I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[6days]

Scientific ideas must be testable and consistent with the data we observe. Evolution easily fits that description. The fact you don't like it, doesn't make it not science.

Evolution? Do you mean the process by which organisms change over time from mutations, drift, and selection? That is observational, empirical testable science which is consistent with the Biblical creation model.

Common ancestry is a false belief system that perverts science and rejects Scripture. We can see a long, long history of false claims based on evolutionism which science later proves false. (Junk DNA, useless appendix, dimwitted inarticulate Neandertals, pseudogenes and retroviruses, simple cells, eye evolution, Darwin's tree, the peppered moth story, primitive lungs and stubby limbs on extinct coelacanths, Piltdown, Gill slits on human embryos, backwards wired retina, Radiometric dating backflips of 200 million years)​

 

[Alate_One]

Evolution? Do you mean the process by which organisms change over time from mutations, drift, and selection? That is observational, empirical testable science which is consistent with the Biblical creation model.

Technically we agree on this in a sense, I just don't think the Bible puts forth a "model" of creation other than God created everything. How, is not really specified.

Common ancestry is a false belief system that perverts science and rejects Scripture.

No, and No. Common ancestry too is well supported by a wide variety of evidence.
We can see a long, long history of false claims based on evolutionism which science later proves false.[/QUOTe]Yeah that very same science that says common ancestry is real.

(Junk DNA,

Not False.

useless appendix,

In dispute either way.

dimwitted inarticulate Neandertals,

Not really scientific to begin with. They have a larger brain size than modern humans.

pseudogenes and retroviruses,

Still very much real. simple cells,

eye evolution, Darwin's tree, the peppered moth story, primitive lungs and stubby limbs on extinct coelacanths,

All still real.

Piltdown,

This one is the only actual Hoax on your list. But not many scientists were convinced by it since it did not fit well with the other evidence.

Gill slits on human embryos,

Pharyngeal pouches which are not technically gill slits but the same structures do become gills in Fish

backwards wired retina, Radiometric dating backflips of 200 million years)[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

All still real things.


Then we have evidence the earth is 6-10,000 years old:
....
....
....

Complaints about scientific evidence
....
....

And nothing else.

 

[Right Divider]

Common ancestry too is well supported by a wide variety of evidence.

Common ancestry from the created kinds is well supposed.
Common ancestry from a SINGLE "common ancestor" is not. That is one of the great myths of "evolution".

 

[User Name]

Common ancestry from the created kinds is well supposed.
Common ancestry from a SINGLE "common ancestor" is not. That is one of the great myths of "evolution".

When you start out by assuming the truth of your conclusion, you're not doing science, so engaging over the evidence is probably a waste of time.

 

[Right Divider]

When you start out by assuming the truth of your conclusion, you're not doing science, so engaging over the evidence is probably a waste of time.

That's hilarious. You assume one thing, I assume another. Everyone starts out with SOME assumption.

 

[Child of God]

That's hilarious. You assume on thing, I assume another. Everyone starts out with SOME assumption.

I am making a comment on something in you tag or whatever it is called.


Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.


Who told you that it was kept secret?

Your statement is OBVIOUSLY True.

If someone told you it has been kept secret, but yet you know it has been revealed, what would you think of this person?

Who told you this SECRET? that has been revealed since the beginning of Creation?

You should look at them.

Someone is trying to be Exalted for providing Secrets Hidden, when those things are available to all.

 

[Alate_One]

That's hilarious. You assume on thing, I assume another. Everyone starts out with SOME assumption.

That's true, but you're assuming what you want to believe from the start. The only assumption evolution has is that natural events in the past operated using the same basic laws of nature as natural events today. Scientists observe the evidence all around us and then use that basic principle, that the present is the key to the past and read the available evidence to figure out what happened in the past.

So what reason do you have to say that evolution stops at a magical "kind" barrier?

Creationists can't even define where one kind stops and another kind starts. That very gradation is evidence of common ancestry.

 

[Right Divider]

That's true, but you're assuming what you want to believe from the start.

So are you.

The only assumption evolution has is that natural events in the past operated using the same basic laws of nature as natural events today.

An unverifiable assumption. You cannot repeat the past and do not know what might have changed.

Scientists observe the evidence all around us and then use that basic principle, that the present is the key to the past and read the available evidence to figure out what happened in the past.

Once again, you cannot repeat the past and do not know what might have changed.

Making that assumption might be right or it might be wrong. How do you know?

So what reason do you have to say that evolution stops at a magical "kind" barrier?

How wrong can you be? We do NOT say that it stops there, were say that it STARTS there!

If you have such a poor understanding of the creationist position, how can you "analyze" it?

Creationists can't even define where one kind stops and another kind starts. That very gradation is evidence of common ancestry.

Just because we cannot definitively determine what the original kinds are does not mean that they didn't exist. This is another place were we trust God and His Word, whereas you trust your own "infinite" judgement.

 

[Right Divider]

I am making a comment on something in you tag or whatever it is called.

Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

Who told you that it was kept secret?

The Word of God said that is WAS kept secret. I didn't say that it was STILL kept secret.

Your statement is OBVIOUSLY True.

If someone told you it has been kept secret, but yet you know it has been revealed, what would you think of this person?

I didn't say that it was STILL kept secret.

Who told you this SECRET? that has been revealed since the beginning of Creation?

You should look at them.

Someone is trying to be Exalted for providing Secrets Hidden, when those things are available to all.

Someone, you, is completely confused.

P.S. Your post was completely out of context for this thread.

 

[7djengo7]

When you start out by assuming the truth of your conclusion, you're not doing science, so engaging over the evidence is probably a waste of time.

When User Name claims, "______ is evidence," User Name is assuming that what he is claiming is true--User Name is assuming that it's true that ______ is evidence. User Name calls his assumption that ______ is evidence, "doing science". User Name starts out by assuming that ______ is evidence.

 

[7djengo7]

Complaints about scientific evidence

When you claim (as you do, here) that something (say, E) is evidence, are you assuming that E is evidence, or are you concluding, from evidence (say, E₂), that E is evidence?

When you claim that E is evidence, do you expect others to come to believe your claim that E is evidence simply because you claim that E is evidence? Why should anybody believe your claim that something is evidence? Should they do so in hope of avoiding being branded a complainer, by you? Is that a good motive for people to simply take your word for it that what you claim is evidence is evidence?

 

[7djengo7]

That's true, but you're assuming what you want to believe from the start. The only assumption evolution has is that natural events in the past operated using the same basic laws of nature as natural events today. Scientists observe the evidence all around us and then use that basic principle, that the present is the key to the past and read the available evidence to figure out what happened in the past.

So what reason do you have to say that evolution stops at a magical "kind" barrier?

Creationists can't even define where one kind stops and another kind starts. That very gradation is evidence of common ancestry.

Darwinists--evolutionists--as you, and your comrades, have consistently demonstrated, can't even define what it would be for something to "evolve into" something. This, of course, is--and has been, all along--due to the fact that you use the word, "evolve", meaninglessly, just as you use the word, "evidence", meaninglessly.

 

[marke]

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

Fossils

DNA evidence

Biogeography

Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)


So here's a piece of evidence here:

A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?

Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?





Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
by Denis O. Lamoureux

Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.

It is not good reasoning for a person to claim he believes in Jesus and yet does not believe what Jesus said about the creation of Adam and Eve.

 

[marke]

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

Evolution theory is supported by biased assumptions, speculations, estimations, conclusions, guesses, mined and manipulated data, and so forth. In spite of the desires of many evolution remains a theory and not a proven fact. Just as abiogenesis was not scientifically possible, so evolutionist assumptions that genetic information was added and then altered by natural selection over millions of years is not a scientific assumption.

Enzymes Are Essential for Life; Did They Evolve? | Evolution News

Darwinian evolution, even in its 21st-century form, fails the formidable task of explaining how the first enzyme arose.

evolutionnews.org

Darwinian evolution, even in its 21st-century form, fails the formidable task of explaining how the first enzyme arose. Evolution also fails to explain how the first enzyme was changed into the approximately 75,000 different enzymes estimated to exist in the human body or the 10 million enzymes that are thought to exist in all of Earth’s biota. ...
Thus, scientific evidence is entirely lacking for the notion that enzymes arose by chance. The idea is ludicrous. This is true even if a primeval solution contained all the twenty amino acids of proteins but no genes and no protein-synthesizing machines. Ah, but, you may say, the Nobel laureate George Wald has written5: “Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” He also wrote (on the same page): “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” In the same article he wrote: “Time is in fact the hero of the plot… the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time performs the miracles.” To be fair, Wald puts the word “impossible” in quotation marks. One may believe this, but surely it is beyond the logical meanings of words and concepts — and Wald appeals to “miracles,” does he not?

 

[marke]

Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

Fossils

The fossil record does not prove evolution. If anything, the parcity of transitional fossils tends to prove evolution did not occur.

Darwin’s “Extreme” Imperfection? - Evolution: Education and Outreach

evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com

Darwin used the words “extreme imperfection” to refer not to any personal character flaw but to the gappy nature of the fossil record (Darwin 1859). The vast majority of organisms that have lived on Earth never fossilized. Jellyfish and worms? Too squishy to fossilize very often. Butterflies? Too delicate, for the most part. Anything that lived on mountain slopes or in fast-moving rivers? Unlikely to be covered by sediment and preserved. Darwin saw such haphazard preservation as a serious problem for the theory of evolution. After all, he was proposing that different modern species share common ancestors—that organisms as different as lobsters and butterflies have the same great-great-great-great…great-grandparent species. Direct fossil evidence of all the intermediate forms connecting an ancestor to its modern descendents would have provided undeniable evidence in favor of his theory. In Darwin’s view, however, the fossil record provided no such support.

 

[marke]

Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

DNA evidence

DNA proves evolution theory is wrong. Genetic information in the genetic code cannot be significantly altered by random selection or by any other means. New genetic information cannot be added to the genetic code or genomes of living creatures. Evolution does not deal in facts, but in mythology and fiction science.

https://genesisfile.com/dna-dictates-design/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIw_Piiq2X8gIVEo3ICh1YxALxEAAYASAAEgLWVvD_BwE

Darwin looked for evidence supporting his conjectures in all the wrong places. The fossil record didn’t oblige. Nineteenth-century scientists dismissed living cells as “structureless globules of protoplasm.”
Darwin had no clue a cell had a nucleus. His awareness of DNA was nonexistent. He had no conception that evolution either “happens or doesn’t happen genetically.”
“DNA contains the genetic blueprint of life…It gives instructions to the rest of the cell to make proteins, and it passes this same information on to the next generation…Without DNA, living organisms cannot survive.2
Laws of math, physics and the atomic composition of chemical elements, don’t change or evolve. Mutated genes may degrade the gedegrade the genome but don’t create new genetic information. DNA doesn’t evolve.
A single gene’s DNA information can no more be created by chance than medieval alchemists could make gold by mixing recipes of other elements while relying upon abracadabra magic.
So where did a cell’s information come from?
An unused computer disk offers a blank screen until some human intelligence delivers a digital code loaded with text or pictures. An electronic data bank lacks meaning or purpose without deposit of a precisely coded message put in place by some intelligent source.
Once loaded, the coded message can be replicated ad infinitum.
DNA may become corrupted, but the basic information package, built into the original genome of every plant and animal, guarantees descendant generations will replicate the unique living organisms of ancestor parents. Mutations degrade DNA, never adding new genetic information.

 

[ok doser]

The fossil record does not prove evolution. If anything, the parcity of transitional fossils tends to prove evolution did not occur.

A sticking point for me (one of many) is that evolutionary theory predicts that transitional forms are in existence continually and we don't see it today. There is no transitional form that is less than human and there is no transitional form that is more than human.

 

[marke]

So here's a piece of evidence here:

A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?

A Darwinist loooks at whale bnes and assumes the bones are fingers for some reason? That is not science, it is foolishness.

Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?

A Darwinist sees bones at the tail end of whales and assumes those bones are hind legs? That is not science but nothing more than a stupid assumption.

 

[marke]

There is no missing link. But there are certainly plenty of extinct hominins.

There has been a long history of Darwininian efforts to produce fossils that prove human ancestral connections to monkeys and their uncles, but none of those rare 'finds' have proven to be a missing link Darwinists are so desperate to find. If evolution were true there would be thousands of missing link fossils, but evolution is not true which is why we are finding no missing link fossils. It should be noted by all that the Piltdown Man, the Nebraska Man, Lucy, and other formerly celebrated 'finds' have fallen from grace, leaving Darwinists with nothing but a bone fragment here or there to try t prove evolution.

Darwin’s “Extreme” Imperfection? - Evolution: Education and Outreach

evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com

Darwin used the words “extreme imperfection” to refer not to any personal character flaw but to the gappy nature of the fossil record (Darwin 1859). The vast majority of organisms that have lived on Earth never fossilized. Jellyfish and worms? Too squishy to fossilize very often. Butterflies? Too delicate, for the most part. Anything that lived on mountain slopes or in fast-moving rivers? Unlikely to be covered by sediment and preserved. Darwin saw such haphazard preservation as a serious problem for the theory of evolution. After all, he was proposing that different modern species share common ancestors—that organisms as different as lobsters and butterflies have the same great-great-great-great…great-grandparent species. Direct fossil evidence of all the intermediate forms connecting an ancestor to its modern descendents would have provided undeniable evidence in favor of his theory. In Darwin’s view, however, the fossil record provided no such support.

 

[marke]

Not a mistake. A theory in science is the highest level of certainty and understanding. But no scientific idea is 100% certain. After having so many discussions with me, you should know this and not continue to hide behind the "just a theory" trope.

God's creation of the universe and life on earth is also not "just a theory." God's creation not only explains the multiple species but also provides an explanation for their origin, something Darwin could not do in spite of his celebrated racist book "On the Origin of the Species and Favored Races of Humans."