Science Proves Evolution

[T_Laurich]

If you point out the errors with the evidence I presented you might have an argument.

This is the last post I will do on this topic, so if you still have questions p.m. me...

All these types of topics are is who has the best search engine. I know this from personal experience, for I used to be of the same as you.

Now my post was never directed towards you. My post was never directed towards anyone in this room. But more so directed at the direction you guys take to proving your point. I have not looked at your profile yet or talked with you, but I am assuming you are Christian.

Okay to be honest I had a perfect set of quotes lined up and a perfect saying and a perfect this and that... In fact I typed 3 full paragraphs of stuff to delete them all because I thought I was just going to create an argument.

I don't mind people talking from the heart, but people talking in others words wielding them like swords. I find that cowardice and juvenile. Anyone can win a copy and paste game. I can google how to prove a non-Christian wrong about the last supper. And get more then a million results and look more biblicaly intellectual then anyone here. But am I more intellectual? Did I prove my point?

This is actually one of my biggest trials on this website. I have a want to copy and paste full pages to make myself seem like I am no longer struggling to learn about Jesus. I want to be one of the people here who comforts others in the word and looks extremely bibicaly educated. But I would rather speak from my heart then someone else's website. So I just listen on many posts. I will read an entire thread and have 1,000 things to say, but I don't say 1...

This time I said a comment because I thought it would be funny, I also understood that people on these topics are kinda on the brighter side of the crayon box. (worldly speaking)

Not anyone can talk from the heart....

 

[Crucifiction]

Thanks to Phillipy for the video.

[video=youtube;JgyTVT3dqGY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY[/video]

 

[kenisyes]

Okay, first, there is no such tree. You cannot cut a historical tree to count the rings. And radioactive decay measurements seldom agree with anything else, or even with themselves. that's why they make placques, you know.


Next, the "placque" for the world is the Bible, and it does not agree with the theory of evolution, so the tree idea is not applicable to this question.

Third, here is the other theory. I'll try to get it all, but forgive me if I miss something:

1. God created everything in a few days. He did it for purpose and meaning. And to bless us. So that explains the last check (reality).

2. When He did that, the earth started making things. What did not serve the purpose, died and did not survive more than a few hours. That's why, evey stage that is consistent with the purpose survived, so we have creatures and molecules to organize. That's why we see life consistent with all the steps building toward that purpose. The steps are what we are organizing in the taxonomies and calling it long-term evolution. This explains the genetics, because that's what He controlled. The genetics in turn determine the embrology, microbiology, anatomy, histology, and erv.

3. Because we have been placed in charge of the earth, we automatically arrange things according to how they fulfill God's purpose; that's where the classification trees come from, and that explains the transitional fossils, biogeography, behavior, development and ecology. We have reclassified the earth and the taxonomies according to God's plan subconsciously, so that data is as we find it. in other words, we set those fields up that way. We named the data to fit the plan. The same is true of the supposed history of the old earth.

4. The fossil record is a separate issue, and i already answered that. The more developed creatures ran longer from the flood, and so they are on top.

 

[Undertaker]

If you point out the errors with the evidence I presented you might have an argument.

Are u serious
T_Laurich,don't take this seriously. The ctrl c guy might give you some of his blessings if u have time to lose with him. My first 2 posts in this thread actually destroyed his arguments and his silense was telling - Unless he finds what to copy from pre-made pseudo-scientific responses from this athiesm-promoting sites, He doesn't have an idea about the subject.

 

[Crucifiction]

Are u serious
T_Laurich,don't take this seriously. The ctrl c guy might give you some of his blessings if u have time to lose with him. My first 2 posts in this thread actually destroyed his arguments and his silense was telling - Unless he finds what to copy from pre-made pseudo-scientific responses from this athiesm-promoting sites, He doesn't have an idea about the subject.

Claim CA602:

Evolution is atheistic.

Response:

1. For a claim that is so obviously false, it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth.
2. Many, perhaps most, evolutionists are not atheists. If you take the claim seriously, you must claim that the following people are atheists, to give just a few examples:
   • Sir Ronald Fisher -- the most distinguished theoretical biologist in the history of evolutionary thought. He was also a Christian (a member of the Church of England) and a conservative whose social views were somewhere to the right of Louis XIV.
   • Pope John Paul II -- a social conservative.
   • Pierre Teilhard de Chardin -- a paleontologist and priest who taught that God guided evolution.
   • President Jimmy Carter -- a devout and active Southern Baptist.
   
   More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)
3. Anyone worried about atheism should be more concerned about creationism. Creationism can lead to a crisis of faith when people discover that its claims are false and its tactics frequently dishonest. This has led some people to abandon religion altogether (Greene n.d.). It has led others to a qualitatively different understanding of Christianity (Morton 2000).
4. By saying that only one religious interpretation is correct and universal, creationism typically is a rejection of every other religious interpretation. For example, young-earth creationists reject the religious interpretation that the universe is more than 10,000 years old (Sarfati 2004), and design theorists reject the idea that God has guided evolution (Dembski 1996). For people whose beliefs about God differ from those of a creationist, that creationism might just as well be atheistic.

Links:

NCSE. n.d. Voices for evolution: Statements from religious organizations.Statements from Religious Organizations | NCSEReferences:

1. Clergy Letter Project. 2005. An open letter concerning religion and science. http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
2. Dembski, William A. 1996. What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design. What Every Theologian Should Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design: Dembski, William A.
3. Greene, Todd S. n.d. My motivation. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/motivation.html
4. Sarfati, Jonathan. 2004. Refuting Compromise. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
5. Morton, Glenn R. 2000. The transformation of a Young-earth Creationist. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 52(2): 81-83. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm

Further Reading:

Ruse, Michael. 2001.Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.






Claim CA602.1:

By providing a naturalistic explanation of biological origins, evolution promotes atheism. "Although atheism might have beenlogicallytenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Dawkins 1986, 6)..

Source:

Berlinski, David. 1996. The deniable Darwin. Commentary 101(6) (Jun). http://www.rae.org/dendar.html

Response:

1. Naturalistic explanations of origins are not necessary for atheism. Nobody in the world can explain the origin of everything anyway. Leaving one more thing unexplained does not much matter. Dawkins's claim is the flip side of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.
2. Naturalistic explanations of origins do not make atheism mandatory. If God is the creator, it would make sense that he would be responsible for creating everything, including evolution and the laws that make it operate.
3. Darwin was not alone in providing naturalistic explanations. Many people before him removed God from explanations for parts of the universe. Pierre-Simon Laplace provided a natural explanation for the origin and stability of the solar system. Friedrich Wöhler synthesized urea, showing that there was no "vital" element in organic material. David Hume argued that design was not necessary for the origin of life. Darwin, by providing the mechanism, merely filled in one of the last gaps. It was possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist even before Darwin (Gliboff 2000).
4. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist if you want to be an atheist. That some people disapprove only shows that there is something wrong with religious bigots.
5. Due mainly to its being rife with intellectual dishonesty, creationism also drives some people to atheism (Babinski 1995).

References:

1. Babinski, Ed. 1995. Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
2. Dawkins, Richard. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton.
3. Gliboff, S. 2000. Paley's design argument as an inference to the best explanation, or, Dawkins' dilemma. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31(4): 579-597.

 

[Crucifiction]

Are u serious
T_Laurich,don't take this seriously. The ctrl c guy might give you some of his blessings if u have time to lose with him. My first 2 posts in this thread actually destroyed his arguments and his silense was telling - Unless he finds what to copy from pre-made pseudo-scientific responses from this athiesm-promoting sites, He doesn't have an idea about the subject.

Ephesians 4:29
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others upaccording to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

 

[Grandpa]

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Robert Jastrow - Astronomer

 

[Crucifiction]

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Robert Jastrow - Astronomer

Fine quote by an agnostic.

 

[Grandpa]

Fine quote by an agnostic.

Thanks. I have one by Albert Einstein too, if you want to see it...

 

[Crucifiction]

Thanks. I have one by Albert Einstein too, if you want to see it...

Was it this one?

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

[djness]

I can't swing from trees like a monkey, nor have I been to outer space. Given these two facts I can not see that by the dictionary definition of evolve that I have evolved. In fact I would say if anything I have in fact devolved from monkeys. Wouldn't that be a reasonable assumption? If I had monkey parts and I no longer have them how did I evolve? Isn't losing parts that are beneficial quite the opposite of evolving?

Why, given so many creatures in existence did I only devolve from a monkey? Is humanity not the final product of evolution?
Are other animals devolving into humans as well? I mean again if I am losing the traits of my ancestors I can't see how that it evolving. Why are not other creatures becoming human? Crab people, horse people, lizard men, mermaids, pegasus...where are they? Why are they not evolving as well? Why is it that only one creature closely matching me produces more of me?


Is there an answer for this?

Dr Moreau or Crucifiction?

 

[djness]

Thanks to Phillipy for the video.

[video=youtube;JgyTVT3dqGY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY[/video]

I have a hard time when someone says ''every rational person must accept evolution'' at 00:13, only to same ''same basic design'' at 3:55.

 

[Crucifiction]

I can't swing from trees like a monkey, nor have I been to outer space. Given these two facts I can not see that by the dictionary definition of evolve that I have evolved. In fact I would say if anything I have in fact devolved from monkeys. Wouldn't that be a reasonable assumption? If I had monkey parts and I no longer have them how did I evolve? Isn't losing parts that are beneficial quite the opposite of evolving?

Why, given so many creatures in existence did I only devolve from a monkey? Is humanity not the final product of evolution?
Are other animals devolving into humans as well? I mean again if I am losing the traits of my ancestors I can't see how that it evolving. Why are not other creatures becoming human? Crab people, horse people, lizard men, mermaids, pegasus...where are they? Why are they not evolving as well? Why is it that only one creature closely matching me produces more of me?


Is there an answer for this?

Dr Moreau or Crucifiction?

I'd start by actually reading a book on evolution.

 

[Davidscott]

First of all when it comes to God you have no clue of what kind of Power you are dealing with .

I had a revelation when I was a early Christian about God having the power to control time . I was praying and God Slowed down time . I thought it was my imagination, until I was with a unsaved friend and was praying ( he did not know ) and time slowed down and he looked over at me in a panic that time slowed down and could feel it .

You got to understand, that God lives outside of space/time . God created Space/time and he can speed up time or slow it down . Evolution might be true, but it also I believe that God Slowed time when he did it . So what appears as a billion years to us , could be a very short time with God .

You just have no Clue of the kind of Power God has or his Brilliance of understanding . Your talking about a entity that took a singularity, smaller than a atom and created Space/time .

God's Brilliance and mind is so Advanced that he can see in his mind, ever atom in the universe and know the number .

People who put their trust in today's pea brain scientist ( which I am not putting them down ) who don't even understand Dark mater or Dark energy which makes up 96% of the known universe, are infants at understanding .

Jesus 2000 years before knowing about Black holes , stated this " in the end times Star will fall out of the Sky " . We did not even know such a thing was possible until the Hubble telescope saw star being pulled by massive black holes .

So, don't be worshiping Pea Brained Scientist, you have no clue of the power and the mind of God, you have no clue

 

[Crucifiction]

First of all when it comes to God you have no clue of what kind of Power you are dealing with .

I had a revelation when I was a early Christian about God having the power to control time . I was praying and God Slowed down time . I thought it was my imagination, until I was with a unsaved friend and was praying ( he did not know ) and time slowed down and he looked over at me in a panic that time slowed down and could feel it .

You got to understand, that God lives outside of space/time . God created Space/time and he can speed up time or slow it down . Evolution might be true, but it also I believe that God Slowed time when he did it . So what appears as a billion years to us , could be a very short time with God .

You just have no Clue of the kind of Power God has or his Brilliance of understanding . Your talking about a entity that took a singularity, smaller than a atom and created Space/time .

God's Brilliance and mind is so Advanced that he can see in his mind, ever atom in the universe and know the number .

People who put their trust in today's pea brain scientist ( which I am not putting them down ) who don't even understand Dark mater or Dark energy which makes up 96% of the known universe, are infants at understanding .

Jesus 2000 years before knowing about Black holes , stated this " in the end times Star will fall out of the Sky " . We did not even know such a thing was possible until the Hubble telescope saw star being pulled by massive black holes .

So, don't be worshiping Pea Brained Scientist, you have no clue of the power and the mind of God, you have no clue

Nice 1st post...

 

[TigerScent777]

I am doing an undergraduate degree in Biomedical Science; and I come across this nonsense all the time. There is NO PROOF of evolution, its only a THEORY !!. I pointed out to a scientist who was a lecturer, that carbon dating was inaccurate after a short period of time, and that the extrapolated 'findings' could be doctored by anyone to indicate anything past the point of accuracy.

The tooth of the alleged 'Nebraska man' ... about which many thesis and phd's were written, turned out to be the tooth of a pig. The butterflies allegedly found 'petrified' on a tree - were just sprayed with some kind of resin that hardened...I pointed this out to the lecturer, and he affirmed that evolution was not a proven 'fact', and that in those days, many of those coming up with alleged 'evidence' for evolution, were driven by fame and prestige to come up with exaggerated and falsified evidence...

The fact that mitochondrial DNA is circular means squat. They are basically saying that because prokaryotic DNA is circular, the mitachondrial DNA being circular, as opposed to human DNA typically being linear - supposedly shows an evolutionary link between prokaryotes and human eukaryotic DNA --- which is quite laughable.

This is like saying, that because the humble walnut kernel looks like a brain, that those scientists brains who believe in evolution; evolved from some strange event involving a walnut kernel - well, because it 'resembles their brain'...LOL...I daresay richard. dawkins would probably nod his head in agreement..., and pay homage to the walnut family as ancestrally relevant to the human brain...

Has it not occurred to anyone, that God in His Wisdom, used similar patterns with variations for all of His creation..., and that common elements would be found within it?? How quickly others find themselves negating God out of the equation of life and Truth...

 

[TigerScent777]

For as long as Darwinian biologist and Brown University professor Kenneth R. Miller has attacked intelligent design (ID), design proponents have refuted him. While there are occasions where Miller has wisely dropped his refuted objections, more often he will keep trotting out the same stale arguments. His tendency to hold onto his misconceptions means design theorists have to continually point out how he misrepresents their arguments. Several of these responses to Miller are worth revisiting, and because we've recently had some new rebuttals to Miller, we've now put together a list of links to some of the best:

A List of Selected Responses to Kenneth R. Miller - Evolution News & Views

 

[Grey]

I can't swing from trees like a monkey, nor have I been to outer space. Given these two facts I can not see that by the dictionary definition of evolve that I have evolved. In fact I would say if anything I have in fact devolved from monkeys. Wouldn't that be a reasonable assumption? If I had monkey parts and I no longer have them how did I evolve? Isn't losing parts that are beneficial quite the opposite of evolving?

Why, given so many creatures in existence did I only devolve from a monkey? Is humanity not the final product of evolution?
Are other animals devolving into humans as well? I mean again if I am losing the traits of my ancestors I can't see how that it evolving. Why are not other creatures becoming human? Crab people, horse people, lizard men, mermaids, pegasus...where are they? Why are they not evolving as well? Why is it that only one creature closely matching me produces more of me?


Is there an answer for this?

Dr Moreau or Crucifiction?

Are you actually serious?

 

[TigerScent777]

[video=youtube;x-RWG6lawaM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-RWG6lawaM[/video]Refuting Ken Miller on Chromosome 2 - YouTube

...also see - Articles About the Science of Intelligent Design

 

[Grandpa]

Was it this one?

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

No. Its way better than that one.

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that , compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Albert Einstein