Zone1 Faith is "Science"

[alang1216]

I wasn’t there. Neither were you for the evolution. I just can know God could place animals on the earth. Did he create them from the dust of the earth like evolutionists think? Or did he transport them from other worlds like evolutionists think like came from? You have no answer to that question either. It happened.

Did Alexander the Great exist? Neither of us were there. I'm convinced by the evidence that he did exist. Same for evolution, fossils, bio-chemistry, and anatomy all offer evidence for evolution. ALL your evidence for God comes from a collection of oral traditions that are millennia old and you weren't there either. Faith is great but I'll opt for evidence.

 

[Cougarbear]

Did Alexander the Great exist? Neither of us were there. I'm convinced by the evidence that he did exist. Same for evolution, fossils, bio-chemistry, and anatomy all offer evidence for evolution. ALL your evidence for God comes from a collection of oral traditions that are millennia old and you weren't there either. Faith is great but I'll opt for evidence.

You don’t understand evolution. Darwin thought a bunch of sludge evolved into bugs. That’s what you are doing. You are forcing your ideas into biology. The very thing you don’t like about God. God brought Adam and Eve into the world and we are of their fold. And there is plenty of evidence of God.

 

[alang1216]

You don’t understand evolution. Darwin thought a bunch of sludge evolved into bugs.

One of us doesn't understand evolution for sure. True, Darwin thought life evolved from a common ancestor, but there were a trillion generations between the sludge and the bugs. A lot can happen in that time.

That’s what you are doing. You are forcing your ideas into biology. The very thing you don’t like about God. God brought Adam and Eve into the world and we are of their fold. And there is plenty of evidence of God.

Evidence for a creator or evidence for the God of the Bible?

 

[Cougarbear]

One of us doesn't understand evolution for sure. True, Darwin thought life evolved from a common ancestor, but there were a trillion generations between the sludge and the bugs. A lot can happen in that time.


Evidence for a creator or evidence for the God of the Bible?

You still think bugs can rise out of sludge! The fact you don’t understand evolution means there are no links from amoebas and humans. Observational science is not science. It’s full of assumptions that are unproven. When you ready articles and books on this the my are full of fuzzy words in such a way attempting to bs their way to unproven opinions. “Maybe” “might be” “could have” blahblahblah. Set that side by side with the scriptures and you will find little to no fuzzy words based on the topic. Definitely none when it comes to mankind.

 

[alang1216]

You still think bugs can rise out of sludge! The fact you don’t understand evolution means there are no links from amoebas and humans.

A prime example of a lack of understanding of evolution, "there are no links from amoebas and humans". Evolution says they both share a common ancestor, not that one evolved from the other.

Observational science is not science. It’s full of assumptions that are unproven.

Completely wrong. If you can observe something it is as proof as you'll ever get.

When you ready articles and books on this the my are full of fuzzy words in such a way attempting to bs their way to unproven opinions. “Maybe” “might be” “could have” blahblahblah. Set that side by side with the scriptures and you will find little to no fuzzy words based on the topic. Definitely none when it comes to mankind.

Reality is messy, sorry. Scripture should have more fuzzy words since it has been edited, altered, appended, etc. It is neither science nor history, it is theology that has evolved over time.

 

[Cougarbear]

A prime example of a lack of understanding of evolution, "there are no links from amoebas and humans". Evolution says they both share a common ancestor, not that one evolved from the other.


Completely wrong. If you can observe something it is as proof as you'll ever get.


Reality is messy, sorry. Scripture should have more fuzzy words since it has been edited, altered, appended, etc. It is neither science nor history, it is theology that has evolved over time.

Do try to pay attention. From the dictionary:
ev·o·lu·tion - the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. And, the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Nothing about a common ancestor. But, it does say that earlier forms of organisms (amoebas) would have to develop into a more complex form like a human to be evolution. So, one would evolve from the other.
You are silly. People say they have observed ghosts, big foot God and so on. Yet, you would claim that none of those 3 exist. So, by your own logic (misguided) you contradict yourself. Nice going.
Scriptures don't have fuzzy words. But, evolution is always riddled with fuzzy words. Next time you read an article by an evolutionist believer, or listen on the TV science channel, riddled with fuzzy words. And, by the way, it's okay to do so. It gets people thinking. But, it is nowhere a reason to conclude their theories are correct.

 

[alang1216]

Do try to pay attention. From the dictionary:
ev·o·lu·tion - the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. And, the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Nothing about a common ancestor. But, it does say that earlier forms of organisms (amoebas) would have to develop into a more complex form like a human to be evolution. So, one would evolve from the other.

Doubling down? Amoebas are the result of billions of years of evolution, just as we are.

You are silly. People say they have observed ghosts, big foot God and so on. Yet, you would claim that none of those 3 exist. So, by your own logic (misguided) you contradict yourself. Nice going.

People can say anything they want but scientific observations must be confirmed and repeatable. Scripture has numerous tales of miracles being observed and you believe them.

Scriptures don't have fuzzy words. But, evolution is always riddled with fuzzy words. Next time you read an article by an evolutionist believer, or listen on the TV science channel, riddled with fuzzy words. And, by the way, it's okay to do so. It gets people thinking. But, it is nowhere a reason to conclude their theories are correct.

The evidence of evolution is hard and fast, nothing fuzzy about it. You may be thinking of speculations like what color were the dinosaurs or what did they eat. There is nothing fuzzy in science about if they existed or not.

 

[Cougarbear]

Doubling down? Amoebas are the result of billions of years of evolution, just as we are.


People can say anything they want but scientific observations must be confirmed and repeatable. Scripture has numerous tales of miracles being observed and you believe them.


The evidence of evolution is hard and fast, nothing fuzzy about it. You may be thinking of speculations like what color were the dinosaurs or what did they eat. There is nothing fuzzy in science about if they existed or not.

There is no scientific fact that amoebas came from evolution. Man has never been able to create even the very basic life in the laboratory to prove your assertion is fact. If it were true, then it would be geology that would have created the first life. Not evolution. However, you are just trying to move the goal post. There is no evidence that amoebas became humans. Even Darwin did not make the conclusion you are trying. He said there was natural selection, not evolution. But, you don't know the difference.

 

[alang1216]

There is no scientific fact that amoebas came from evolution.

There is no evidence they did not and and plenty of biological evidence they do.

Man has never been able to create even the very basic life in the laboratory to prove your assertion is fact. If it were true, then it would be geology that would have created the first life. Not evolution. However, you are just trying to move the goal post.

You are the one moving the goal posts. Abiogenesis is a totally separate science from evolution. Evolution only begins once live already exists.

There is no evidence that amoebas became humans.

Probably because amoebas DID NOT BECOME HUMAN. They do share a common ancestor that lived over a billion years ago.

Even Darwin did not make the conclusion you are trying. He said there was natural selection, not evolution. But, you don't know the difference.

Well one of us doesn't and, spoiler alert, it is not me. Evolution is an accepted scientific fact on par with gravity. Darwin was 100% behind the fact of descent from a common ancestor, AKA, evolution. What Darwin proposed was a mechanism, natural selection, to explain HOW evolution operates.

 

[Cougarbear]

There is no evidence they did not and and plenty of biological evidence they do.


You are the one moving the goal posts. Abiogenesis is a totally separate science from evolution. Evolution only begins once live already exists.


Probably because amoebas DID NOT BECOME HUMAN. They do share a common ancestor that lived over a billion years ago.


Well one of us doesn't and, spoiler alert, it is not me. Evolution is an accepted scientific fact on par with gravity. Darwin was 100% behind the fact of descent from a common ancestor, AKA, evolution. What Darwin proposed was a mechanism, natural selection, to explain HOW evolution operates.

You need to do some real research. Especially about Darwin. There is no common ancestor of a human and an amoeba. Prove it. Show us your references. Where did the life come from? How did it start without fuzzy words. Show references.

 

[alang1216]

You need to do some real research. Especially about Darwin. There is no common ancestor of a human and an amoeba. Prove it. Show us your references.

Amoeba Genome Shows Evolution of Complex Life​

The researchers compared N. gruberi's genome to a wide range of other eukaryotes -- organisms that separate their DNA from the rest of the cell -- including green plants, fungi, humans and other single-celled organisms, and found a set of about 4,000 genes that could be traced back to a single ancestor over a billion years ago. Many of those genes have no known function, Dawson said.

Where did the life come from? How did it start without fuzzy words. Show references.

As I tried to explain before ABIOGENESIS is NOT evolution. Until you demonstrate you actually understand the science of evolution you're on your own with other sciences.

 

[Cougarbear]

Amoeba Genome Shows Evolution of Complex Life​

The researchers compared N. gruberi's genome to a wide range of other eukaryotes -- organisms that separate their DNA from the rest of the cell -- including green plants, fungi, humans and other single-celled organisms, and found a set of about 4,000 genes that could be traced back to a single ancestor over a billion years ago. Many of those genes have no known function, Dawson said.


As I tried to explain before ABIOGENESIS is NOT evolution. Until you demonstrate you actually understand the science of evolution you're on your own with other sciences.

See!!! Did you catch the fuzzy words? “Could Be!” Not 100% definitely. Just an observational opinion with nothing to substantiate this.

 

[Coyote]

False. There is no common ancestor that fossils point to. Please share us your proof...

Approximatley 0.001% of living things become fossils. It is extremely rare.

 

[Coyote]

It is so unnecessary for people to view religion and science as in opposition. They are different languages we use to understand the world around us.

Somewhere I read that science answers the question of “how” while religion answers the question of ”why”.

 

[Coyote]

You need to do some real research. Especially about Darwin. There is no common ancestor of a human and an amoeba. Prove it. Show us your references. Where did the life come from? How did it start without fuzzy words. Show references.

What ”proof” do you have?

 

[Cougarbear]

Approximatley 0.001% of living things become fossils. It is extremely rare.

So? Fuzzy words and thinking

 

[Cougarbear]

What ”proof” do you have?

I’m not the one trying to prove evolution exists from lower to higher life. You are and can’t.

 

[Coyote]

So? Fuzzy words and thinking

?

 

[Cougarbear]

?

“could be” are fuzzy words.

 

[alang1216]

See!!! Did you catch the fuzzy words? “Could Be!” Not 100% definitely. Just an observational opinion with nothing to substantiate this.

You have a very high bar for someone who believes in things neither they nor anyone they know have ever observed. If we had fossils of every creature that ever lived "could be" might become "was" but for those of us in the real world...