• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science Disproves Evolution

Hey 154!

I'm a Christian as it happens, and I'm pretty sure that evolution occurred, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that natural selection is a major (but not the whole story) component of the process (we also have things like lateral gene transfer, and uplift, where abunch of genetic coding is passed on because it shares an organism with some more useful stuff.) Like Asa Gray, and indeed most evengelicals before the middle of the twnetieth century I have no issue with this at all - I find it fascinating.

If God is the author of the universe, science gies us a chance to see the mind of God, and to ask the real questions. we best do this by taking what experts can tell su seriously. By all means question them, and the interpretations of the data - experts are often wrong! -- but in science we expect to be wrong, and we have various ways to test our hypotheses and to critique them.

Might I recommend the following book? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence_for_Belief

It really is worth reading.

I have not read the whole thread, but a few points. Firstly, don't be misled by talk of transitional fosils. All fossils are transitional - we are still evolving, everything is. Secondly, I find the supposed distinction between macro and microevolution is oftn misleading; but to explain why would talke more time than I have now as I'm about to go out.

At the end of the day, we have evidence from a number of disciplines - gentics, morphology, biology, paleontology, geology, supporting the idea of an old earth that has seen some pretty fascinating and I might say beautiful changes over it's history. My disagreement with my non-Christian friends is not over the science, but over the "purpose", or lack thereof of the whole endeavour

Now if you have sound reasosn to dispute evolution, and oyu may have, cos i only just saw the thread, I'll happily discuss them with you. But really, Scriptute and the Church tell us very little about these matters, and even as far back as the Fundaentals, which fundamentlism was based upon, Christian thinkers were embracing evlutionary ideas. Still be fun to chat, and i really look forward to getting to know you better.

God Bless
cj x
 
Last edited:
154 said:
Okay.
I don't know anybody that is a supporter of evolution that is an equal or greater proponent of Christ at the same time. Not one. Don't recall ever even having known someone like that.
But if you say so.
Click to expand...
Teihard de Chardin

If you don't know that name you're too ignorant to make the statement you made. If you DO know that name, you're lying in the statement you made.
 
Of course. If there's evidence that can't be hand-waved away, it's mere microevolution. If there's any way to deny it outright, it's macroevolution. Thus, there's no evidence for macroevolution. Q.E.D.
 
Dancing David said:
If someone is not your personal defintion of Christian, even though they follow the teachings of Yeshuah bar Yoseph to the exact letter and intent, you dismiss them.
Click to expand...
I do? Really? Like who?

Dancing David said:
Maybe you define 'faith' as 'exactly conforming to my pattern of faith'.
Click to expand...
Maybe you have no idea about me.
Maybe you could put your 5 posts in a row to me into 1 or 2 posts?

Dancing David said:
Maybe you need to get out more and meet new people. How many people do you know outside of your church, have you been to other churches, of other denominations ?
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm out and about far more than almost anybody?
Maybe I meet far more people, even on a daily basis, than most people.
Maybe I haven't been to church in 20+ years but for several occasions.
Maybe you have no idea about me.
Maybe you can stick your condescension up... somewhere.
 
Last edited:
cj.23 said:
Hey 154!
<snip>
Click to expand...

Hello cj.23.

In whatever detail you are willing, who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Belz... said:
Bah. Is there really a distinction between "micro" and "macro" ?
Click to expand...
Yes. There is a great deal of variety among dogs. Dogs did not come from fish.

John Jones said:
BTW, your champion JonathanQuick got suspended for the second time.

How does that make you feel?
Click to expand...
"My champion"? What does that mean? Because I said I like his posts, that means something much more?

"Feel"? Uhh... thoroughly not surprised?

As often as my posts are edited or removed, I'm only surprised the mods still haven't suspended or banned me (for which I thank them ;)), although I know at least one of them was generously cool and tolerant of me within limits, if only privately...
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
Would you be willing to accept/admit they share a common ancestor?
Click to expand...
No. Dogs did not arise out of fish, nor do they share an uncle fishdog.

I don't believe that. You can believe that though. You have to believe that. What else could you believe?
 
Last edited:
154 said:
No. Dogs did not arise out of fish, nor do they share an uncle fishdog.
Click to expand...

How do you know so much more than the world's eminent biologists, paleontologists, ethologists? How did they get is so wrong and you got it so right? It's seems amazing.
 
154 said:
No. Dogs did not arise out of fish, nor do they share an uncle fishdog.

I don't believe that. You can believe that though. You have to believe that. What else could you believe?
Click to expand...

Please try to learn just a little about the Theory Of Evolution before you make too many more ignorantly foolish posts. You seem likable enough, but this level of ignorance is just embarassing.
 
As often as my posts are edited or removed, I'm only surprised the mods still haven't suspended or banned me (for which I thank them ), although I know at least one of them was generously cool and tolerant of me within limits, if only privately...
Click to expand...

Is that why you get away with calling people here 'dirtbags'?
 
154 said:
No. Dogs did not arise out of fish, nor do they share an uncle fishdog.

I don't believe that. You can believe that though. You have to believe that. What else could you believe?
Click to expand...


Now isn't such a level of blatant ignorance deserving of condescending? (seriously, you do realize that there is about 370 million years of evolution between the dogs and their aquatic ancestors, right? It's not like it jumped from one to the other in one step... Well, at least, I don't think anybody around here will be condescending enough to call you insincere or not serious in your faith...)


Anyway, up to my question, do you agree that Wolf and coyote and foxes do share a common ancestor?
 
Last edited:
Brainache said:
Please try to learn just a little about the Theory Of Evolution before you make too many more ignorantly foolish posts. You seem likable enough, but this level of ignorance is just embarassing.
Click to expand...

They share a common Creator, a common Designer, a common environment, and are fashioned from common materials.

Some simply and/or deliberately misinterpret the Commonality.
 
154 said:
No. Dogs did not arise out of fish, nor do they share an uncle fishdog.
Click to expand...
Seriously? A crockoduck argument?

They share a common Creator, a common Designer, a common environment, and are fashioned from common materials.
Click to expand...
Yeah......However, you have to contend with a remarkably good fossil record going from Canus familiarus to reptile-like mammals to mammal-like reptiles to amphibians to lobe-finned fish. And homologies aren't "misinterpreting commonality". They are traits that pretty much can only be shared through common ancestry.

I agree, such a level of ignorance is worthy of mockery when the person in question presumes to tell those who actually have studied the subject how wrong they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom