Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[THE LIGHT]

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.

I wasn't here a million years ago. Neither were you and neither was this world. You are just dodging the question. How did the giraffe evolve?

There is abundant evidence that the earth is very old. Either the earth is old or your God is deceiving you and can't be trusted. Which I guess would explain why so many people trust what others have told them and not their own eyes.

You have not presented any evidence to my knowledge. On the contrary, the Creation screams out the work of a Creator:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:20)

Not sure what more information you're looking for on giraffe evolution please clarify. If it is the biblical "kinds" then don't sweat it, there is no such thing. Biology recognizes species but has no definition of "kind" and, in truth, I've never heard anyone be able to define what a biblical "kind" is. Can you?

You haven't given me any information. You are the one claiming everything evolved from a common ancestor. I want you to explain how. And in specific, how the giraffe evolved from a non giraffe.

When it comes to the fossil record you should think of each fossil as a letter of the alphabet. Each is pretty meaningless alone but put a few together and you have a word that conveys meaning. Put enough together and you have a sentence that can put the words in context. Put the sentences together and you have the story of life on earth. You are welcome to remain illiterate but you should know that is how you sound to those who have taken the time and made the effort to read.

I understand that you are just reading these phrases from your highschool textbook, but have no idea what you are really saying. That works nice in a school textbook full of pretty pictures, but has nothing to do with the real world. Please, take some time to actually critically think about what you are reading.

 

[THE LIGHT]

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".

Yes, directly through his word.

And yes, His word can be both trusted and verified.

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.

I wasn't here a million years ago. Neither were you and neither was this world. You are just dodging the question. How did the giraffe evolve?

The giraffe question has been answered. Now you answer one. If plants and animals do not change over time, explain how it is possible to have chihuahuas and great danes.

No it has not been answered.

And no, I never claimed plants and animals don't change over time.

 

[BillyP]

I have. The problem is I actually critically think through it. You blindly accept it as gospel.

He's thought through it and concludes that an invisible superbeing made the world in 6 days because he needed the seventh day to rest.

As opposed to believing we came from a rock.

Even Richard Dawkins admits that a "superbeing" is a plausible explanation. He just hates the God of the Bible.

As to the "invisible" nature of God. It is actually quite scientific that he would be invisible to us since he resides outside our time dimension. Even scientists understand that there are more than just our 4 perceivable dimensions.

The only scientific part about god being invisible is because there's zero scientific proof that your god exists.

 

[alang1216]

I wasn't here a million years ago. Neither were you and neither was this world. You are just dodging the question. How did the giraffe evolve?

There is abundant evidence that the earth is very old. Either the earth is old or your God is deceiving you and can't be trusted. Which I guess would explain why so many people trust what others have told them and not their own eyes.

You have not presented any evidence to my knowledge. On the contrary, the Creation screams out the work of a Creator:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:20)

You've been given plenty of evidence but you demand proof. As the saying goes, "if you want proof talk to a mathamatician or a distiller".

Evidence for an old earth would be the universe itself. If the universe is no more than a few thousand years we should be unable to see any galaxies since they are millions of light years away. There is plenty of additional evidence for an old earth from geology, biology, and physics to name a few.

 

[alang1216]

When it comes to the fossil record you should think of each fossil as a letter of the alphabet. Each is pretty meaningless alone but put a few together and you have a word that conveys meaning. Put enough together and you have a sentence that can put the words in context. Put the sentences together and you have the story of life on earth. You are welcome to remain illiterate but you should know that is how you sound to those who have taken the time and made the effort to read.

I understand that you are just reading these phrases from your highschool textbook, but have no idea what you are really saying. That works nice in a school textbook full of pretty pictures, but has nothing to do with the real world. Please, take some time to actually critically think about what you are reading.

I guess I'm honored that you think this came from a textbook but it was not a cut and paste. The words and concepts are mine so I did think about them. Did you?

 

[alang1216]

Not sure what more information you're looking for on giraffe evolution please clarify. If it is the biblical "kinds" then don't sweat it, there is no such thing. Biology recognizes species but has no definition of "kind" and, in truth, I've never heard anyone be able to define what a biblical "kind" is. Can you?

You haven't given me any information. You are the one claiming everything evolved from a common ancestor. I want you to explain how. And in specific, how the giraffe evolved from a non giraffe.

I sense this is not as simple a question as it appears but here's the classic theory:

"Natural selection is often called the most unique part of Darwin's theory. Competition, also called the struggle for life, had been thought of as a reason that a given species might succeed or go extinct, but Darwin extended the understanding to change within a species. To continue the example of giraffes: when a giraffe is born with a longer neck than its fellows, it gains an advantage because it is able to reach more food. The long-neck giraffe is therefore stronger, lives longer, and more likely to have offspring. These offspring are born with the same long neck as their parent, though some might have even longer necks. The cycle continues. The theory of natural selection depends on five postulates:

• Individuals are variable.
• Some variations are passed down.
• More offspring are produced than can survive.
• Survival and reproduction are not random.
• The history of earth is long."

 

[PostmodernProph]

I'm not such a fool as to not look at their evidence. Who wouldn't want a heavenly father looking out for me and offering me eternal life. Alas, I just couldn't bring myself to ignore convincing evidence to the contrary.

I would look at your evidence if you showed me some.....I've been asking for someone to show me evidence a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism since January......

Here you go. http://www-eve.ucdavis.edu/grosberg/Grosberg pdf papers/2007 Grosberg & Strathmann.AREES.pdf

nice theory....now, how about the evidence.....

 

[Gadawg73]

How does science attack Christianity?
Why does science bother folks?

 

[Steven_R]

I would look at your evidence if you showed me some.....I've been asking for someone to show me evidence a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism since January......

Here you go. http://www-eve.ucdavis.edu/grosberg/Grosberg pdf papers/2007 Grosberg & Strathmann.AREES.pdf

nice theory....now, how about the evidence.....

Don't ever change.

 

[Chuckt]

How does science attack Christianity?
Why does science bother folks?

Science doesn't attack Christianity.
False science attacks Christianity.

 

[Steven_R]

How does science attack Christianity?
Why does science bother folks?

Science forces people to ask the hard philosophical questions and presents a threat to the faith of some people by pointing out how their religious book might be factually wrong. They're confronted with a dilemma: "if my book is wrong about X, what else might it be wrong about? What if it's all wrong? Then what?"

 

[Chuckt]

How does science attack Christianity?
Why does science bother folks?

Science forces people to ask the hard philosophical questions and presents a threat to the faith of some people by pointing out how their religious book might be factually wrong. They're confronted with a dilemma: "if my book is wrong about X, what else might it be wrong about? What if it's all wrong? Then what?"

Just like creation science confronts atheists with a delemma. "If my atheism is challenged, I have to attack Christians."

 

[Steven_R]

If evolution is wrong, then it's wrong and the scientific community will adapt to it. We did the same thing after Michelson-Morley invalidated decades of research. Show how evolution isn't correct and the scientific community will simply have no choice but to acknowledge it. You might have to work a bit to get people to listen, but it's that way with any new scientific concept.

If the Bible is wrong about one thing, is it wrong about all things? If it gets this story wrong, maybe none of it is right. Then what?

 

[Chuckt]

If evolution is wrong, then it's wrong and the scientific community will adapt to it. We did the same thing after Michelson-Morley invalidated decades of research. Show how evolution isn't correct and the scientific community will simply have no choice but to acknowledge it. You might have to work a bit to get people to listen, but it's that way with any new scientific concept.

If the Bible is wrong about one thing, is it wrong about all things? If it gets this story wrong, maybe none of it is right. Then what?

What do computers do when they aren't doing anything? They start running their screen saver. Your bias is your screen saver.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I would look at your evidence if you showed me some.....I've been asking for someone to show me evidence a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism since January......

Here you go. http://www-eve.ucdavis.edu/grosberg/Grosberg pdf papers/2007 Grosberg & Strathmann.AREES.pdf

nice theory....now, how about the evidence.....

PMP just provided evidence that he never read the link. If he had he would have come across the references to the fossil evidence.

So the logical deduction from this thread is that PMP lacks the fundamental honesty and integrity necessary to engage in any debate involving evolution, religion, ethics and morality.

That wraps this one up folks! Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How does science attack Christianity?
Why does science bother folks?

Science forces people to ask the hard philosophical questions and presents a threat to the faith of some people by pointing out how their religious book might be factually wrong. They're confronted with a dilemma: "if my book is wrong about X, what else might it be wrong about? What if it's all wrong? Then what?"

Just like creation science confronts atheists with a delemma. "If my atheism is challenged, I have to attack Christians."

"Creation science" was exposed as a fraud in the courts by a conservative judge and the SCOTUS.

Therefore there is no dilemma for atheists. It is only those who still swallow the "creation science" canards who have a problem.

Atheists just and walk away.

 

[Gadawg73]

How does science attack Christianity?
Why does science bother folks?

Science doesn't attack Christianity.
False science attacks Christianity.

You mean false religion attacks science.

 

[Gadawg73]

Science forces people to ask the hard philosophical questions and presents a threat to the faith of some people by pointing out how their religious book might be factually wrong. They're confronted with a dilemma: "if my book is wrong about X, what else might it be wrong about? What if it's all wrong? Then what?"

Just like creation science confronts atheists with a delemma. "If my atheism is challenged, I have to attack Christians."

"Creation science" was exposed as a fraud in the courts by a conservative judge and the SCOTUS.

Therefore there is no dilemma for atheists. It is only those who still swallow the "creation science" canards who have a problem.

Atheists just and walk away.

Conservative Bush appointed Judge Johnson scolded the creationists, their lawyers and many of their witnesses for openly telling lies in court that were the direct opposite of what they testified to in their depositions.
The Dover case clearly illustrated the fraud, manipulation and outright lies the creation movement used, uses and continues to use in their literature, presentations and in the Dover case in court.
The ID and Creation movement is an embarrassment to the Christian community that has strong faith not bothered by science and truth.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have no real problem with people intentionally remaining ignorant about science. Frankly, it is kind of an ego trip for me to know that there are so many people whose intellect is beneath mine. I say that, even though I am not a scientist. However, I am a rational human being with common sense, and even that puts me in rarified territory.

 

[PostmodernProph]

How does science attack Christianity?
Why does science bother folks?

Science forces people to ask the hard philosophical questions and presents a threat to the faith of some people by pointing out how their religious book might be factually wrong. They're confronted with a dilemma: "if my book is wrong about X, what else might it be wrong about? What if it's all wrong? Then what?"

if science is wrong about life crawling out of a mud puddle, what else might science be wrong about?........