Science Disproves Evolution

  • 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.
P

Phillipy

Guest
#701
#701
Pahu said:
Precisely! And since something never comes from nothing by any natural cause, the cause of the universe logically must be supernatural.
Click to expand...
Well... That's sort of a strange way to put it.
'Square circles cannot come to exist by any natural cause, therefore a supernatural cause must have created one somewhere!'

Rather, I'm more likely to think that there are no square circles, from the fact that we consider them logically impossible, than a supernatural being must be making them outside the universe.
I don't think there's any evidence that the universe came from nothing, or that something can come from nothing by natural OR supernatural cause, or that God created the universe from nothing. According to everything we know, it's a zillion times more conceivable that God created the universe out of his energy than out of nothing, which is generally considered logically impossible. Just like it's zillions of times more conceivable that God created a rock, than he created a rock he cannot lift.

If you think God can create something from nothing, do you also think God can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
#702
#702
Pahu said:
Precisely! And since something never comes from nothing by any natural cause, the cause of the universe logically must be supernatural.
Click to expand...
Actually the bigger point I should have made is that the premises are just blatantly wrong, because there wasn't a state of nothingness before the universe existed. God was there.
If it's true there was nothing, then there was no supernatural entity to cause anything.
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
#703
#703
Pahu said:
The Overselling of Whale Evolution​

- Overselling of Whale Evolution -
Click to expand...
This was only about the incomplete fossil lineage, but the point I made was that whales have de-activated genes for making legs - did you have anything on that?
On the mutant whales that grow legs that have all the typical leg bones?
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
#704
#704
"there was nothing, therefore there wasn't nothing"
This sentence is self-contradictory, if the latter half is true, the first half was not. So you can't confirm the truth of the second from the truth of the first, the truth of the second negates the truth of the first.
That syllogism both depended on God truly existing AND God truly not existing - it fails if God exists, and it fails if God doesn't. It's an invalid syllogism for sure sorry :)
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
#705
#705
Pahu said:
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
Click to expand...
If you believe this premise, you are an atheist. It rules out the later premises.
It states that there was no supernatural causal agent existing. You can't use "God doesn't exist" as a premise in an argument for the existence of God.
 
Last edited:
L

Laserbreath

Guest
#706
#706
Phillipy said:
I don't see dinosaurs into birds as such a big change, especially since we've discovered in the last decade or so that many dinosaur families were covered in feathers. The only major difference I see is the wings for flight and the pointed beak, one could almost call it micro evolution even, as some dinosaurs even had beak-like bills! And many were small, the smallest adult dinosaur discovered was only 4 inches tall, covered in feathers and probably looked just like our local Indian miner scavenger birds (without the flight or beak).
But I guess the point I should make is that we've found mutant whales with legs, they still have the genes for growing legs but the genes are turned off. Just like birds still have the genes for growing teeth, but are likewise inactivated.
So it's no fairy tale! :)
Whale ancestors had legs and bird ancestors had teeth :)
Click to expand...

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]The eggs of amphibians are soft & jellylike and must be laid in water, where, after they are laid, the eggs are fertilized externally. Reptiles lay shelled eggs on dry land. They must be fertilized before the egg is laid. The shelled egg has a membrane called the allantois which receives and stores embryonic waste, serving as a sort of bladder. It also has blood vessels that picks up oxygen that passes through the shell & conducts it to the embryo. Embryos from amphibians release their wastes in the surrounding water as soluble waste. If this waste was released inside the shelled egg, without the allantois, it would kill the embryo. To bridge these differences, evolution would have had to provide new sex organs, new mating procedures and new instincts.The vast differences between the soft jellylike eggs and the hard shelled eggs cannot be bridged by evolution. Nor are there any fossils of intermediate changes. Except for drawings in books.
The bible declares that everything created by God was given power to reproduce its own kind. No one thing could break this law and produce any other kind. There can be no evolution without the power of reproduction in living things. Since reproduction in living things is a prior condition to evolution, it cannot be a product of it. Hence we face the logical necessity for the creation of life. Its power of continued reproductions is not in the embryo, but only in the mature parent. An egg cannot produce an egg. Therefore, the parent form of life must have been created in the beginning to have produced an egg from which offspring alone can come. Which came first the chicken or the egg? Very simple....out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air. Waving the magic wand of mutation/selection is hardly sufficient without an observable mechanism that would effect these changes.
whales: the alleged transitional forms are based on fragmentary remains, which are therefore open to several interpretations, based on one’s axioms.
The babies of whales are born under water. If they were delivered in the way human babies are normally delivered-head first--they . would not survive. All whales are born tail first. Baby whales must nurse under water. If they had to nurse in the usual way they would either drown or starve to death. No problem. The mammary glands of the mother whale are equipped with muscles which enables her to rapidly squirt the milk into the babies mouth under such pressure it would create a fountain above water six feet high. Her mother's milk contains 42% fat and 12% protein, compared to 4.4% fat and 1% protein of human mother's milk. A baby blue whale drinks about 200 Pounds of milk daily, gaining about 175 pounds each day.
It is clear that the evidence weighs heavily on the creationist side conerning the origin of marine mammals. It requires an enormous faith in miracles, where materialist -philosophy actually forbids them, to believe that some hairy, four-legged mammal crawled into the water and gradually, over eons of time, gave rise to whales, dolphins, sea otters, seals, sea lions, walruses, and other marine mammals via thousands and thousands of random genetic errors.
This blind hit and miss method supposedly generated the many highly specialized complex organs and structures without which these whales could not function, complex structures which in incipient stages would be totally useless and actually detrimental.
Evolution theory requires an incredible faith.
In order to withstand the enormous pressures at such great depths, which even at depths of about 3,000 feet reach pressures almost 100 times that at sea level, the cranial and auditory apparatus of the whale must be very specially modified, including greatly increased vascularization of the ear.
The sperm whale has a huge chamber containing several hundred gallons of sperm oil, or spermaceti, which alters according to depth and temperature to permit adjustment in buoyancy.
Before diving, this whale goes through a ten-minute breathing exercise in order for its muscles, blood, and lungs to store oxygen. Its blood contains 50% more hemoglobin than human blood, and while humans use only 10-20% of their breathed air for energy, this whale can utilize 80-90%. During a dive only 9% of its oxygen is derived from the lungs while 40% oomes from blood and 50% from muscles and tissues.
A number of other necessary modifications in the whale are required for these incredible dives. While at these great depths, these whales consume thousands of squid (28,000 were found in the stomach of one sperm whale), as well as giant octopuses.
In order to help them "see" at depths in the darkness, toothed whales are equipped with a sonar, or echolocation system. It is reported that they can hear sounds emitted under water from distances of sixty miles. They also sing under water and have quite a repertoire.
The habitat and way of life of whales is vastly different than that of land-dwelling animals. To cope with these differences and many unusual life styles, whales are equipped with numerous incredibly specialized devices. Evolutionists are forced to believe that whatever the need may be, no matter how complex and unusual, random genetic errors were able to produce the structures required in a perfectly coordinated manner.

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
G

Grey

Guest
#707
#707
By no means is survival of the fittest random. If you believe that then you don't understand the concept of it.
 
S

Shiloah

Guest
#708
#708
Wow, this thread must represent the ultimate example in circular arguments.

It is impossible to prove that Scripture is true by appealing to a higher authority (such as historical accuracy or logical consistency) as Scripture, as God’s Word, is already the highest authority one can appeal to. Although it is a circular argument to say that Scripture is the highest authority because it claims to be the highest authority, this does not make it invalid, as any appeal to ultimate authority will base its claim on that authority.

The Bible’s claims about itself and circular arguments — David Johnstone
 
S

Shiloah

Guest
#709
#709
basebool said:
Shiloah said:
Are you seriously gonna bring the age thing like a prick? Obviously it make no difference if you think evolution is not science and the bible is, talk about an older idiot. Your not making it look good for you.

What i suggest is YOU do your research snd YOU stop believing in appealing things cause you can't handle other points which are more validated.

Evolution is not just about one factor of the theory, it is the observable transformation of the change in species and this is all backed up with dna and fossil records. Your bible is 2000 years old that was written men who wrote what they thought god would think of. Absolutely nothing to back it up.

Trust me i've heard both sides, i just can't take your side because i'd be dishonest with myself in every way
Click to expand...
Is this actually supposed to be a reply? I only suggested you take a few college science courses before settling on a conclusion, if even then.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
L

Laserbreath

Guest
#710
#710
Grey said:
Theres the red flag, when you're not even referring to what evolution is when you try to refer to it. Evolution is biological, it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, you're thinking of the big bang theory.
Click to expand...
You claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely separate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two? none.

If the 'popularity' of a cosmological model is regarded as a measure of its correctness, then the Big Bang should be considered correct.


the big bang is a source of amusement and sells very well… even in magazines which otherwise have little to do with science.


But if you bring 'facts' into the equation, the big bang assumption can be very easily explained away.


the ideal that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe…..


the big bang theory was put forth by Georges Lemaître in 1927. Yes he was a member of the Catholic Church as Galileo was. so… could we assume that many years down the road, when the big bang will be laughed at and ridiculed (like the flat-earth theory or the geocentric theory of the universe, which made Galileo famous) could we project that once again history writers will blame the 'Christians' for believing in such a 'crazy' theory ???


after all the first attacks on Galileo came from Colombe who was the leader of the Aristotelian League. Simply put.... he was just another scientist who was jealous of Galileo. It wasn't the catholic church that really believed……. "But there existed a powerful body of men whose hostility to Galileo never abated: the Aristotelians at the Universities" (A. Koestler....A History of Man's Changing Vision)........it was this threat.... they ......used..... the church to oppose his findings, because the catholic church was the governing authority at that time. It was not the catholic church, that cowed Galileo into silence. but he happened to be a catholic, just as George Lemaitre was.
 
L

Laserbreath

Guest
#711
#711
Shiloah said:
Wow, this thread must represent the ultimate example in circular arguments.

It is impossible to prove that Scripture is true by appealing to a higher authority (such as historical accuracy or logical consistency) as Scripture, as God’s Word, is already the highest authority one can appeal to. Although it is a circular argument to say that Scripture is the highest authority because it claims to be the highest authority, this does not make it invalid, as any appeal to ultimate authority will base its claim on that authority.

The Bible’s claims about itself and circular arguments — David Johnstone
Click to expand...

Did Plato ever exist?


Plato wrote about 427-347 Be. The first manuscript that we've got is 900 AD-1200 year gap in terms of the manuscripts coming down. Thucydides in his Wars, 496- 406 was when he wrote. The earliest copy that we've got in existence is 1000 AD.


That means there's a 1400 year time span from the time that he wrote to the first manuscript that exists today!!!!


Sophocles wrote about 496-406 Be. The earliest copy is dated at 1000 AD. There's a 1400 year time span. And yet they all say that basically we have an accurate account of what these authors originally wrote and said. But they'll come to the New Testament and say, "We haven't got accurate stuff. You Christians just believe anything, don't you? The time span from the time that the writers wrote to the first copies that you have is so long that we can't believe that you have accurate historical information." How long is it, by the way?


Let me give you a couple of ideas here.


In Egypt they found five verses from the Gospel of John. They are dated as being written at 117 AD. It's called the John Ryland's Papyrus. Obviously these are copies, but if John wrote and ended his book at 80 AD, that means that the time from the time that he wrote and the copy that got down that they found that's dated 117 is 37 years.


Thirty-seven years…… versus….. 1400 years over here.


They have no doubt that what this guy said over here is right. Thirty-seven years over here! Thirty-seven years! But they say, "Well, you know .. .! mean, look what happened in between the gaposus where you don't have the Apostle John sitting there writing. We just have a copy." Thirty-seven years old. The ink is hardly dry!!!


The Bodmer Papyri, dated at 175 to 225, contain most of the Gospel of Luke and most of the Gospel of John. That would mean that these are only 110 years away from the Apostles. The Chester Beatty Papyri are dated at 250 AD. Three Codices that contain most of the New Testament. This would put them at 180 years from the time of the Apostles. The major manuscripts that have the whole Bible, the Codex Vatican us, dated at 325 AD, and Codex Sinaiticus at 350 AD. These would be only 255 years away from the Apostles.


If you will not accept the New Testament writers as giving accurate historical information, what are you going to have to do with Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides and Sophocles? You're going to have to chuck 'em. I don't know any classical scholar, in order to not deal with the New Testament, is willing to chuck the entire classics. They're not that biased.

Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, John Ankerberg Show
 
G

Grey

Guest
#712
#712
The differences between the big bang and evolution? One is in the discipline of astrophysics the other biology. You may as well be comparing clocks and coathangers.
 
B

basebool

Banned
#714
May 12, 2013
157
1
0
#714
Laserbreath said:
Did Plato ever exist?


Plato wrote about 427-347 Be. The first manuscript that we've got is 900 AD-1200 year gap in terms of the manuscripts coming down. Thucydides in his Wars, 496- 406 was when he wrote. The earliest copy that we've got in existence is 1000 AD.


That means there's a 1400 year time span from the time that he wrote to the first manuscript that exists today!!!!


Sophocles wrote about 496-406 Be. The earliest copy is dated at 1000 AD. There's a 1400 year time span. And yet they all say that basically we have an accurate account of what these authors originally wrote and said. But they'll come to the New Testament and say, "We haven't got accurate stuff. You Christians just believe anything, don't you? The time span from the time that the writers wrote to the first copies that you have is so long that we can't believe that you have accurate historical information." How long is it, by the way?


Let me give you a couple of ideas here.


In Egypt they found five verses from the Gospel of John. They are dated as being written at 117 AD. It's called the John Ryland's Papyrus. Obviously these are copies, but if John wrote and ended his book at 80 AD, that means that the time from the time that he wrote and the copy that got down that they found that's dated 117 is 37 years.


Thirty-seven years…… versus….. 1400 years over here.


They have no doubt that what this guy said over here is right. Thirty-seven years over here! Thirty-seven years! But they say, "Well, you know .. .! mean, look what happened in between the gaposus where you don't have the Apostle John sitting there writing. We just have a copy." Thirty-seven years old. The ink is hardly dry!!!


The Bodmer Papyri, dated at 175 to 225, contain most of the Gospel of Luke and most of the Gospel of John. That would mean that these are only 110 years away from the Apostles. The Chester Beatty Papyri are dated at 250 AD. Three Codices that contain most of the New Testament. This would put them at 180 years from the time of the Apostles. The major manuscripts that have the whole Bible, the Codex Vatican us, dated at 325 AD, and Codex Sinaiticus at 350 AD. These would be only 255 years away from the Apostles.


If you will not accept the New Testament writers as giving accurate historical information, what are you going to have to do with Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides and Sophocles? You're going to have to chuck 'em. I don't know any classical scholar, in order to not deal with the New Testament, is willing to chuck the entire classics. They're not that biased.

Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, John Ankerberg Show
Click to expand...
Ok lets chuck em out, now prove yours.
 
B

basebool

Banned
#715
May 12, 2013
157
1
0
#715
Shiloah said:
Wow, this thread must represent the ultimate example in circular arguments.

It is impossible to prove that Scripture is true by appealing to a higher authority (such as historical accuracy or logical consistency) as Scripture, as God’s Word, is already the highest authority one can appeal to. Although it is a circular argument to say that Scripture is the highest authority because it claims to be the highest authority, this does not make it invalid, as any appeal to ultimate authority will base its claim on that authority.

The Bible’s claims about itself and circular arguments — David Johnstone
Click to expand...
It actually does because there are plenty of contradictions an faulty things in the bible and apparently the literal and non-literal interpretations seem to change all the time.

Knowing this, it is invalid to every extent
 
S

Shiloah

Guest
#716
#716
Laserbreath said:
Did Plato ever exist?


Plato wrote about 427-347 Be. The first manuscript that we've got is 900 AD-1200 year gap in terms of the manuscripts coming down. Thucydides in his Wars, 496- 406 was when he wrote. The earliest copy that we've got in existence is 1000 AD.


That means there's a 1400 year time span from the time that he wrote to the first manuscript that exists today!!!!


Sophocles wrote about 496-406 Be. The earliest copy is dated at 1000 AD. There's a 1400 year time span. And yet they all say that basically we have an accurate account of what these authors originally wrote and said. But they'll come to the New Testament and say, "We haven't got accurate stuff. You Christians just believe anything, don't you? The time span from the time that the writers wrote to the first copies that you have is so long that we can't believe that you have accurate historical information." How long is it, by the way?


Let me give you a couple of ideas here.


In Egypt they found five verses from the Gospel of John. They are dated as being written at 117 AD. It's called the John Ryland's Papyrus. Obviously these are copies, but if John wrote and ended his book at 80 AD, that means that the time from the time that he wrote and the copy that got down that they found that's dated 117 is 37 years.


Thirty-seven years…… versus….. 1400 years over here.


They have no doubt that what this guy said over here is right. Thirty-seven years over here! Thirty-seven years! But they say, "Well, you know .. .! mean, look what happened in between the gaposus where you don't have the Apostle John sitting there writing. We just have a copy." Thirty-seven years old. The ink is hardly dry!!!


The Bodmer Papyri, dated at 175 to 225, contain most of the Gospel of Luke and most of the Gospel of John. That would mean that these are only 110 years away from the Apostles. The Chester Beatty Papyri are dated at 250 AD. Three Codices that contain most of the New Testament. This would put them at 180 years from the time of the Apostles. The major manuscripts that have the whole Bible, the Codex Vatican us, dated at 325 AD, and Codex Sinaiticus at 350 AD. These would be only 255 years away from the Apostles.


If you will not accept the New Testament writers as giving accurate historical information, what are you going to have to do with Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides and Sophocles? You're going to have to chuck 'em. I don't know any classical scholar, in order to not deal with the New Testament, is willing to chuck the entire classics. They're not that biased.

Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, John Ankerberg Show
Click to expand...
Errr, I think you missed my point....
 
Pahu

Pahu

Senior Member
#718
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
#718
Phillipy said:
If you think God can create something from nothing, do you also think God can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?
Click to expand...
This question is frequently asked by skeptics of God, the Bible, Christianity, etc. If God can create a rock that He cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent. If God cannot create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. According to this argument, omnipotence is self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent. So, the question, could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it? The quick answer is "No." But the explanation is far more important to understand than the answer...

This question is based on a popular misunderstanding about the definitions of words like "almighty" or "omnipotent." These terms do not mean that God can do anything. Rather, they describe the amount of God's power. Power is the ability to effect change - to make something happen. God (being unlimited) has unlimited power, and the Bible affirms this (Job 11:7-11,37:23;2 Corinthians 6:18;Revelation 4:8; etc.). Therefore, God can do whatever is possible to be done. God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what is really possible. The truly impossible is not made possible by adding more power. Therefore, unless context indicates otherwise (e.g. Matthew 19:26 where man's ability is being shown in contrast to God's), impossibility means the same thing whether or not God is involved.

So, the first part of the question is based on a false idea - that God being almighty means that He can do anything. In fact, the Bible itself lists things God cannot do - like lie or deny Himself (Hebrews 6:18;2 Timothy 2:13;Titus 1:2). The reason He cannot do these things is because of His nature and the nature of reality itself. God cannot do what is not actually possible to be done, like creating a two-sided triangle, or a married bachelor. Just because words can be strung together this way does not make the impossible possible - these things are contradictions, they are truly impossible in reality. Now, what about this rock? A rock would have to be infinitely large to defeat an infinite amount of lifting power. But an infinite rock is a contradiction since material objects cannot be infinite. Only God is infinite. There cannot be two infinites. So the question is actually asking if God can make a contradiction - which He cannot.

Read more:Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?
 
S

Shiloah

Guest
#719
#719
Pahu said:
This question is frequently asked by skeptics of God, the Bible, Christianity, etc. If God can create a rock that He cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent. If God cannot create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. According to this argument, omnipotence is self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent. So, the question, could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it? The quick answer is "No." But the explanation is far more important to understand than the answer...

This question is based on a popular misunderstanding about the definitions of words like "almighty" or "omnipotent." These terms do not mean that God can do anything. Rather, they describe the amount of God's power. Power is the ability to effect change - to make something happen. God (being unlimited) has unlimited power, and the Bible affirms this (Job 11:7-11,37:23;2 Corinthians 6:18;Revelation 4:8; etc.). Therefore, God can do whatever is possible to be done. God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what is really possible. The truly impossible is not made possible by adding more power. Therefore, unless context indicates otherwise (e.g. Matthew 19:26 where man's ability is being shown in contrast to God's), impossibility means the same thing whether or not God is involved.

So, the first part of the question is based on a false idea - that God being almighty means that He can do anything. In fact, the Bible itself lists things God cannot do - like lie or deny Himself (Hebrews 6:18;2 Timothy 2:13;Titus 1:2). The reason He cannot do these things is because of His nature and the nature of reality itself. God cannot do what is not actually possible to be done, like creating a two-sided triangle, or a married bachelor. Just because words can be strung together this way does not make the impossible possible - these things are contradictions, they are truly impossible in reality. Now, what about this rock? A rock would have to be infinitely large to defeat an infinite amount of lifting power. But an infinite rock is a contradiction since material objects cannot be infinite. Only God is infinite. There cannot be two infinites. So the question is actually asking if God can make a contradiction - which He cannot.

Read more:Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?
Click to expand...
Whoa! Now that's flat solid reasoning. Thanks so much, Pahu. :D
 
G

Grey

Guest
#720
#720
Shiloah said:
Whoa! Now that's flat solid reasoning. Thanks so much, Pahu. :D
Click to expand...
He sort of copy pasted it but we'll look past that. And all powerful would entail he being able to do things that are impossible, even with the exceptions the bible makes there's still room for the impossible I mean according to the bible people were raised from the dead. Another such paradox would be can god learn?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.