, let me remind you what coriolis force and/or angular momentum would have done to everyone on the earth, if that happened.]

Everything depends on what you consider a fact. Fossils could be explained by the flood. The radioactive carbon and other such dates could be explained by a global catastrophe involving magnetics (which the Mayan Bible says was part of the flood). As far as the flood itself, you need to read it in Hebrew to realize it's more than a lot of water ruining everything. And then, you need to see that Hebrew, Chinese, Egyptian, and Sumerian sources agree on the date. And that date is the zero date for all the ancient calendars.

You notice my examples prove that both old earth and young earth people ignore certain facts.

You don't really need to argue science. All you really need to argue is human perception. Science as we know it was established to substitute for papal directives. Of course, it's going to ignore religion. The real question here is what is the better way for the people of the world to explain to themselves how we got here and where we are going. That controls the facts they consider important when they are framing theories to explain things.

There are alot of Christian scientists. The news media, newspapers, & book publishers only want to publish/ report on what is POPULAR.
It's called BIAS by the news media. I've seen Christian scientists debate non Christian scientists on the THEORY of evolution & the Christian ones made the non Chrisitan scientists look like fools.
There is ARCHEOLOGY that supports Christianity. (marine fossils on top of mountains no where near an ocean proves Noah's flood), (brimstone in sodom & gomorrah).
If evolution was true, why has there never been seen , now or in skeletal remains, any species of bird, fish,reptile,mammal in an evolutionary process?
Why is the opossum & other animals still exactly the same as they were in the days of dinosaures? There is no proof yet, therefore it is STILL a theory. Not even a malformation or birth defect can be classified by evolutionists to claim it is proof of evolution.

Officially science cannot quote the Bible as evidence. There are many scientists who are Christians, of course, but they are not allowed to use any part of their faith as scientific evidence. Only observations that can be repeated. If one of them were to publish evidence of a flood, he'd better be very careful not to say Noah, or suggest the Bible in any way, for example; he can only call it "evidence suggestive of a widespread flood."

'cause they wouldn't want the whole truth put out there, would they?

Not if it's too big for them to account for, for sure.