• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Science and Christianity go hand in hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter soma
  • Start date Start date
Re: Misconceptions

reznwerks said:
blueeyeliner said:
8-) Asimov,thats not true. Evolution claims to have connections
with biology,yet biology makes no claims to evolution.
Henry Morris just wrote another book. As soon as I find it,I'll tell you
about it. It's very hard to argue with the experts.
If its very hard to argue with the experts then why do you? Here is a link that explains the common misconceptions that are believed especially by theists.
"One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man."
"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-int ... ology.html
:wink: Rezn,put your money where your mouth is and prove these
claims of yours! I have seen actual evidence in my life that God is
who he says he is,and thats all I need to be convinced beyond a
shadow of a doubt that I know what I believe is a FACT OF LIFE!!!
You are the one who argues with the experts my friend!
 
:D BTW rezn, I am sooooo tired of you and others like you
posting for talkorigins all the time. I am literally tired of it.
thats just like advertising for them and it's not much different
than atheists.org
 
blueeyeliner said:
Asimov, Evolution is not science. It may try to say it uses science to support what it claims,but science uses facts to support it and evolution has no facts. It is unproven.


Blueeyeliner, you stated that biology does not make any claims with evolution. I provided contrary evidence by providing the dictionary definition of what biology is. Stop being dishonest, and stop changing the subject.

Here is another biology website, which makes claims to evolution.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary.asp
 
blueeyeliner said:
You cannot call evolution science or biology.
The idea of evolution is not proven and it has absolutely
no facts to support it at all.

Yes, you can. Science is not about proving things. Of course the Theory of Evolution is not proven, it's a theory that explains the diversity of life we see today. As for facts, it has tons of facts.


  • Genetics
    Fossil Record
    Biogeography
    Biology
    Geology supports and corroborates

Of course, this has absolutely no effect on you at all, as you think DNA means 'data not accidental'.
 
:D asimov, you know that genetics and the small list you have
don't show any evidence towards evolution. If they did,it would be
proven,but it has not.
asimov,you cannot force people to always believe like you believe.
Some of us cannot.
 
blueeyeliner said:
asimov, you know that genetics and the small list you have don't show any evidence towards evolution.

yes they do. Genetics is, IMO, the largest contributor to evolutionary theory. It corroborates and redefines what Darwin was speaking about in his books. Just as the fossil record is corroborated by genetics. We can also directly observe evolution occuring.

If they did,it would be
proven,but it has not.

Evolution has been proven, Evolutionary Theory remains a theory, because that's what it is.

asimov,you cannot force people to always believe like you believe.
Some of us cannot.

This has nothing to do with belief, this is science. Your inability to accept science is because of your belief.
 
:D I accept science. I don't accept the idea of evolution.
When does science call itself evolution or that they are one in the
same? It doesn't. Evolution is no more science than christian science
is. Philosophy is not Science!
 
blueeyeliner said:
I accept science. I don't accept the idea of evolution.

A contradictory phrase.

When does science call itself evolution or that they are one in the
same?

That makes no sense, blue. Evolution uses the Scientific Method, therefore it is a science. It is not what science is. It uses science.

Philosophy is not Science!

And whats your point?
 
:wink: My point is simple,after research and a great deal of study
I feel very confident in my opinion that evolution and philosophy are
not science. Science uses things that can be tested,repeated,and observed.
 
blueeyeliner said:
:wink: My point is simple,after research and a great deal of study
I feel very confident in my opinion that evolution and philosophy are
not science. Science uses things that can be tested,repeated,and observed.

Obviously philosophy isn't science.

You don't even know what evolution is, blue. IT has been tested, repeated, and observed.
 
:D O.K. asimov,please show where this has happened and please
let us know who is telling this story. If it were proven to be true,there
would be no debate over it.
 
:D asimov,please show the proof.
If evolution was a proven fact,there would be no debate
about it.
 
If evolution was a proven fact,there would be no debate
about it.

So if I claim that the square root of negative one is a real number, it can't be proven otherwise because I contend that it is not an imaginary number, right? This way of thinking is totally false-- something can be proven and there can still be debate about it, the debate is merely an unintelligent one.
 
blueeyeliner said:
asimov,please show the proof.
If evolution was a proven fact,there would be no debate
about it.

Ok, one piece of evidence that evolution occurs:

As a result of the Industrial Revolution, there was an increase in pollution, soot pouring out of smoke stacks covered the surrounding countryside. Oak trees were covered in black soot. The inhabitants of the oak trees, the peppered moths, were either black or white coloured. The black ones would usually be eaten by birds, and so they were a minority in the population of peppered moths. As a result of the soot covering the trees (environment changing), the black ones were thus camouflaged, and the white ones stood out. The birds then started eating all the white ones. As a result, more black moths reproduced, and the black moths became more numerous.

Thus, evolution has occured. The alleles in the gene pool of the population of moths changed, it took time, voila!
 
The Matrix of Life Exposed Website said:
Peppered Moth fiasco

Background – The story concerning England’s Pepper Moths (Biston betularia) originally seemed very straightforward. The research is attributed to one H.B. Kettlewell, who is reported to have said that Darwin would be overjoyed to see the vindication of his theory. The insects used to be mostly of a light form, with occasional darker (melanic) forms. Light-coloured lichen growing on tree trunks meant that the light forms were very well camouflaged, while the dark ones would ‘stand out’ to the eyes of hungry birds. Pollution from the industrial revolution is said to have killed off much of the pale lichen covering the tree trunks, thus darkening them, so that now the dark forms were better camouflaged. Therefore, it made sense that hungry birds would eat more of the lighter ones, so the dark ones would become the dominant form. Kettlewell’s experimental observations were supposed to have shown that this is indeed what happened. Then, as pollution began to be cleaned up, the tree trunks became lighter again, so light moths resting on the tree trunks would now be less easily seen, thus the ratio shifted the other way.

Photographs were taken of dark and light forms resting on the tree trunks, showing how obvious the camouflage differences were. To further ‘clinch’ the case, birds were filmed preferentially ‘picking off’ the less camouflaged forms.

Exposed - The bubble started to burst as people finally faced the awkward fact that Pepper Moths do not rest on tree trunks in the daytime. Instead, they hide under leaves in treetops.

As the story unravelled it turned out that:

  • The famous photos of light and dark moths resting on a lichen-covered tree trunk were faked by pinning and/or gluing dead moths onto logs or trunks.
  • The filmed ‘experiments’ involved either dead moths, or laboratory moths (so stuporous they had to be warmed up first), placed on tree trunks in the daytime.

– Carl Wieland, M.B., B.S. Creation 25(1) 15, 2003

The bottom line is that even if these experiments were genuine, the results would be far from proof of evolution in action, but merely showing that before and after the industrial revolution there was already genetic information present for dark and light moths.
Source: The Matrix of Life Exposed:Peppered Moth fiasco
 
Ok. Just like to point out the reference was from a person who stated things in 2003. Your links make reference to beliefs and ideas before that year.

I just put up that "counter" view because I happened to be browsing the site I referenced.

I'm not much for debating the validity or invalidity of Evolution. I do not need proof to believe in God. Just so you know I reject the theory of Evolution and I could care less what the scientific community thinks...the community is comprised of imperfect men so their opinions mean nothing ultimately.

If you want debate or discussions about Evolution then talk to Brutus, I rarely post on the subject of Evolution/Creation.
 
Nocturnal_Principal_X said:
Ok. Just like to point out the reference was from a person who stated things in 2003. Your links make reference to beliefs and ideas before that year.

That really doesn't matter, the rest of the site is utter rubbish.

I'm not much for debating the validity or invalidity of Evolution. I do not need proof to believe in God. Just so you know I reject the theory of Evolution and I could care less what the scientific community thinks...the community is comprised of imperfect men so their opinions mean nothing ultimately.

Then that begs the question as to why you would post on this....and also if you do not trust "science", why you would argue it as if it were true.
 
Back
Top