[_ Old Earth _] Does Christianity defy evolution?

[ChattyMute]

chattymute which theory of electricity are you refering to, hole theory, or the one that ben franklin started but is found to be inaccurate and is still used to understand polarity in dc batteries.there's one more.

electrons move protons dont, all cars are positive ground and you can reverse dc currrent,ie dcen,dcep. welding terms.

the polarity reverses itself in in ac current and ac current is more easily produced then dc, dc occurs in batteries and has to made by ac generators and forced by rectifiers.(diodes)

now back to topic for me. i love electricity and basics.

Sorry. Used the wrong name. Hole theory.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

A bat isn't a bird.

Correct.

Except how things began. Science guesses at that point.

No, Science hasn't made a conclusive ruling on that yet. The evidence would seem to indicate that as part of a quantum fluctuation, a singulatity spontaneously inflated into a vast field comprising matter and energy in a constantly expanding fabric of space and time, causality also arising in the process - Thus making a causative agent not only unnecessary but also impossible, however, this isn't a theory yet and so it only a strong hypothesis.

Science hasn't decided yet, we need more evidence.

Like the evidence that man came from monkeys!

No, we didn't come from monkeys (At least not the ones around today), we share a common ancestor with today's monkeys.

This is a very common misconception: that everything else is less evolved that us. This isn't true as all, we're all evolved to the same extent, just for different things. Leopards can run very fast because they need to in order to catch their pray, we stayed in trees and used our minds to create tools, they're two different branches or evolution.

A theory is an "unproven" guess!

In the colloquial language it is, but not in Science. In Science the word theory means something entirely different. In science a theory is a hypothesis that has survived the peer review process, millions of independent verifications and self-skepticism and has become proved to such an extent that it's credibility have become synonymous with that of facts.

Facts are indisputable observations; such as that we share 98% of our DNA with other apes, or that the world continents have moved around perfectly to coincide with what we find in the fossil record. All of these facts are collected into a hypothesis, which explains the facts: that we have all evolved from earlier species by means of natural selection and random mutation. Once this hypothesis is independently verified and has survived the peer review process without finding any contradictory evidence it becomes a theory; the highest status any explanation can get.

A theory doesn't grow into a fact as more evidence becomes available, a theory explains facts. Your definition of a theory is more like a hypothesis (Although even this isn't a guess lol).

It uses "it just happened" as the basis of so many of it's false theories!

All aboard the fail train! Care to provide contradictory evidence? Which theories exactly? The theory of gravity? Germ theory? Atomic theory?

Sure they have. Many times.

Unsourced wild assertions = worth nothing. You see in the world of science you can't just pull a claim out of thin air, you have to substantiate it, care to do so with yours?

And when asked how, they explain it to you. There are some rough spots in the evolutionary theory that are being worked out though.

Through guessing!

Klaven I'd be very interested if you cited any of these rough spots.

RND more pure assertion that has no basis in reality.

 

[lordkalvan]

And when asked how, they explain it to you. There are some rough spots in the evolutionary theory that are being worked out though.

Through guessing!

Klaven I'd be very interested if you cited any of these rough spots.

RND more pure assertion that has no basis in reality.

Not me, I'm afraid. I think it was ChattyMute who made the comment you refer to. A big for the rest of the post, though.

 

[ChattyMute]

"Klaven I'd be very interested if you cited any of these rough spots."

That was me. Nothing in particular comes to mind. We have most of it down. It's just certain areas in how we evolved are harder to explain than others.
Most of the rough spots, though as viewed by Christians, are imaginary because of an ignorance of the theory.

 

[RND]

Except the difference between science and the bible is that science actually tests what it guesses. That's the whole point. You make an educated guess based on what you know and then test it to see if it's rights. If it's not right, you reconstruct your hypothesis and test it again.

Exactly. The theory evolution assumes it's true and refuses to go back and "guess" again.

Exactly...

So, what was the purpose of asking?

You still don't understand what a theory is...

We're discussing the topic of this thread which is evolution. It's theory is accepted as true without proof.

By that logic, we also guess how electricity works. We can never see it. We know it happened. But the theory of electricity is still /just/ a theory because we can't "prove" it.

Electricity isn't a theory, it's a known physical occurrence that can be generated and tested and examined.

The only people who say man came from monkeys are ignorant theists who know nothing about evolution. We had a common ancestor, we did not come from monkeys. Also, humans are apes.

The fact of the matter is that by suggesting man and apes had a common ancestor is to say that man came from apes.

Okay. Now I really know you don't know a thing about science.
Theory in science means: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

Yes, this is the definition of a theory. The evolutionary theory is not based on this. It is based on unprovable assumptions and guesses.

You need to go back to school.

Maybe I do. However, not to tell me evolution is an unprovable guess.

That's not what they are claiming in that article. Fish evolved from less complex organisms over MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years. Fish and man do share a common ancestor, but it took MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years for us to get where we are now. It did not just happen in so simplistic a version like you are claiming.

That's true. The fairy tale of evolution is quite complex.

*smacks forehead*

Rough spots?

 

[RND]

No, Science hasn't made a conclusive ruling on that yet. The evidence would seem to indicate that as part of a quantum fluctuation, a singulatity spontaneously inflated into a vast field comprising matter and energy in a constantly expanding fabric of space and time, causality also arising in the process - Thus making a causative agent not only unnecessary but also impossible, however, this isn't a theory yet and so it only a strong hypothesis.

Two things. Where'd the matter come from? Where'd the energy come from? Science says: "It just happened."

Science hasn't decided yet, we need more evidence.

Science will never be able to decide.

No, we didn't come from monkeys (At least not the ones around today), we share a common ancestor with today's monkeys.

This is a very common misconception: that everything else is less evolved that us. This isn't true as all, we're all evolved to the same extent, just for different things. Leopards can run very fast because they need to in order to catch their pray, we stayed in trees and used our minds to create tools, they're two different branches or evolution.

What is the common ancestor man shares with apes? Science says: "I don't know."

A theory is an "unproven" guess!

In the colloquial language it is, but not in Science. In Science the word theory means something entirely different. In science a theory is a hypothesis that has survived the peer review process, millions of independent verifications and self-skepticism and has become proved to such an extent that it's credibility have become synonymous with that of facts.

Facts are indisputable observations; such as that we share 98% of our DNA with other apes, or that the world continents have moved around perfectly to coincide with what we find in the fossil record. All of these facts are collected into a hypothesis, which explains the facts: that we have all evolved from earlier species by means of natural selection and random mutation. Once this hypothesis is independently verified and has survived the peer review process without finding any contradictory evidence it becomes a theory; the highest status any explanation can get.

A theory doesn't grow into a fact as more evidence becomes available, a theory explains facts. Your definition of a theory is more like a hypothesis (Although even this isn't a guess lol).

Practically all living animals on earth share similarities in DNA.

All aboard the fail train! Care to provide contradictory evidence? Which theories exactly? The theory of gravity? Germ theory? Atomic theory?

What is the topic of this thread?

Unsourced wild assertions = worth nothing. You see in the world of science you can't just pull a claim out of thin air, you have to substantiate it, care to do so with yours?

What is the topic of this thread?

Klaven I'd be very interested if you cited any of these rough spots.

Me too.

RND more pure assertion that has no basis in reality.

Sure it does. Just not your reality.

 

[RND]

That was me. Nothing in particular comes to mind. We have most of it down.

Unprovable statements? From an evolutionist? I'm :o That seems so out of character!

It's just certain areas in how we evolved are harder to explain than others.

How 'bout tryin' to edumacate this dummy then.

Most of the rough spots, though as viewed by Christians, are imaginary because of an ignorance of the theory.

Are these the same "rough spots" that don't come to your mind?

 

[ChattyMute]

Except the difference between science and the bible is that science actually tests what it guesses. That's the whole point. You make an educated guess based on what you know and then test it to see if it's rights. If it's not right, you reconstruct your hypothesis and test it again.

Exactly. The theory evolution assumes it's true and refuses to go back and "guess" again.

No. The theory of evolution does not assume itself to be true. It has no need to go back and "guess" again because the hypothesis it has already used were verified, and then built upon from there.

So, what was the purpose of asking?

It's in your bible.

We're discussing the topic of this thread which is evolution. It's theory is accepted as true without proof.

Look up the scientific definition of theory. No scientific theory is accepted true without proof.

Electricity isn't a theory, it's a known physical occurrence that can be generated and tested and examined.

Yes, it is a fact and a theory. Just like gravity. And evolution. We know it happens we have observed it is HOW it happens that is the theory. We have observed evolution. It is how evolution happens that is the theory.

The fact of the matter is that by suggesting man and apes had a common ancestor is to say that man came from apes.

Man is an ape. We haven't diverged. And what is so bad about that? We aren't any more evolved than any other species.

Yes, this is the definition of a theory. The evolutionary theory is not based on this. It is based on unprovable assumptions and guesses.

Like what?

Maybe I do. However, not to tell me evolution is an unprovable guess.

Evolution is not a guess. If you can disprove it, how come I have not heard about you in the papers? This is noble prize worthy. If you can disprove it, go right ahead.

That's true. The fairy tale of evolution is quite complex.

You're just blatantly ignoring everything others and I have said.

Rough spots?

[/quote]
The only rough spot here is that you refuse to look at evidence. I would say more, but it would get me banned on this forum.

 

[ChattyMute]

That was me. Nothing in particular comes to mind. We have most of it down.

Unprovable statements? From an evolutionist? I'm :o That seems so out of character!

It's just certain areas in how we evolved are harder to explain than others.

How 'bout tryin' to edumacate this dummy then.

[quote:2gwiu4pa]Most of the rough spots, though as viewed by Christians, are imaginary because of an ignorance of the theory.

Are these the same "rough spots" that don't come to your mind? [/quote:2gwiu4pa]

*sigh* What I meant was nothing substantial that would even have me consider the invalidity of the theory comes to mind. It's not like I cranked my brain trying to come up with one just for you.

Some people have trouble seeing how the eye and the brain were formed through evolution. Happy now?

If you're the expert here on evolution and believe the theory to be false, why don't you tell us explicitly why? We'll debunk every one of your arguments.

 

[RND]

No. The theory of evolution does not assume itself to be true. It has no need to go back and "guess" again because the hypothesis it has already used were verified, and then built upon from there.

It hasn't been verified.

It's in your bible.

The distinction between bats and birds?

Look up the scientific definition of theory. No scientific theory is accepted true without proof.

The theory of evolution is.

Yes, it is a fact and a theory. Just like gravity. And evolution. We know it happens we have observed it is HOW it happens that is the theory. We have observed evolution. It is how evolution happens that is the theory.

Evolution has never , ever been observed. :biglaugh

[quote:3lpv920s]The fact of the matter is that by suggesting man and apes had a common ancestor is to say that man came from apes.

Man is an ape.[/quote:3lpv920s] :biglaugh

We haven't diverged. And what is so bad about that? We aren't any more evolved than any other species.

:biglaugh Right. I guess next time you get sick you'll be on your way to the "ape" hospital!

[quote:3lpv920s] Yes, this is the definition of a theory. The evolutionary theory is not based on this. It is based on unprovable assumptions and guesses.

Like what? [/quote:3lpv920s] That man evolved from life that came out of the water, grew legs and eventually learned to say, "You want fries with that."

Evolution is not a guess. If you can disprove it, how come I have not heard about you in the papers?

Because most of the media has a specific agenda they are following. How come Discovery Channel and A$E never show things that are produced by creationist's to provide balance? Agenda.

This is noble prize worthy. If you can disprove it, go right ahead.

The point being is that evolution has no more proof behind the theory than any other.

[quote:3lpv920s]That's true. The fairy tale of evolution is quite complex.

You're just blatantly ignoring everything others and I have said. [/quote:3lpv920s] Others have done a poor job then of stating their cause.

[quote:3lpv920s] Rough spots?

[/quote:3lpv920s]
The only rough spot here is that you refuse to look at evidence.[/quote] What evidence? You were given a chance to explain and what happened? "I don't know" happened! :biglaugh

I would say more, but it would get me banned on this forum.

That's because you can't resort to truth and have to downgrade others because you have no argument.

 

[ChattyMute]

.

Get an evolution book. Read it. Then come back and talk. Evolution at its basic is change of life though time. You can easily observe a bacteria population change though time in a lab by simply adding an anti-biotic to a petri-dish with a bacteria population.

Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

You said that the evolutionary theory has no more evidence than any other. Are you denying the cell theory as well?

An ape is an order. Humans are under that order. It's not that hard to figure out. Look at a simple classification chart of humans.

You have a very common misconception of evolution and refuse to listen to any evidence to the contrary.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html
Maybe you can understand that site.

Discovery channel bases its shows on science. Evolution is science. Just because someone who has no scientific background says differently doesn't change the facts. ID and other ideas created by Christians are not scientific theories because you cannot find any evidence for them scientifically or test them.

Again, if you can disprove it. Go right ahead.

Actually, others have done a fine job. You're the one not doing so great at arguing.

 

[RND]

Get an evolution book. Read it. Then come back and talk. Evolution at its basic is change of life though time.

Which is unproven!

You can easily observe a bacteria population change though time in a lab by simply adding an anti-biotic to a petri-dish with a bacteria population.

That's true. But do the bacteria change into something other than bacteria? No they don't. Thus they are not evolving.

Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

This is a description of things that aren't to be eaten - nothing more, nothing less.

You said that the evolutionary theory has no more evidence than any other. Are you denying the cell theory as well?

Has it been observed that cells became something other than a cell?

An ape is an order. Humans are under that order. It's not that hard to figure out. Look at a simple classification chart of humans.

A classification chart no doubt made by evolutionist's!

You have a very common misconception of evolution and refuse to listen to any evidence to the contrary.

Has any been offered?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html
Maybe you can understand that site.

Been there, done that - but thank you none the less.

Discovery channel bases its shows on science. Evolution is science. Just because someone who has no scientific background says differently doesn't change the facts.

There are creations cientist that have the same creditials as many of the so-called evolutionist's do. These channels present one sided information because they know if they allowed other viewpoints to be presented they would lose a hold of their audience.

ID and other ideas created by Christians are not scientific theories because you cannot find any evidence for them scientifically or test them.

Neither can evolution.

Again, if you can disprove it. Go right ahead.

I've done that. I have shown consistently that believing in evolution is a "faith based" belief system.

Actually, others have done a fine job. You're the one not doing so great at arguing.

Then answer the question, "Where did the first particle come from?" Here's your answer: "I don't know."

I heard Dr. Miichio Kaku on his radio show last night talk about how energy creates matter. Great I said. Where'd the energy come from? Haven't gotten that answer yet.

 

[ChattyMute]

Which is unproven!

Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall....

That's true. But do the bacteria change into something other than bacteria? No they don't. Thus they are not evolving.

Speciation is a part of evolution. Not all of it. So yes, they are still evolving. It's called micro-evolution as opposed to macro-evolution.

This is a description of things that aren't to be eaten - nothing more, nothing less.

It's including bats along with birds imlying that bats are birds. Whatever, though. This part if off subject.

Has it been observed that cells became something other than a cell?

It has been observed that mutations happen in cells. A mutation is basically evolving. So yes.

A classification chart no doubt made by evolutionist's!

And confirmed in other areas of biology.

Has any been offered?

Yes. You're just not looking at it because you refuse to accept any evidence.

Been there, done that - but thank you none the less.

You need to go back because you obviously didn't get it the first time if you are messing up simple principles of evolution.

There are creations cientist that have the same creditials as many of the so-called evolutionist's do. These channels present one sided information because they know if they allowed other viewpoints to be presented they would lose a hold of their audience.

There is no such thing as a creation scientist because that hypothesis is not based on fact and can not be tested. There are Christian scientists if that's what you mean. And guess what? Most of know evolution is a fact and that the theory of it is how it happens.

Neither can evolution.

Now your just being willfully ignorant. I've tested in evolution in a simple classroom setting. Read the finch case study by Boarg and Grant. They gave evidence towards every aspect of evolution.

I've done that. I have shown consistently that believing in evolution is a "faith based" belief system.

No, you haven't. You have made claims based on nothing but your beliefs. You have give absolutely no evidence. *waits for you to say the exact same thing about me because you don't understand what constitutes as evidence*

Then answer the question, "Where did the first particle come from?" Here's your answer: "I don't know."

Irrelevant. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogensis. You never asked that question anyway.

I heard Dr. Miichio Kaku on his radio show last night talk about how energy creates matter. Great I said. Where'd the energy come from? Haven't gotten that answer yet.

It doesn't matter in this debate because the creation of matter has nothing to do with change of life through time starting with the already living. Not before.

 

[RND]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall....

Well, if you expected to change my mind then I could understand your frustration.

Speciation is a part of evolution. Not all of it. So yes, they are still evolving. It's called micro-evolution as opposed to macro-evolution.

They are still bacteria. Let me know when they aren't anymore.

It's including bats along with birds imlying that bats are birds. Whatever, though. This part if off subject.

No, it's including bats with birds as animals that aren't to be eaten - there is no implication here that bats are birds.

This is why it is extremely vital to pay attention to context.

It has been observed that mutations happen in cells. A mutation is basically evolving. So yes.

Cell mutation is called cancer and is not a desirable trait. If it were we wouldn't try to eradicate cancer.

And confirmed in other areas of biology.

No.

Yes. You're just not looking at it because you refuse to accept any evidence.

None has been offered in this thread that I can see.

You need to go back because you obviously didn't get it the first time if you are messing up simple principles of evolution.

Sorry but I don't think I'll be getting an educate from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

There is no such thing as a creation scientist because that hypothesis is not based on fact and can not be tested.

Just like evolution can't be proven or tested, eh?

There are Christian scientists if that's what you mean. And guess what? Most of know evolution is a fact and that the theory of it is how it happens.

An unprovable and untestable theory.

Now your just being willfully ignorant. I've tested in evolution in a simple classroom setting. Read the finch case study by Boarg and Grant. They gave evidence towards every aspect of evolution.

There still finches in the long run, right?

No, you haven't. You have made claims based on nothing but your beliefs. You have give absolutely no evidence. *waits for you to say the exact same thing about me because you don't understand what constitutes as evidence*

Evolution is a belief based on unprovable guesses and a lot of speculative maybe's. It is the belief that requires no evidence of it's origin, just a strong belief. It is the theory that says, "it just happened." At least a creationist can point to God and say He did it, He made the claims. Evolution cannot point to any origin. It can't substantiate it's belief system by saying "this is how it started."

Irrelevant.

Told ya...."I don't know." :biglaugh

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogensis.

Yes, I believe I've heard this a few times. Evolution just assumes in an origin conducive to it's believe.

You never asked that question anyway.

That's right, I'm asking it now and you gave the answer I knew you would...."I don't know."

It doesn't matter in this debate because the creation of matter has nothing to do with change of life through time starting with the already living. Not before.

More, "I don't know." :biglaugh Without matter we wouldn't be having this conversation so it actually is an important part of the conversation.

 

[lordkalvan]

Again, if you can disprove it. Go right ahead.

I've done that. I have shown consistently that believing in evolution is a "faith based" belief system.

You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is repeat your 'denial' mantra with no argument whatsoever to support it.

 

[Barbarian]

This is the worrisome thing about YE creationism. It can lead people into a place where they cannot accept the truth without losing their faith.

 

[RND]

You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is repeat your 'denial' mantra with no argument whatsoever to support it.

I have have shown that evolutionist believe is something but have no way to document the origin of their belief - that takes faith. Evolutionist's believe that millions of years after the earth was formed that life some how magically began - that's a belief that takes faith.

One has to have faith to believe that because there is -zero- scientific evidence that one can point to that proves the commonly accepted scenario - that life someone magically formed after the earth "cooled" down after it formed.

Without any proof of any kind this myth is accepted as actually happening. There apparently is no desire on the part of the evolutionary community to test this, or investigate the origins of things, just a simple acceptance of something that science cannot verify.

 

[RND]

This is the worrisome thing about YE creationism. It can lead people into a place where they cannot accept the truth without losing their faith.

That's your opinion.

 

[ChattyMute]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall....

Well, if you expected to change my mind then I could understand your frustration.

After your second post I didn't because it is obvious you blatantly ignore and scientific FACTS that contradict your own beliefs.

[quote:32crdtb9]Speciation is a part of evolution. Not all of it. So yes, they are still evolving. It's called micro-evolution as opposed to macro-evolution.

They are still bacteria. Let me know when they aren't anymore. [/quote:32crdtb9]
That would be macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is change in a species, but not becoming a different species. Even most fundamental Christians know this to be true.

[quote:32crdtb9]It's including bats along with birds imlying that bats are birds. Whatever, though. This part if off subject.

No, it's including bats with birds as animals that aren't to be eaten - there is no implication here that bats are birds. [/quote:32crdtb9]
Fowls. Fowls means birds. So yes, there is implication.

[quote:32crdtb9]It has been observed that mutations happen in cells. A mutation is basically evolving. So yes.

Cell mutation is called cancer and is not a desirable trait. If it were we wouldn't try to eradicate cancer.[/quote:32crdtb9]
Not all mutation are desirable (in fact most are neutral), and not all cell mutation become cancer. That is a specific type of mutation.

[quote:32crdtb9]And confirmed in other areas of biology.

No. [/quote:32crdtb9]
Genetics. And if you're going to try to argue that genetics is the same thing as evolution than you clearly have no scientific knowledge regarding biology.

[quote:32crdtb9]Yes. You're just not looking at it because you refuse to accept any evidence.

None has been offered in this thread that I can see. [/quote:32crdtb9]
That's because you are close minded.

[quote:32crdtb9]You need to go back because you obviously didn't get it the first time if you are messing up simple principles of evolution.

Sorry but I don't think I'll be getting an educate from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. [/quote:32crdtb9]
Read any credible biology book then. Seems to me you think evolution is a giant conspiracy made my scientists which is one of the most laughable things I've ever heard of.

[quote:32crdtb9]There is no such thing as a creation scientist because that hypothesis is not based on fact and can not be tested.

Just like evolution can't be proven or tested, eh?[/quote:32crdtb9]
I already explained how you can easily test a few aspects of evolution in a regular high school science classroom. Do you even know the four postulates of evolution?

[quote:32crdtb9]There are Christian scientists if that's what you mean. And guess what? Most of know evolution is a fact and that the theory of it is how it happens.

An unprovable and untestable theory.

Now your just being willfully ignorant. I've tested in evolution in a simple classroom setting. Read the finch case study by Boarg and Grant. They gave evidence towards every aspect of evolution.

There still finches in the long run, right? [/quote:32crdtb9]
Get this through your think skull. Speciation is only ONE part of evolution. Not all of it. Evolution is simply change of life through time. The life does not have to evolve into another species to for their to be evolution. You can't argue with scientific definitions.

[quote:32crdtb9]No, you haven't. You have made claims based on nothing but your beliefs. You have give absolutely no evidence. *waits for you to say the exact same thing about me because you don't understand what constitutes as evidence*

Evolution is a belief based on unprovable guesses and a lot of speculative maybe's. It is the belief that requires no evidence of it's origin, just a strong belief. It is the theory that says, "it just happened." At least a creationist can point to God and say He did it, He made the claims. Evolution cannot point to any origin. It can't substantiate it's belief system by saying "this is how it started."[/quote:32crdtb9]
Pointing to God and saying he did it is unprovable, unsubstantiated, and equivalent to saying it just happens. How did God do it? He just did.
Evolution does not try to point to any origin. It does not deal with the origin of life. That is abiogenesis.

[quote:32crdtb9]Irrelevant.

Told ya...."I don't know." :biglaugh [/quote:32crdtb9]
Irrelevant does not equate to "I don't know" It means it does not pertain to this discussion. You do know the definition of irrelevant, correct?

[quote:32crdtb9]Evolution has nothing to do with abiogensis.

Yes, I believe I've heard this a few times. Evolution just assumes in an origin conducive to it's believe. [/quote:32crdtb9] No. It does not. That first cell could have come from God. Whatever. It doesn't matter to evolution because that is not what it deals with.

[quote:32crdtb9] You never asked that question anyway.

That's right, I'm asking it now and you gave the answer I knew you would...."I don't know."[/quote:32crdtb9] I didn't give any answer. You put words in my mouth.

[quote:32crdtb9]It doesn't matter in this debate because the creation of matter has nothing to do with change of life through time starting with the already living. Not before.

More, "I don't know." :biglaugh Without matter we wouldn't be having this conversation so it actually is an important part of the conversation.[/quote:32crdtb9]

No. It's more of irrelevant. When discussing evolution, I am not concerned how life came about, just that life did have a beginning (which it obviously did). No, it is an important part of a abiogenesis or genesis discussion. It has nothing to do with evolution. I never stated I don't know or I do know, so kindly stop putting words in my mouth. I don't know enough about abiogenesis to come to a reasonable conclusion yet of I know or I don't know. Unlike you.

And besides that, what is wrong with saying I don't know? Nothing. It pushes humankind to find the answers instead of just pointing to something and saying "He did it" without any evidence.

 

[RND]

After your second post I didn't because it is obvious you blatantly ignore and scientific FACTS that contradict your own beliefs.

What scientific facts?

That would be macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is change in a species, but not becoming a different species. Even most fundamental Christians know this to be true.

What you are describing is adaption, not evolution.

Fowls. Fowls means birds. So yes, there is implication.

Fowls and bats are separated in the list.

Not all mutation are desirable (in fact most are neutral), and not all cell mutation become cancer. That is a specific type of mutation.

There is no mutation that is desirable.

Genetics. And if you're going to try to argue that genetics is the same thing as evolution than you clearly have no scientific knowledge regarding biology.

The problem here is that in the genetics/evolution comparison genetics is concerned with "genotype" where evolution isn't. It's only concerned with "phenotype."

That's because you are close minded.

No evidence of the proof of evolution has been offered.

Read any credible biology book then. Seems to me you think evolution is a giant conspiracy made my scientists which is one of the most laughable things I've ever heard of.

No, I believe evolution is one of the weapons that Satan has used in the war against Jesus Christ. By selling it and people buying it they have effectively taken God out of their lives.

I already explained how you can easily test a few aspects of evolution in a regular high school science classroom. Do you even know the four postulates of evolution?

There is nothing in science that has replicated anything involving evolution. The four postulates are:

Postulate 1 - Individual members of a population differ from one another in many respects.

Postulate 2 - At least some of the differences among members of a population are due to characteristics that may be passed from parent to offspring. That is, they are heritable or genetic.

Postulate 3 - In each generation, some individuals in a population survive and reproduce successfully but others do not.

Postulate 4 - The fate of individuals is not determined by luck. Instead, an individual's likelihood of survival and reproduction depends on its characteristics. Individuals with advantageous traits survive longest and leave the most offspring, a process known as Natural Selection.

Get this through your think skull. Speciation is only ONE part of evolution. Not all of it. Evolution is simply change of life through time. The life does not have to evolve into another species to for their to be evolution. You can't argue with scientific definitions.

When does speciation occur because it is germane to the discussion? Finch's is still finch's.

Pointing to God and saying he did it is unprovable, unsubstantiated, and equivalent to saying it just happens. How did God do it? He just did.

But at least I have something to point to. Evolution doesn't.

Evolution does not try to point to any origin.

Yes, I know! It can't!

It does not deal with the origin of life. That is abiogenesis.

Yes, I know. "It just happened" :biglaugh

Irrelevant does not equate to "I don't know" It means it does not pertain to this discussion.

Right, that's you're way of saying "I don't know"! It's not pertinent to the conversation equates to saying "I don't know." It's something to hige behind.

You do know the definition of irrelevant, correct?

I do. You know the definition of dodge right?

No. It does not. That first cell could have come from God. Whatever. It doesn't matter to evolution because that is not what it deals with.

The first cell? Where would the amino acids required to split DNA have come from?

I didn't give any answer. You put words in my mouth.

Your answer is "I don't know"

No. It's more of irrelevant.

Without matter I can I assure you we would not be having this conversation so the point is hardly irrelevant.

When discussing evolution, I am not concerned how life came about, just that life did have a beginning (which it obviously did).

I know. "It just happened" :biglaugh

No, it is an important part of a abiogenesis or genesis discussion. It has nothing to do with evolution. I never stated I don't know or I do know, so kindly stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I clarifying your points before you make them.

I don't know enough about abiogenesis to come to a reasonable conclusion yet of I know or I don't know. Unlike you.

Don't you think it's important to understand the beginning of a story before trying to figure out what's being told?

And besides that, what is wrong with saying I don't know? Nothing.

Nothing is wrong with saying "I don't know" but unfortunately evolutionist are disingenuous to this point.

It pushes humankind to find the answers instead of just pointing to something and saying "He did it" without any evidence.

Which is what evolution does. It has no evidence. "It just happened."