No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[Timeline]

Dear Captain Science,

How many species are there in the current animal kingdom? Yes, just the current animal kingdom.

Well, I will continue without you.

I just pulled this from a scientific website: between 3-30 million species, currently.

So, you claim that evolution was "in groups". So, over billions of years animals evolved "in groups". So how large of a group does it take for all of these groups to evolve (over billions of years). To be very modest, enormous. And yet "your scientists" show that dinosaurs were towards the beginning of evolution, as we "know" it. Your scientists also have exhibits with dinosaurs that are as small as dogs. And yet, they have very few skeletons/fossils to show evolution. So we have (we'll go with the low number) 3 million species (just in the animal kingdom) and little to no evidence of their evolution stages.

So how do you explain the death of all/most of the intermediary species as well as the total lack of fossil evidence for them ever existing, after all, we do have the dinosaur fossils?

 

[Tintin]

Yep. It's not a given that every Christian believes the creation account is literal, thus it's possible that it's not literal - if we are to base the validity of scriptural interpretation on the interpretations that exist within the entire Christian faith, that is. Of course, then we end up with this one respondent who will say 'creation is literal, I know it to be true', as opposed to to the other Christian who might say 'creation is not literal, I know it to be true', then we have the atheist scientist who says to himself 'I'm fed up of this, both think they're right based off belief, none have evidence, so I'm gonna make everything in my life evidence based'.

Neither of those three people like the idea of uncertainty, though.

This is ridiculous. Both sides have the same physical evidence but their worldviews are at odds and everyone views the world through their beliefs - Christian or non. Operational Science and Origins are too very different fields of study.

 

[Esanta]

[SUP]19 [/SUP]And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

'Let him who has ears, hear'

 

[Esanta]

This is ridiculous. Both sides have the same physical evidence but their worldviews are at odds and everyone views the world through their beliefs - Christian or non. Operational Science and Origins are too very different fields of study.

Sides are for coins. Odds are for dice.

''Everyone views the world through their beliefs.''

Might be the smartest thing I've seen on this thread.

 

[Esanta]

Well, I will continue without you.

I just pulled this from a scientific website: between 3-30 million species, currently.

So, you claim that evolution was "in groups". So, over billions of years animals evolved "in groups". So how large of a group does it take for all of these groups to evolve (over billions of years). To be very modest, enormous. And yet "your scientists" show that dinosaurs were towards the beginning of evolution, as we "know" it. Your scientists also have exhibits with dinosaurs that are as small as dogs. And yet, they have very few skeletons/fossils to show evolution. So we have (we'll go with the low number) 3 million species (just in the animal kingdom) and little to no evidence of their evolution stages.

So how do you explain the death of all/most of the intermediary species as well as the total lack of fossil evidence for them ever existing, after all, we do have the dinosaur fossils?

Complexity is not equivalent to physical size.

 

[jag1977]

'Let him who has ears, hear'

Funny stuff...let him hear when it is actually talking about God and sight

 

[Tintin]

'Let him who has ears, hear'

Maybe you as a non-Christian, should take heed of Jesus' words instead of hijacking them for your own agenda. While we're on the topic of Jesus Christ, He - being the Son of God, believed Genesis 1-11 were real, literal history. I'm not sure why theistic evolutionists etc. believe the second person of the Triune God wouldn't know us much as our scientists today. So silly. At least you non-Christians are consistent in your unbelief.

 

[Tintin]

Sides are for coins. Odds are for dice.

''Everyone views the world through their beliefs.''

Might be the smartest thing I've seen on this thread.

Come on! Seriously?! When I mentioned that they're at odds with each other I mean both sides have opposing worldviews and therefore interpret the physical, observable evidence very differently. This has nothing to do with chance.

 

[Percepi]

That is why presuppositions must be based on first principles which are self evident.

A topic or argument of a debate can not be considered 'self evident'. If such a topic or argument was self evident, then it wouldn't be up for debate.

If you claim something is self evident and someone asks how it's self evident, then you must find proof for it's self evidence without assuming it's self evident. That's why it's a waste of time to even use the word "self evident" within discussions of science or even philosophy.

Of course, then we end up with this one respondent who will say 'creation is literal, I know it to be true', as opposed to to the other Christian who might say 'creation is not literal, I know it to be true', then we have the atheist scientist who says to himself 'I'm fed up of this, both think they're right based off belief, none have evidence, so I'm gonna make everything in my life evidence based'.

Neither of those three people like the idea of uncertainty, though.

Actually, atheists tend to be quite content with "I don't know". If we don't have a scientific explanation for something or if we're ignorant of a subject, we're generally more than happy to admit ignorance. Often, however, admittance of ignorance is often seen as "you don't know, therefore I must be right". As it is, even if you don't know how something came to be, you can still prove other "theories" on the subject as incorrect if their evidence is poor or their reasoning fallacious.

No, I'm not scared. The Bible is true and evolution is false, that's it. Yes, evolutionary beliefs and the Christian faith absolutely contradict each other. I've read countless resources about such things (from both sides of the coin)

Past discussions with you suggest you have little understanding of what evolution actually is though. : |

 

[Esanta]

Maybe you as a non-Christian, should take heed of Jesus' words instead of hijacking them for your own agenda. While we're on the topic of Jesus Christ, He - being the Son of God, believed Genesis 1-11 were real, literal history. I'm not sure why theistic evolutionists etc. believe the second person of the Triune God wouldn't know us much as our scientists today. So silly. At least you non-Christians are consistent in your unbelief.

I will if you do.

 

[Percepi]

This is ridiculous. Both sides have the same physical evidence but their worldviews are at odds and everyone views the world through their beliefs - Christian or non. Operational Science and Origins are too very different fields of study.

I feel like I'm talking to Ken Ham!

 

[Timeline]

Complexity is not equivalent to physical size.

So, you're claim is that all of those intermediary species were not "complex" enough to overcome deterioration? And why aren't "most" of them here, now?

 

[Tintin]

A topic or argument of a debate can not be considered 'self evident'. If such a topic or argument was self evident, then it wouldn't be up for debate.

If you claim something is self evident and someone asks how it's self evident, then you must find proof for it's self evidence without assuming it's self evident. That's why it's a waste of time to even use the word "self evident" within discussions of science or even philosophy.




Actually, atheists tend to be quite content with "I don't know". If we don't have a scientific explanation for something or if we're ignorant of a subject, we're generally more than happy to admit ignorance. Often, however, admittance of ignorance is often seen as "you don't know, therefore I must be right". As it is, even if you don't know how something came to be, you can still prove other "theories" on the subject as incorrect if their evidence is poor or their reasoning fallacious.



Past discussions with you suggest you have little understanding of what evolution actually is though. : |

That's simply not true. I just don't see what's so enticing about always searching and learning but never having any answers. If truth really is relative, why pursue knowledge or anything? You're borrowing from the Christian worldview and values to even say that something is true and another is false. Because that suggests truth is absolute - as in that it's true irrespective of personal belief. Be consistent!

 

[Tintin]

I feel like I'm talking to Ken Ham!

I'm more of a Creation Ministries International person but Answers in Genesis has some good stuff too.

 

[Bowman]

Recently I have been doing some street work with young folks and a constant theme with them, is that they are bombarded in school, college and the media in general ( see EVERY NATURAL HISTORY PROGRAM ON THE TV) with the theory that the world evolved. This leads them then to diss any idea of a creation based history of the world and therefore a disbelief in the book of Genesis as the truth of God's word. Once you compromise on Genesis, you compromise on the basic principles of our faith....sin entering the world as a result of man's disobedience, death as a result of sin, mans separation from God and the need for salvation, Satan as a reality, marriage between a man and a women etc.
In My opinion a rejection of creation is possibly Satan's greatest achievement and one which he has successfully propagated throughout history......
Many Christians state that A belief in Creation is not something to get too "worked up about" as it is not really a "salvation matter"......I beg to differ. It is possibly the biggest stumbling block to the non christians ability to see their need for Salvation ......
evolution is Satanic in origin and must be tackled everywhere it is encountered!!

The biggest issue here is the outsider looking in, and seeing a 50% rift in what Christians even believe in.....50% say old earth...50% say young earth...and all are supposedly reading the same text!

After studying the issue at length, for several years, there is only one conclusion to draw...and that is an old earth is declared both by the record of nature and the record of Biblical scripture.

The sooner Christians can come to an agreement on this most basic topic, the more outsiders will come to the Faith...

 

[Esanta]

So, you're claim is that all of those intermediary species were not "complex" enough to overcome deterioration? And why aren't "most" of them here, now.

No. My factual , evidence based conclusion is that something's size (a dinosaur) does not mean it's more complex than something smaller. And if intermediary species aren't here to you now, it's because we have conscious viewing of current life. They won't be intermediary on a historical basis until humans see them a few million years from now when their ancestors are quite different. Every species is constantly intermediary, because everything changes continually.

Right now, humans mutate. We are developing, other species are developing. We group animals into certain groups because they are similar. The fact that species are similar to one another doesn't disprove evolution on the grounds that they're too similar. We would expect similar species to evolve from similar species.

The fact that vastly differing life-forms exist doesn't disprove evolution either. We would expect original life-forms to exist as long as the conditions necessary for their existence continue. An amoeba splits, mutates, the mutated amoeba reproduces thus we have two slightly different amoeba. Both continue to reproduce so we have thousands of 'units' of each type. Some of those mutate and reproduce so we now have thousands of three types. Eventually one gets an evolutionary advantage. Sometimes the mutations don't give evolutionary advantages so a type dies out.

Cancer is an evolutionary disadvantage in humans, just like the sickle cell illness. But the sickle cell gene, if passed on by one parent, has a 50% chance of making the child immune to malaria.

Cancer is an evolutionary disadvantageous mutation. Sickle cell is advantageous in reproduction.

Evolution happens.

 

[jag1977]

Lord has made each side a green pasture in which to lie down in peacefully. Enjoy it...or just admit no one has heard their Shepard's voice yet.

 

[Tintin]

The biggest issue here is the outsider looking in, and seeing a 50% rift in what Christians even believe in.....50% say old earth...50% say young earth...and all are supposedly reading the same text!

After studying the issue at length, for several years, there is only one conclusion to draw...and that is an old earth is declared both by the record of nature and the record of Biblical scripture.

The sooner Christians can come to an agreement on this most basic topic, the more outsiders will come to the Faith...

The sooner Christians stop compromising and start believing the foundations of the Bible, being the book of Genesis and that it's literal history, the sooner non-Christians can see the Bible is consistent and that it can be trusted. Also, they can see that it does have the answers to their objections and that the Christian faith can be well-reasoned and biblically-sound. The old earth understanding can't be supported by the Bible.

 

[Percepi]

Well, I will continue without you.

I just pulled this from a scientific website: between 3-30 million species, currently.

So, you claim that evolution was "in groups". So, over billions of years animals evolved "in groups". So how large of a group does it take for all of these groups to evolve (over billions of years). To be very modest, enormous. And yet "your scientists" show that dinosaurs were towards the beginning of evolution, as we "know" it. Your scientists also have exhibits with dinosaurs that are as small as dogs. And yet, they have very few skeletons/fossils to show evolution. So we have (we'll go with the low number) 3 million species (just in the animal kingdom) and little to no evidence of their evolution stages.

So how do you explain the death of all/most of the intermediary species as well as the total lack of fossil evidence for them ever existing, after all, we do have the dinosaur fossils?

So you're suggesting what?

That Noah took 3-30 million pairs of animals onto his ark?

If you argue that Noah took only certain "kinds" of animals and argue that they evolved through micro-evolution, then how many pairs of animals did he take on the ark with him? Then, explain to me how only 2 "wolf kind" evolved into about 36 species of "Canidae" in about what? 3 to 4 thousand years?

There's plenty of evidence for the evolution of numerous species. We do have intermediate species. But there will always be "gaps" in the same way you will always have gaps in photos of your father or mother. You might have a picture of you father as a baby, a picture of him when he was 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 80 years old. You can probably recognize him in these pictures as you view his progression through his life. But if someone argues "How do you know that picture of him when he was 30 is the same as when he was 50? To prove it, you need a pick of him when he was 31, 32, 33, 34, etc. etc. etc." And, even if you take a picture of someone every single year of their life, you can still find more gaps. This is an analogy of what you're demanding from scientists. We have fossils of species and we can figure out where they are within a specie's timeline. But you then want more intermediate fossils. We find them, then you say there are still gaps. There will literally always be gaps - but we can still use what we do have to draw a firmer conclusion.

So, you're claim is that all of those intermediary species were not "complex" enough to overcome deterioration? And why aren't "most" of them here, now?

Complexity doesn't necessarily equate to survivability. It's common for more complex organisms to find themselves in an environment where they can't thrive, while simpler organisms continue to thrive due to either an unchanging environment or an environment they adapt to. You clearly don't understand how evolution works. : |

 

[PennEd]

Exactly. Intellectual dishonesty at it's finest.

Yeah.. A guy CLAIMING to be 97 is talking about intellectual dishonesty!