Barbarian observes:
It's directly observed.
It is not directly observed.
It is constantly. There are a number of speciations we've been lucky enough to be watching at the right time. And the evolution of a new digestive organ in a population of Adriatic lizards is another example. So is the observed evolution of a new bacterium capable of digesting nylon. Lots of that.
There is not one fossil record of proof of transition stages.
If I could show you a long line of fossils, the difference between each one, less than the variation we see within species today, would you admit that's wrong?
Piltdown man was debunked by evolutionists a long time ago. And Lucy remains a key to our evolution. Would you like to learn more about it?
Evolution is still a Theory
So is gravity. Don't go stepping off any high places, though. Some things are demonstrably true, but unproven. As anyone who was paying attention in 7th grade science knows, there is no "proof" in science. Logical certainty is never possible for science. This is why scientific papers show mathematics and confidence levels.
theories cannot be proven. When they are proven they become a LAW.
No, that's a common misconception. Laws are weaker things than theories.
A law is what scientists expect to see under given circumstances.
A theory is a well-tested idea or set of ideas supported by evidence. Theories differ from laws in that laws and theories both make predictions, but theories also explain why. Hence, Newton's Laws of Motion (which he could not explain) and Newton's Theory of Gravitation, (which he could explain).
"Science requires evidence"
Exactly. And, since Evolution is still a theory, it lacks Evidence and Proof.
See above. No "proof" in science, just higher and higher levels of confidence. And of course, absent evidence, it can't be a theory. It is merely a hypothesis, if it is conceivably testable. If not testable, it's a conjecture.
The notion that my daughter or son, or a humming bird or the complex workings of a helicopter are all the culmination of something happening BY CHANCE takes far more faith than believing in Christ.
Darwin's great discovery was that it doesn't happen by chance. People who think they hate science generally don't know much about it.
Darwin had very limited knowledge of biology compared to what we know now. He was unaware of the complexity of Proteins that were supposed to be EXISTING in order for the life to spontaneously show up.
We now know that amino acids and proteins form abiotically. These existed before life appeared. The Murchison Meteorite, for example, contains them, including some not found in living things on Earth.
He also thought a cell was just a blob. He was unaware of the intricate workings of even the simplest cell components and their symbiotic function that makes every cell and every different kind of cell work. Not only that, but the vast amount of information contained in every single cell no matter what kind of cell it is, has all the blueprint information for the creature it is part of....
Of course he knew that. All scientists knew that the information had to be in there somehow. Ironically, Mendel's discovery cleared up a very difficult problem for Darwin's theory; how do new traits persist in a population long enough to become established? If heredity was like mixing paint (as all biologists in Darwin's time assumed) the new trait would be erased like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint. But Mendel showed that heredity was like selecting beads, and the rediscovery of his work led to the general adoption of Darwin's theory by almost all biologists.
To say that the first cell to form came from proteins, which are so complex on there own, suddenly existed and then formed a cell with Ribosomes, mitochondria, vacuoles, cytoplasm, endoplasmic reticulum, and the nucleus with the DNA. That takes enormous FAITH.
Proteins existed before life existed. So did lipids and many other basic molecules of life. Interestingly, the simplest part of a cell is also the one that must have appeared first. The cell membrane in its simplest form is a bilayer of a single phospholipid molecule. And it spontaneously forms vesicles identical to cell membranes.
Barbarian observes:
Once you understand science and Scripture, you will see that they do not conflict at all.
No, you don't agree with biology, chemistry, geology and physics. And you don't agree with the orthodox understanding of Scripture.
As Christians, until the Adventists in the 20th century, believed, Genesis is an allegory of creation, with the days of Creation being categories of creation. St. Augustine wrote about this, and no Christian theologian disputed it. Only after Ellen White, the Adventist "Prophetess" came up with a new intrepretation, did evangelicals begin to fall away from the Scriptural account. The creationism proposed at the Scopes Trial, for example, was that including an old Earth and accepted Genesis as it is, an allegorical account.
We will never agree on this.
Doesn't matter. Even if you don't accept His word as it is, you can still be a creationist and be saved. The only harm YE does, is to damage the faith of those who know that it can't possibly be true. Some of them assume YE is orthodoxy, and turn away from Christianity. That is a grave disservice to them and to God, Who is unwilling that any perish.
