Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[THE LIGHT]

Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.

Unfortunately, it's a theory - not a fact - It's the Theory of Evolution - untill someonme invents a Time Machine it will remain a theory. It's a theory that I somewhat agree with - however it has alot of holes in it .

One primary hole being the absense of intermediate species or transitional fossils with the geological evidence.

Transitional fossils are the remains of those creatures which should be found ‘in-between’ one kind of creature and another kind. For example, evolutionists have long sought the ‘missing link’ between ape and human—some sort of half human/half ape intermediate form. None has ever been found, though many candidates have come and gone. Amplified, no doubt, by the lure of prestige, fame and fortune, the desire to discover such a fossil has led some even to fabricate evidence, such as with the famous Piltdown Man hoax. In that case, though the perpetrator has never been definitively identified, a human skull was ‘planted’ with an ape’s jaw which was crudely ‘doctored’. The result fooled the world for decades into thinking this was proof of human evolution.

And your comment re:Gravity - uh sorry to burst your bubble - but Gravity is a fact , and uh yes but I'm sorry they do understand how it works......You must be a Liberal - Right ?

Your citing two cases of fraud and stating there is no evidence of transitional fossils? Wow. You state you somewhat agree with it, how? Which part?

Bohlinia, Pezosiren portelli, proboscideans, Dimetrodon, Archaeopteryx, Sinornis, Tiktaalik, Gerobatrachus hottorni, Odontochelys semistestacea, a few of those transitional fossils. What is your classification of geological evidence? If the foundation has "having been there in person" for factual agreement then religion will be your only comfort. (Your weren't there during that either though) Keep in mind people like the op see carbon dating either as inaccurate or a ploy of Satan.

Any kind of conversation will only go so far when the debate is comparing even the investigative methods of science to what they consider REALITY based on:

If your imagination of the Bible comes from a children's story book I guess I can see why you think of it the way you do.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

*sigh

Alright GISMYS, listen closely because I'm only going to say this one. Evolution IS NOT a religion. It doesn't even address the question of a bio genesis at all. It is merely the change of organisms over time. That's it.

Which is not actually what you mean. And you know it.

What are you talking about? Of course that's what I meant. If I didn't mean it then why would I say it?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Christianity does not reject science. There is nothing in it which conflicts with science in any way.

Ya... Christians totally embrace the science of talking snakes..

And the science of the walking dead..

There was a talking donkey, too.

If you tell an evolutionist that a donkey talked then he will laugh. But when they tell us that you and I came from a rock we are suppose to say that is science.

I guess the only problem you should have is that the donkey spoke too soon. Give him a trillion years and you would be okay with it.

 

[THE LIGHT]

*sigh

Alright GISMYS, listen closely because I'm only going to say this one. Evolution IS NOT a religion. It doesn't even address the question of a bio genesis at all. It is merely the change of organisms over time. That's it.

Which is not actually what you mean. And you know it.

What are you talking about? Of course that's what I meant. If I didn't mean it then why would I say it?

Of course that is what you meant to say. But you don't really mean that it is just the change of organisms over time. You mean that it is the change of kinds such that you have a human and a banana evolving from a common ancestor. No such change has ever been observed.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Maybe you can explain the transitional steps between a monkey and a man?

No hoaxes please.

And while you are at it, perhaps you can explain how the giraffe evolved.

??

Sorry, guess I missed this. Monkeys and man are very far apart with too many tranitional steps, you'll have to Google that for yourself

This is science. You shouldn't have to google it to know. You should know it by heart. Not believe what someone else tells you.

You can also Google giraffe evolution but it is easy to imagine the ancestors of the giraffe browsed from trees. With natural variation some were taller than others. The taller ones could reach leaves the shorter ones could not so in times of famine they had a better chance of survival and got to pass their genes on.

Please. That does not explain how the giraffe came into being. It only tells me that some giraffes that already existed adapted and the ones with taller necks survived.

Again. Could you please explain how it evolved (i.e. came from something it wasn't), not adapted.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Natural selection requires something to select from. It only narrows down preexisting options. It does not and cannot create new options.

If you start with nothing, there is nothing to select.

This may seem intuitive but it is incorrect. Take lichen for example. A lichen is a composite organism consisting of a fungus and a photosynthetic partner growing together in a symbiotic relationship. Since both benefit from the partnership they likely evolved to cement what was originally a random coupling. Viola, new options.

Once again, you are telling me about two existing organisms adapting to an environment. A selection between two existing options.

This is very simple. I wish I could say I am surprised, but I am not. The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 3:5:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

 

[THE LIGHT]

There was a talking donkey, too.

wiser than the average atheist, I've been told......

Remember geometry in 9th grade? You might have been exposed to the formula for circumference of a circle. C=2πr

Turns out that math in the Bible is slightly different. Seems Solomon was building some stuff for God's Temple, including big bowl thing. The Bible very clearly says the diameter of this bowl thing was "ten cubits from the one brim to the other" but the circumference of this big bowl thing was "and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (1 Kings 7:23)

If the diameter is 10 cubits, that means the radius is 5 cubits (because 1 diameter is equal to 2 radii. 10/2=5). So using our formula, we can plug in the values we have. So

C=2*π*5
So our answer is 31.416 cubits

Wait a minute. Our answer is 31.416 cubits, but the Bible answer is 30.0 cubits exactly.

What gives? Is the Bible wrong or is math? If it's the literal truth, is rounding down consistent with every word being the Inherent and Ineffable Word of God?

So maybe a talking ass is wiser than me, but at least I can still do junior high math.

Maybe you should consider the following:

A Spelling Lesson
The common word for circumference is qav. Here, however, the spelling of the word for circumference, qaveh, adds a heh (h).
In the Hebrew Bible, the scribes did not alter any text which they felt had been copied incorrectly. Rather, they noted in the margin what they thought the written text should be. The written variation is called a kethiv; and the marginal annotation is called the qere.
To the ancient scribes, this was also regarded as a remez, a hint of something deeper. This appears to be the clue to treat the word as a mathematical formula.
Numerical Values
The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric: each Hebrew letter also has a numerical value and can be used as a number.
The q has a value of 100; the v has a value of 6; thus, the normal spelling would yield a numerical value of 106. The addition of the h, with a value of 5, increases the numerical value to 111. This indicates an adjustment of the ratio 111/106, or 31.41509433962 cubits. Assuming that a cubit was 1.5 ft.,3 this 15-foot-wide bowl would have had a circumference of 47.12388980385 feet.
This Hebrew "code" results in 47.12264150943 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch! (This error is 15 times better than the 22/7 estimate that we were accustomed to using in school!) How did they accomplish this? This accuracy would seem to vastly exceed the precision of their instrumentation. How would they know this? How was it encoded into the text?

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/

 

[itfitzme]

wiser than the average atheist, I've been told......

Remember geometry in 9th grade? You might have been exposed to the formula for circumference of a circle. C=2πr

Turns out that math in the Bible is slightly different. Seems Solomon was building some stuff for God's Temple, including big bowl thing. The Bible very clearly says the diameter of this bowl thing was "ten cubits from the one brim to the other" but the circumference of this big bowl thing was "and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (1 Kings 7:23)

If the diameter is 10 cubits, that means the radius is 5 cubits (because 1 diameter is equal to 2 radii. 10/2=5). So using our formula, we can plug in the values we have. So

C=2*π*5
So our answer is 31.416 cubits

Wait a minute. Our answer is 31.416 cubits, but the Bible answer is 30.0 cubits exactly.

What gives? Is the Bible wrong or is math? If it's the literal truth, is rounding down consistent with every word being the Inherent and Ineffable Word of God?

So maybe a talking ass is wiser than me, but at least I can still do junior high math.

Maybe you should consider the following:

A Spelling Lesson
The common word for circumference is qav. Here, however, the spelling of the word for circumference, qaveh, adds a heh (h).
In the Hebrew Bible, the scribes did not alter any text which they felt had been copied incorrectly. Rather, they noted in the margin what they thought the written text should be. The written variation is called a kethiv; and the marginal annotation is called the qere.
To the ancient scribes, this was also regarded as a remez, a hint of something deeper. This appears to be the clue to treat the word as a mathematical formula.
Numerical Values
The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric: each Hebrew letter also has a numerical value and can be used as a number.
The q has a value of 100; the v has a value of 6; thus, the normal spelling would yield a numerical value of 106. The addition of the h, with a value of 5, increases the numerical value to 111. This indicates an adjustment of the ratio 111/106, or 31.41509433962 cubits. Assuming that a cubit was 1.5 ft.,3 this 15-foot-wide bowl would have had a circumference of 47.12388980385 feet.
This Hebrew "code" results in 47.12264150943 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch! (This error is 15 times better than the 22/7 estimate that we were accustomed to using in school!) How did they accomplish this? This accuracy would seem to vastly exceed the precision of their instrumentation. How would they know this? How was it encoded into the text?

Hidden Codes in the Bible: The Value of Pi - Chuck Missler - Koinonia House

So the Bible has to be corrected.

 

[alang1216]

This is science. You shouldn't have to google it to know. You should know it by heart. Not believe what someone else tells you.

Has God talked directly to you? No, I think you believe what someone who lived 2,000 years ago has told you in the Bible. Even Reagan said "trust but verify".

Please. That does not explain how the giraffe came into being. It only tells me that some giraffes that already existed adapted and the ones with taller necks survived.

Again. Could you please explain how it evolved (i.e. came from something it wasn't), not adapted.

If you saw a short-necked, antelope-like animal wandering the forest a million years ago would you be able to accept that was the ancestor of the giraffe AND the antelope? Just an off-the-top-of-head hypothetical but the idea being that ancestor was both a giraffe and an antelope. No different from saying the ancestor of the monkey and of man was both.

 

[alang1216]

Natural selection requires something to select from. It only narrows down preexisting options. It does not and cannot create new options.

If you start with nothing, there is nothing to select.

This may seem intuitive but it is incorrect. Take lichen for example. A lichen is a composite organism consisting of a fungus and a photosynthetic partner growing together in a symbiotic relationship. Since both benefit from the partnership they likely evolved to cement what was originally a random coupling. Viola, new options.

Once again, you are telling me about two existing organisms adapting to an environment. A selection between two existing options.

This is very simple. I wish I could say I am surprised, but I am not. The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 3:5:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

Evolution is not like creationism, it says life does not pop into being fully formed it says ALL life came from existing life adapting to an environment. If you think a lichen is the same as a fungus and an algae you miss the point. The lichen can live where neither fungus nor algae can survive alone. It is a new option for survival and what it may become as it adapts is even more different for the original fungus and algae.

 

[GreenBean]

Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.

Unfortunately, it's a theory - not a fact - It's the Theory of Evolution - untill someonme invents a Time Machine it will remain a theory. It's a theory that I somewhat agree with - however it has alot of holes in it .

One primary hole being the absense of intermediate species or transitional fossils with the geological evidence.

Transitional fossils are the remains of those creatures which should be found ‘in-between’ one kind of creature and another kind. For example, evolutionists have long sought the ‘missing link’ between ape and human—some sort of half human/half ape intermediate form. None has ever been found, though many candidates have come and gone. Amplified, no doubt, by the lure of prestige, fame and fortune, the desire to discover such a fossil has led some even to fabricate evidence, such as with the famous Piltdown Man hoax. In that case, though the perpetrator has never been definitively identified, a human skull was ‘planted’ with an ape’s jaw which was crudely ‘doctored’. The result fooled the world for decades into thinking this was proof of human evolution.

And your comment re:Gravity - uh sorry to burst your bubble - but Gravity is a fact , and uh yes but I'm sorry they do understand how it works......You must be a Liberal - Right ?

Your citing two cases of fraud and stating there is no evidence of transitional fossils? Wow. You state you somewhat agree with it, how? Which part?

Bohlinia, Pezosiren portelli, proboscideans, Dimetrodon, Archaeopteryx, Sinornis, Tiktaalik, Gerobatrachus hottorni, Odontochelys semistestacea, a few of those transitional fossils. What is your classification of geological evidence? If the foundation has "having been there in person" for factual agreement then religion will be your only comfort. (Your weren't there during that either though) Keep in mind people like the op see carbon dating either as inaccurate or a ploy of Satan.

Any kind of conversation will only go so far when the debate is comparing even the investigative methods of science to what they consider REALITY based on:

Let me begin by stating that your references to Noahs ark and Adam and Eve are cute, would you mind if I inserted a Santa Claus and Easter Bunny so as to give a sort of mythological balance to your imagery ?

The purpose of the post you cited was to point out the difference between theory and fact. The statement that I "somewhat agree with it" was my acknowledgement that it is a very plausible theory.

Bohlinia was an animal that bore resemblance to Giraffes
Proboscideans, {mastodon, mammoth} were animals that bore resemblance to elephants

What these fossils have in common is that there is no transiton record from Proboscidean to elephant - just a sudden disappearance of one group and later appearance of another - that one is the ancestor of the other is very probable. But not proven - it's a theory.

And if true, it does not proove a gradual evolution of one species into another over time - on the contrary it points to a sudden "morphing" induced by calamity.

There are some intermediate species, there are even varying varieties of extant species - as a matter of fact , just yesterday while fishing I hooked a fish with wings - it's called a sea robin . I don't eat sea robins so I gave it to the different type of man sharing the charter boat with us - he's called a china man .

Evolution : It's a theory that I somewhat agree with - however it has alot of holes in it . However - Not as many holes as the literalist adovcates of creationism have in their thesis - Capice ?

 

[alang1216]

The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 3:5:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

Are we willingly ignorant or have we been fooled by a deceptive God who created something to look like something it isn't?

 

[PratchettFan]

Christianity rejects science, and that you believe in the Big Bang makes you not a Christian, you can't just pick and choose what you'll believe, that gets you a ticket on the bus to the highway to hell. Seems YOU'RE pretty ignorant of Christianity.

Christianity does not reject science. There is nothing in it which conflicts with science in any way.

Ya... Christians totally embrace the science of talking snakes..

And the science of the walking dead..

There are Christians who reject science. There are Buddhists who reject science. There are Atheists who reject science. Christianity, however, does not. What you are doing is assuming something is true solely because you believe it is true rather than examining the facts and coming to a conclusion based upon those facts. Which essentially means you are rejecting science.

 

[PratchettFan]

digital watches, Sony game platforms, and Gateway computers all use binary code.....that does not mean they are descended from each other.....it just means their intelligent designer used something that works to make them........

Yes. Just as we use the biological process of evolution to breed domestic animals.

so slow....waiting for the environment to kill off the bulls we don't want.....Herefords alone took fifty million years.....

I see. I suppose I should not have expected more. Have a nice day.

 

[BillyP]

Christianity does not reject science. There is nothing in it which conflicts with science in any way.

Ya... Christians totally embrace the science of talking snakes..

And the science of the walking dead..

There are Christians who reject science. There are Buddhists who reject science. There are Atheists who reject science. Christianity, however, does not. What you are doing is assuming something is true solely because you believe it is true rather than examining the facts and coming to a conclusion based upon those facts. Which essentially means you are rejecting science.

So which scientist discovered that the world was made in 6 days? What was his scientific proof? And what about making Eve out of a man's rib? Has that been proven in a laboratory? By whom? ...

 

[Derideo_Te]

??

Sorry, guess I missed this. Monkeys and man are very far apart with too many tranitional steps, you'll have to Google that for yourself

This is science. You shouldn't have to google it to know. You should know it by heart. Not believe what someone else tells you.

You can also Google giraffe evolution but it is easy to imagine the ancestors of the giraffe browsed from trees. With natural variation some were taller than others. The taller ones could reach leaves the shorter ones could not so in times of famine they had a better chance of survival and got to pass their genes on.

Please. That does not explain how the giraffe came into being. It only tells me that some giraffes that already existed adapted and the ones with taller necks survived.

Again. Could you please explain how it evolved (i.e. came from something it wasn't), not adapted.

Before grass evolved herbivores were eating the leaves of shrubs and trees. Once grass started to take over from the forests herbivores evolved to eating grass. However there was still food to be found on the leaves of the trees therefore some herbivores evolved to take advantage of that food source.

The environment drives evolution. As it changes so species adapt or die off. With the forests being replaced by grasslands mankind evolved from being tree dwelling to becoming hunter-gatherers.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ya... Christians totally embrace the science of talking snakes..

And the science of the walking dead..

There are Christians who reject science. There are Buddhists who reject science. There are Atheists who reject science. Christianity, however, does not. What you are doing is assuming something is true solely because you believe it is true rather than examining the facts and coming to a conclusion based upon those facts. Which essentially means you are rejecting science.

So which scientist discovered that the world was made in 6 days? What was his scientific proof? And what about making Eve out of a man's rib? Has that been proven in a laboratory? By whom? ...

Are you a biblical literalist? If so, then I suppose you will believe what you wish. Or are simply taking the position that every Christian is a biblical literalist because that is what you wish to believe, rather than examining the facts. Again... rejecting science.

According to the Pew research in 2009, 48% of professional scientists identified belonging to one religion or another, primarily Christianity, while 27% identified as either Atheist or Agnostic. The balance either didn't care or refused to respond. So, according to you, 48% of professional scientists reject science.

There is nothing in Christianity which conflicts with science. There are just people who refuse to look at reality and insist what they believe must be true. You don't have to be a Christian to fall into that category.

 

[PostmodernProph]

There was a talking donkey, too.

wiser than the average atheist, I've been told......

Remember geometry in 9th grade? You might have been exposed to the formula for circumference of a circle. C=2πr

Turns out that math in the Bible is slightly different. Seems Solomon was building some stuff for God's Temple, including big bowl thing. The Bible very clearly says the diameter of this bowl thing was "ten cubits from the one brim to the other" but the circumference of this big bowl thing was "and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (1 Kings 7:23)

If the diameter is 10 cubits, that means the radius is 5 cubits (because 1 diameter is equal to 2 radii. 10/2=5). So using our formula, we can plug in the values we have. So

C=2*π*5
So our answer is 31.416 cubits

Wait a minute. Our answer is 31.416 cubits, but the Bible answer is 30.0 cubits exactly.

What gives? Is the Bible wrong or is math? If it's the literal truth, is rounding down consistent with every word being the Inherent and Ineffable Word of God?

So maybe a talking ass is wiser than me, but at least I can still do junior high math.

yes, but you can't do junior high debate......let me ask you this, do you think the average Christian gives a fuck about whether Solomon's blueprints were accurate?.....in this instance, I think its obvious the ass was wiser, though perhaps not as precise.....

 

[BillyP]

There are Christians who reject science. There are Buddhists who reject science. There are Atheists who reject science. Christianity, however, does not. What you are doing is assuming something is true solely because you believe it is true rather than examining the facts and coming to a conclusion based upon those facts. Which essentially means you are rejecting science.

So which scientist discovered that the world was made in 6 days? What was his scientific proof? And what about making Eve out of a man's rib? Has that been proven in a laboratory? By whom? ...

Are you a biblical literalist? If so, then I suppose you will believe what you wish. Or are simply taking the position that every Christian is a biblical literalist because that is what you wish to believe, rather than examining the facts. Again... rejecting science.

According to the Pew research in 2009, 48% of professional scientists identified belonging to one religion or another, primarily Christianity, while 27% identified as either Atheist or Agnostic. The balance either didn't care or refused to respond. So, according to you, 48% of professional scientists reject science.

There is nothing in Christianity which conflicts with science. There are just people who refuse to look at reality and insist what they believe must be true. You don't have to be a Christian to fall into that category.

So Christians believe that the world wasn't made in 6 days, that Noah wasn't 600 years old, that the flood never happened... Which means you're not a Christian. Pretty simple really.

 

[PostmodernProph]

So the Bible has to be corrected.

well, there you have it then......we have to find a different means of salvation because God didn't report his results to two decimal places......