Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[antagon]

I find it offensive that people claiming to be Christians are offended by Christians that do not jump on the band wagon when it comes to 'believing' scientific theories.

1. i'm 'claiming' now, because i don't jump on your bandwagon? that bullshit can take a hike. 2. its just the field you've come to bat on. you have extended your argument to discredit evolution on what you claim to be a scientific basis, but which does not have any scientific validity. failing science, i feel some christians usurp God to shelter their ignorance, and that is retrograde to my belief, indeed.

There are scientific discoveries that glorify G*d and strengthen faith. Evolution is just not one of them. When you can use biology to predict colors of offspring in different colored parents, it can be proven. It can be repeated. When you define 'quarks' and show them to exist, it is an experiment that can be repeated, proven. The work on light, electro-magnetic forces, strong and weak forces, energy, waves are all scientific work that I find facinating. Because some person (that had other reasons for presenting a great story), said so, and more 'scammer scientists' used the same theory for fame, fortune or power does not impress me. I question their findings and I question their motives.
IMHO, it is like doing a jigsaw puzzle where you find a piece that looks like it should fit, but just doesn't quite make it. If you put it to the side, eventually you will find the right piece and the one you thought went there, fits perfectly in a different part of the scene. To me, the 'evolutionists' just keep pushing the puzzle piece in the wrong spot and wondering why they can't finish the puzzle.

theory=/=hypothesis. prove/repeat relativity. prove/repeat evolution. not going to happen. ever. that does not invalidate the hypotheses which support each, or the value the theory has in driving hypotheses.

i similarly present to an atheist's argument against my faith, that their quest for a provable god is absurd. some concepts simply require God's omnipresence and omniscience to verify. evolution would require omnipresence across the last 200,000,000 years, and granular omniscience of the genomes of life to verify with certainty. bunch of theories like that.

what about evolution weakens faith?

Evolution implies there is no direction for life; it is a chaos based theory. Biblical teachings demonstrate that life was 'designed' and has a direction. The lion and the lamb will graze on grasses together in the new kingdom; this is at direct odds with the theory of evolution. "The creation" is made to be less with the claim that G*d made some one-celled animals and then look what happened.
It is in direct conflict with the Biblical statement that 'man' was created in His image. It weakens your faith in G*d and puts it in physical occurences (that are controlled by G*d). The 'evidence' of evolution is SWAG (scientific wild ass guess). Until evolution can be demonstrated (species changing into other species), I choose to put my 'faith' in the Glory of the Lord, not some little men with big egos.

this is interesting, an fundamentally where our christianity diverges.

a black man and white man are both is God's image. both men are physically in the image of their parents, phenotypically, and as their genes indicate. they're both human, but share 90-some percent of the same genes with other primates.

that is not the basis of evolution, but is consistent with it anyhow. it is no affront to my christianity that the bible says im in gods image, but i have my mom's nose and the monkey genes. you have chosen to accept the heredity from your parents, but have put a faith-based barrier to accepting that what the bible says is our creation in God's image selectively. if you take a tight interpretation, a contradiction between science and your religious belief exists, which fails to religiously mandate why my nose is like my mom's and not yours, and we could be in His image if such is the case. the conclusion, i guess, would be to deny the evidence that shows how we transmit these phenotypes genetically. your reaction is very similar, but you have selectively conceded heredity, but denied other evidence which further explains its implications.

to the contrary, there isn't a single physical finding available now or in the future which could refute the statement in the bible. for me, God states that we are the culmination of his creation, and the ultimate in intelligent life on earth... and that's what makes us in His image. that evolution and other science describe how, like how leaves are green, etc. support, rather than undermine reality in God.

 

[logical4u]

'bullshit' come to mind as a term to describe both your criticisms of the fossil record. ignoring the thousands of specimen which exist in convincing semblance, you guys harp on the illustrations.

not only do they merely illustrate rather than comprise the evidence they represent, but your claims of gross inaccuracies and gratuitous creative license are unsupported. some splashes of color on illustrations not relevant to the findings themselves, convince you that the world is flat, after all. that is akin to discrediting the commandments over liberties with moses' coif in illustrations or the golden rule over Jesus' likely inaccurate caucasian appearance in western renditions.

really? no substantive answers to the gaping holes in your contentions? more willful ignorance?

'The public' is only given the 'fossils' that the 'scientists' want them to see. They hundreds of thousands of fossils that shed doubt on their....(your tem) bullshit, are destroyed or stored where the public has little access. You are a believer (in men).

what would a fossil which sheds doubt on evolution theory entail?

i dont believe there is any motivation, furthermore, to hide or destroy any of the materials out there.

i think your idea about the doubting fossils or international conspiracy are comical and enable your penchant for ignoring the evidence there is for evolution. wouldn't there be more motivation to discover such evidences which would controvert evolution?

there's more money in pumping you guys with fuzzy logic than beating the dead horse evolution is for the science community.


what say you to the fossils which are available? the evidence which does exist? the evidence which controverts the logic in your micro-only, non-special evolution model?

If there are fossils of horse-like animals that end with a certain period, and then the horse fossils begin about the same time, the evolutionists claim those animals 'evolved' into horses. There are no fossils to support this. If in the same period evolutionists display similar species of fossils and claim that this 'proves' evolution, would it not stand to reason that other species would change due to similar circumstances? A huge variety of similar changes where evidence of the 'evolving' would be documented in fossil records of more than one species in the same time period. This is not the case. The evolutionists want to 'pick and choose' which 'evolution' occurs in very selective time periods. IF evolution is as unavoidable as the evolutionists claim, wouldn't there be evidence of several species changing at the same time? They demonstrate fossils of animals that are no longer in existance, and claim they have 'evolved' (or were killed off by prehistoric global climate change, no doubt caused by the first few men on earth). It is a GUESS, as to what happened to the animals. They cannot show the horse-like fossil 'evolving' into a horse fossil....they can show one end ... and then the other end, its just the middle part that is missing (so they made it up to fill in the gaps).

You, might say that is just one animal... that is my point, evolutionist cannot show the beginning, the middle and the end of ANY 'evolution'. They show 'similar' species and claim 'evolution'. There just isn't the evidence to support it.

 

[logical4u]

that's just the problem, logic. there is not an extinction driven decline, exclusively. biodiversity is tracked in both directions. i said that there would be an extinction-driven decline if there was a single creation event like the bible has put forth, and which i subscribe to, and there was, at the same time, no evolution. but there isnt, exclusively, a decline.
these are logical operators. these present a fairy-tale to you? that you stop listening when presented logic is the theme which prevents your seeing validity in scientific arguments... not the arguments themselves.

on micro and macro evolution: given heredity and adaptation (microevolution), and the reality that these are affected at the genome level, when such an adaptation occurs which precludes heredity, speciation, (macroevolution) has occurred. again, where is the barrier which prevents an adaptation affected by a genetic mutation, from also effecting the viability of combination during an attempted reproduction? instead, creatures with genetic evidence of mutual or linear heredity coexist, but cant breed. fossil evidence indicates such populations emerged where they did not exist millions of years prior, and which have phenotypes transitional to creatures prceeding/proceeding them.


you've got a similar impediment to the block that the lyte has with fossil records. you can challenge my thoughts on the validity of renditions separately. what say you of eryops as a missing link study? it's been nicely preserved (by God's grace) in our southwestern desert. this creature is available in whole, well preserved fossils, it possesses adaptations from creatures preceding it, and precedes further adapted creatures which exist today. its existence can be isolated to a frame in time, and thus is not consistent with the decline model you adhere to. it constitutes an addition to the planet's biodiversity.

the challenge wasn't to concur or support that folks 2000+ years ago believed there to be only a decline in biodiversity. it remains to offer an explanation for the recorded increases in biodiversity. what explains that?

take that up with atheists about atheism. discuss the science of biology and the nature of God's creation with me.

Your arguments are 'faith-based'. You have no more evidence than what non-atheists present as the 'existence' of their 'Creator'. You select 'fossils' out of 'millions' of years and lay them in a line and say look, this proves it. The other lines of 'fossils' are not similar; they do not follow the same pattern. If what men (scientists) said was 'true', don't you think there would be a definite pattern? Not species that are similar being laid side by side and someone saying look, this 'eventually' became this. LOOK for conclusive proof of species after species being laid out in lines demonstrating the same pattern at the same times. That 'pattern' does not exist. All the scientist can demonstrate acurately is severe changes in climate that had water where it is not now, ice where it is not now and creatures that no longer exist. They cannot tell you where life came from or what its purpose is, they can only make up stories based on little pieces they have found. You, choose to believe them. I do not.

You are a believer of men. Your faith has been placed in men. You will be disappointed in men. Good luck with that.

i'm tiring of your questioning my beliefs. you are full of shit that my understanding of science has a negative impact on my understanding of God. if it weren't a separate argument i would question your faith on the basis that you feel it is challenged by science. i would challenge the consequence that your mentality promotes stupidity in God's name. but it is a separate argument. will you respect that, i wonder?

to clear up your misunderstanding of evolution theory, it does not pose a 'definite pattern', if i understand what you mean by that at all. which fossil evidence indicates that advanced creatures came before, or without connection to other, simpler critters. what say you to the shared genes which all creatures have (amoebas or humans), given that genes are communicated through heredity?

life is from God and allowed by God. does evolution change that? could any information gathered from the physical world challenge that? like the atheists, you see that potential. i say it is imaginary.

Your beliefs are yours. It is obvious that you do BELIEVE in science. I use science. If I can make something move with force applied to lessen the work I have to do, I use it. It is not my faith. Men 'discover' science. They do not make science. They cannot change what has already been done. They can explain it differently, but that does not make it the truth. Until I meet a man that was actually there and 'witnessed' 'evolution', I do not see it as truth. It is a good story.

 

[logical4u]

1. i'm 'claiming' now, because i don't jump on your bandwagon? that bullshit can take a hike. 2. its just the field you've come to bat on. you have extended your argument to discredit evolution on what you claim to be a scientific basis, but which does not have any scientific validity. failing science, i feel some christians usurp God to shelter their ignorance, and that is retrograde to my belief, indeed.

theory=/=hypothesis. prove/repeat relativity. prove/repeat evolution. not going to happen. ever. that does not invalidate the hypotheses which support each, or the value the theory has in driving hypotheses.

i similarly present to an atheist's argument against my faith, that their quest for a provable god is absurd. some concepts simply require God's omnipresence and omniscience to verify. evolution would require omnipresence across the last 200,000,000 years, and granular omniscience of the genomes of life to verify with certainty. bunch of theories like that.

what about evolution weakens faith?

Evolution implies there is no direction for life; it is a chaos based theory. Biblical teachings demonstrate that life was 'designed' and has a direction. The lion and the lamb will graze on grasses together in the new kingdom; this is at direct odds with the theory of evolution. "The creation" is made to be less with the claim that G*d made some one-celled animals and then look what happened.
It is in direct conflict with the Biblical statement that 'man' was created in His image. It weakens your faith in G*d and puts it in physical occurences (that are controlled by G*d). The 'evidence' of evolution is SWAG (scientific wild ass guess). Until evolution can be demonstrated (species changing into other species), I choose to put my 'faith' in the Glory of the Lord, not some little men with big egos.

this is interesting, an fundamentally where our christianity diverges.

a black man and white man are both is God's image. both men are physically in the image of their parents, phenotypically, and as their genes indicate. they're both human, but share 90-some percent of the same genes with other primates.

that is not the basis of evolution, but is consistent with it anyhow. it is no affront to my christianity that the bible says im in gods image, but i have my mom's nose and the monkey genes. you have chosen to accept the heredity from your parents, but have put a faith-based barrier to accepting that what the bible says is our creation in God's image selectively. if you take a tight interpretation, a contradiction between science and your religious belief exists, which fails to religiously mandate why my nose is like my mom's and not yours, and we could be in His image if such is the case. the conclusion, i guess, would be to deny the evidence that shows how we transmit these phenotypes genetically. your reaction is very similar, but you have selectively conceded heredity, but denied other evidence which further explains its implications.

to the contrary, there isn't a single physical finding available now or in the future which could refute the statement in the bible. for me, God states that we are the culmination of his creation, and the ultimate in intelligent life on earth... and that's what makes us in His image. that evolution and other science describe how, like how leaves are green, etc. support, rather than undermine reality in God.

Do you have a book and verse on that "culmination of..."? I don't recall seeing that in Genisis.

 

[antagon]

'The public' is only given the 'fossils' that the 'scientists' want them to see. They hundreds of thousands of fossils that shed doubt on their....(your tem) bullshit, are destroyed or stored where the public has little access. You are a believer (in men).

what would a fossil which sheds doubt on evolution theory entail?

i dont believe there is any motivation, furthermore, to hide or destroy any of the materials out there.

i think your idea about the doubting fossils or international conspiracy are comical and enable your penchant for ignoring the evidence there is for evolution. wouldn't there be more motivation to discover such evidences which would controvert evolution?

there's more money in pumping you guys with fuzzy logic than beating the dead horse evolution is for the science community.


what say you to the fossils which are available? the evidence which does exist? the evidence which controverts the logic in your micro-only, non-special evolution model?

If there are fossils of horse-like animals that end with a certain period, and then the horse fossils begin about the same time, the evolutionists claim those animals 'evolved' into horses. There are no fossils to support this. If in the same period evolutionists display similar species of fossils and claim that this 'proves' evolution, would it not stand to reason that other species would change due to similar circumstances? A huge variety of similar changes where evidence of the 'evolving' would be documented in fossil records of more than one species in the same time period. This is not the case. The evolutionists want to 'pick and choose' which 'evolution' occurs in very selective time periods. IF evolution is as unavoidable as the evolutionists claim, wouldn't there be evidence of several species changing at the same time? They demonstrate fossils of animals that are no longer in existance, and claim they have 'evolved' (or were killed off by prehistoric global climate change, no doubt caused by the first few men on earth). It is a GUESS, as to what happened to the animals. They cannot show the horse-like fossil 'evolving' into a horse fossil....they can show one end ... and then the other end, its just the middle part that is missing (so they made it up to fill in the gaps).

You, might say that is just one animal... that is my point, evolutionist cannot show the beginning, the middle and the end of ANY 'evolution'. They show 'similar' species and claim 'evolution'. There just isn't the evidence to support it.

what about said similar species combined with the timeline which they walked the earth and the fact that lacking genetic data due to their age, we can infer phenotype relationships to genes, and theorize heredity from that.

several times you've mentioned examples which are specifically pertinent to evolution theory, oddly, and which make a good argument for it.

this 'showing of similar species' in fossils, given the timeline, constitutes an example of an expanding biodiversity.

might you clarify your statements in the middle there about many other species evolving at once. im not sure ive entirely got you.

there are times spanning millions of years, which lent to increases in biodiversity, and others which affected selection of the fittest among that diversity. during these periods several species evolved at the same time. certainly the horses weren't the only lineage undergoing as much. is that what you are claiming? that during this epoch, equines are the only critters considered to have evolved?

when you say there are no fossils supporting equine evolution, what do you mean? beyond the phenotypical lineage progressing/transitioning on a timeline, what more would you expect to see from a fossil record to substantiate the theory?

any news on how the fossil record controverts it?

 

[Father Time]

Your arguments are 'faith-based'. You have no more evidence than what non-atheists present as the 'existence' of their 'Creator'. You select 'fossils' out of 'millions' of years and lay them in a line and say look, this proves it. The other lines of 'fossils' are not similar; they do not follow the same pattern. If what men (scientists) said was 'true', don't you think there would be a definite pattern? Not species that are similar being laid side by side and someone saying look, this 'eventually' became this. LOOK for conclusive proof of species after species being laid out in lines demonstrating the same pattern at the same times. That 'pattern' does not exist. All the scientist can demonstrate acurately is severe changes in climate that had water where it is not now, ice where it is not now and creatures that no longer exist. They cannot tell you where life came from or what its purpose is, they can only make up stories based on little pieces they have found. You, choose to believe them. I do not.

You are a believer of men. Your faith has been placed in men. You will be disappointed in men. Good luck with that.

i'm tiring of your questioning my beliefs. you are full of shit that my understanding of science has a negative impact on my understanding of God. if it weren't a separate argument i would question your faith on the basis that you feel it is challenged by science. i would challenge the consequence that your mentality promotes stupidity in God's name. but it is a separate argument. will you respect that, i wonder?

to clear up your misunderstanding of evolution theory, it does not pose a 'definite pattern', if i understand what you mean by that at all. which fossil evidence indicates that advanced creatures came before, or without connection to other, simpler critters. what say you to the shared genes which all creatures have (amoebas or humans), given that genes are communicated through heredity?

life is from God and allowed by God. does evolution change that? could any information gathered from the physical world challenge that? like the atheists, you see that potential. i say it is imaginary.

Your beliefs are yours. It is obvious that you do BELIEVE in science. I use science. If I can make something move with force applied to lessen the work I have to do, I use it. It is not my faith. Men 'discover' science. They do not make science. They cannot change what has already been done. They can explain it differently, but that does not make it the truth. Until I meet a man that was actually there and 'witnessed' 'evolution', I do not see it as truth. It is a good story.

So does that mean you do not believe in any of the events that are over 200 years old?

 

[logical4u]

i'm tiring of your questioning my beliefs. you are full of shit that my understanding of science has a negative impact on my understanding of God. if it weren't a separate argument i would question your faith on the basis that you feel it is challenged by science. i would challenge the consequence that your mentality promotes stupidity in God's name. but it is a separate argument. will you respect that, i wonder?

to clear up your misunderstanding of evolution theory, it does not pose a 'definite pattern', if i understand what you mean by that at all. which fossil evidence indicates that advanced creatures came before, or without connection to other, simpler critters. what say you to the shared genes which all creatures have (amoebas or humans), given that genes are communicated through heredity?

life is from God and allowed by God. does evolution change that? could any information gathered from the physical world challenge that? like the atheists, you see that potential. i say it is imaginary.

Your beliefs are yours. It is obvious that you do BELIEVE in science. I use science. If I can make something move with force applied to lessen the work I have to do, I use it. It is not my faith. Men 'discover' science. They do not make science. They cannot change what has already been done. They can explain it differently, but that does not make it the truth. Until I meet a man that was actually there and 'witnessed' 'evolution', I do not see it as truth. It is a good story.

So does that mean you do not believe in any of the events that are over 200 years old?

I love fiction. I enjoy reading it, and watching it. I don't think it is real. Some things are documented by several sources with similar presentations. Our country is over 200 years old. Written history is over 200 years old.
If someone came with 'evidence' of space aliens (say staight lines in the Andies), do I think that is absolute proof of space aliens... no, I do not. It makes a good story. It seems to fit. But there is no conclusive proof that aliens made those lines or that those lines were made for aliens (and those lines are over 200 years old). The same way that 'evolutionists' have this great 'story' and use very selective fossils as 'evidence'. I believe it is fiction. Species do not change into other species.

 

[konradv]

The same way that 'evolutionists' have this great 'story' and use very selective fossils as 'evidence'. I believe it is fiction. Species do not change into other species.
-----------------------

That's totally untrue. Could you give us an example of how fossils are being "selectively" chosen? Secondly, if your final statement is true, why aren't trilobite and dolphin fossils found in the same geological strata? If dolphins didn't evolve, where were they during the trilobite era?

 

[amrchaos]

How about looking at it in a different view

Is creation, as outlined by the Bible, true? Do you think God created the Earth in seven days? Or is it just a story written by an ancient people(More ancient than the Hebrews) that became a popular source to answering the question "Where did life come from?"


Creation, as written in the Bible, is not backed up by any science and it is usually believers in it that tend to add or misinterpret the Bible.

Ij truthe there is no need to.

 

[konradv]

Is creation, as outlined by the Bible, true?
-------------------------

One part, "let there be light". We call it The Big Bang!

 

[amrchaos]

Is creation, as outlined by the Bible, true?
-------------------------

One part, "let there be light". We call it The Big Bang!

So you suggest that some thing "spoke" and the event occured.

Tell me--where did the air come from? I mean, if you believe in the Big Bang theory. Also, who heard those words. Why were they spoken and who was it spoken to?


In all seriousness. The purpose of a myth in religion is to form a perspective to look at society. You may not realize it, but the creation myth is broken into 2 parts--first detailing the uniqueness to man in society, the second explaining why man must live the life he is presented with. A life that can not be considered DIVINE.

None of this has any bearance on the real world at hand, is mainly used as the background for justice and law in most Judeo-Christian societies. Genesis only accounts for the people living in and around the Near East and was proabably created some time after the first spoken languages were formed. It appears in numerous religions in the Near East and most likely came from the Babylonians and later adopted by the Hebrews. It was a popular myth with many applications to society.

Its applications to science,however, is more of a hindrance. The task of proving an intelligent creator is ignored, the need to contend with contradicting information from archeaology are ignored, the desire to progandize a sensitive topic to the general public(is science at war with religion? topic) is encouraged. The only reason creationism is still being considered a theory is to "prove" the Bible to the populace. Unfortuantely, this "proof" is one bain subjectivism and is not scientific whatso ever.

Again, why do you believe the earth was created in seven days?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Not the first time a theory has been proven incomplete after further study.....anyone remember newtonian physics?

 

[amrchaos]

Not the first time a theory has been proven incomplete after further study.....anyone remember newtonian physics?

Newtonian Mechanics did not derive from a myth, can you describe a proven scientific theory arisen from a myth?

 

[logical4u]

The same way that 'evolutionists' have this great 'story' and use very selective fossils as 'evidence'. I believe it is fiction. Species do not change into other species.
-----------------------

That's totally untrue. Could you give us an example of how fossils are being "selectively" chosen? Secondly, if your final statement is true, why aren't trilobite and dolphin fossils found in the same geological strata? If dolphins didn't evolve, where were they during the trilobite era?

The evolution of the dolphin should be explained by the evolutionists. Which species were they originally? The evolutionists want to claim the mammals (the more complicated animals come from the more primitive), draw me a line. Which animal did the dolphin, horse, ape, etc have as a common ancestor?

Selective: similar creatures (with shells) are chosen and we are told they are the same. Without the insides (the life), there is no way of knowing. It would be like finding fossils of similar shaped butterflies and butterflies and claiming they 'evolved' from one to the other, when if you had seen them living, you would know they were different species.

 

[logical4u]

How about looking at it in a different view

Is creation, as outlined by the Bible, true? Do you think God created the Earth in seven days? Or is it just a story written by an ancient people(More ancient than the Hebrews) that became a popular source to answering the question "Where did life come from?"


Creation, as written in the Bible, is not backed up by any science and it is usually believers in it that tend to add or misinterpret the Bible.

Ij truthe there is no need to.

I think the Lord created the earth in seven of His days.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Not the first time a theory has been proven incomplete after further study.....anyone remember newtonian physics?

Newtonian Mechanics did not derive from a myth, can you describe a proven scientific theory arisen from a myth?

You think evolution is a myth? I only ask because your statement makes no sense right now, to me, in regards to what you quoted from me.

Read what I said "Theory proven incomplete" I didnt say anything about mythology?!?!?!?

 

[konradv]

The evolution of the dolphin should be explained by the evolutionists.
-----------------------------------

I didn't ask you to explain evolution. I asked you to explain why trilobites and dolphins aren't found in the same geological strata.

 

[konradv]

It would be like finding fossils of similar shaped butterflies and butterflies and claiming they 'evolved' from one to the other, when if you had seen them living, you would know they were different species.
--------------------------------------------
Well if they evolved from one another they WOULD be different species. Your comment doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[antagon]

Evolution implies there is no direction for life; it is a chaos based theory. Biblical teachings demonstrate that life was 'designed' and has a direction. The lion and the lamb will graze on grasses together in the new kingdom; this is at direct odds with the theory of evolution. "The creation" is made to be less with the claim that G*d made some one-celled animals and then look what happened.
It is in direct conflict with the Biblical statement that 'man' was created in His image. It weakens your faith in G*d and puts it in physical occurences (that are controlled by G*d). The 'evidence' of evolution is SWAG (scientific wild ass guess). Until evolution can be demonstrated (species changing into other species), I choose to put my 'faith' in the Glory of the Lord, not some little men with big egos.

this is interesting, an fundamentally where our christianity diverges.

a black man and white man are both is God's image. both men are physically in the image of their parents, phenotypically, and as their genes indicate. they're both human, but share 90-some percent of the same genes with other primates.

that is not the basis of evolution, but is consistent with it anyhow. it is no affront to my christianity that the bible says im in gods image, but i have my mom's nose and the monkey genes. you have chosen to accept the heredity from your parents, but have put a faith-based barrier to accepting that what the bible says is our creation in God's image selectively. if you take a tight interpretation, a contradiction between science and your religious belief exists, which fails to religiously mandate why my nose is like my mom's and not yours, and we could be in His image if such is the case. the conclusion, i guess, would be to deny the evidence that shows how we transmit these phenotypes genetically. your reaction is very similar, but you have selectively conceded heredity, but denied other evidence which further explains its implications.

to the contrary, there isn't a single physical finding available now or in the future which could refute the statement in the bible. for me, God states that we are the culmination of his creation, and the ultimate in intelligent life on earth... and that's what makes us in His image. that evolution and other science describe how, like how leaves are green, etc. support, rather than undermine reality in God.

Do you have a book and verse on that "culmination of..."? I don't recall seeing that in Genisis.

won't you just need to read on to the end of the first chapter? did he not rest satisfied with his ultimate creation in man?

how much more convincing must 1:28-30 be?

there is plenty about evolution which could be understood from the bible, and which i find quite satisfying as a christian. i certainly don't look at the bible with the same fundamental interpretation which you do. i dont feel Jesus did either, as evidenced by His life and teachings recorded in the new testament. notwithstanding, i would caution that, because the bible wasnt written in english, that you have to study deeper into the meaning you've taken for in My/our image in 1:27. the relationship, of course, is not a physical simile, but a metaphor of the powers of God, and over creation as espoused directly thereafter in the verses i'd referenced.

Note the hebrew words for God and image/likeness which were used for those passages (also later in Gen) which vary from physical identity and which term God for his powers, not for His identity.

the key to your seeing evolution and nature for what it is, is in seeing the bible for what it is.

follow me with this concept: were adam and eve modern humans before they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge? does this incident not chronicle the rise of modern man alongside the fall of humanity? in the sense that ignorance is bliss, humanity is cursed by our knowledge (having eaten from the tree). 2400 years or so later, science can demonstrate our emergence from the rest of the animal kingdom and primitive hominids, and quantify our potential for knowledge with a study of our brain capacity.

paleontologists today have established that man was the first/only such hominid to farm and work the earth, but had that not been established thousands of years prior in gen 3:17-19?

my perspective on what i've read in the bible has it proclaiming evolution millenia before chuck darwin. follow me up to that point, there is more to what i feel the bible reveals on evolution.

 

[antagon]

How about looking at it in a different view

Is creation, as outlined by the Bible, true? Do you think God created the Earth in seven days? Or is it just a story written by an ancient people(More ancient than the Hebrews) that became a popular source to answering the question "Where did life come from?"


Creation, as written in the Bible, is not backed up by any science and it is usually believers in it that tend to add or misinterpret the Bible.

Ij truthe there is no need to.

do you think the bible is a science book, genius?