I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

marke

Well-known member
I believe not just the natural world but the universe shows God's creative power. The ultimate question of this type is why is there something (a universe) rather than nothing. Many respected scientists have posited the idea of a multiverse, to explain this idea. But the multiverse is outside of the realm of science the same way the existence of God is. Their problem is we have shown scientifically that our universe has a beginning. Something that has a beginning would seem to need a cause. Except the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time so things "before" it might need to be outside of time. It makes at least some sense that this could be God. Scientifically this isn't proof of God's existence but it is interesting.
Science has proven the universe and life on earth both had origins. God provides the missing miracle of "cause" that Darwinistis find so elusive and impossible to explain scientifically.
 

marke

Well-known member
Gee I was unaware that stripe's opinions are the final arbiter of what is science or not. :rolleyes:


I'm a scientist and I lecture for a living. :p I study what science is as well as practicing it. You have your own ideas you've decided are fact without evidence.

Science is a collection of ideas and a process of studying the natural world. 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.
There is no reason to rule God out of science except for irreligious or theistic bias. Men can try to limit science to nothing but secular atheistic ideas, but bias is not science, it is bias.
 

marke

Well-known member
Sorry no. Evolution is simply the idea that living organisms have changed from a simple state to a complex and diverse set of living creatures we see today. The extent to which supernatural is involved is an idea outside of the realm of science. Science and evolution in their pure form make no argument whether the supernatural exists or not.
For organisms to change from a 'simple' state to a 'complex' state certain additions and alterations to the genetic code would have had to have taken place, yet science does not support such random alterations of the genetic code as Darwinists might think.
 

marke

Well-known member
It's certainly rejecting a core scientific idea of biology. Mind you many of the same people want to reject other aspects of science, such as climate science.

It's not simply *my* assertion it's thousands of textbook and scientific papers for 150 years. It's also super obvious if you understand what science is and how it works. The only people that make your kind of claim are the specific kind of Christians that reject evolution purely because of religious belief AND hold science up as highly valuable. That perverse combination means any science they disagree with becomes "not science". It's quite a convoluted position. :p
I don't reject evolution because of religious beliefs. I reject evolution because it contradicts known science.
 

marke

Well-known member
Evolution is a well supported scientific theory, among the best in biology and science in general. Rejecting it means rejecting science. Theories are the strongest scientific ideas we have.

Dictionary definition of scientific theory

scientific theory
noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.



The National Academy of science defines a scientific theory as:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.



Other scientific theories:

Atomic Theory
Germ Theory of Disease
Cell Theory
The Big Bang Theory
Theory of General Relativity
Plate Tectonics Theory



All of the great scientific bodies of knowledge are founded on theories. If you think theory is, "stuff that's not really right", you're rejecting all of science.

Expert opinion is not popularity. Do you go to the doctor and follow their advice?
Evolution is secular science that rejects the possibility of God. Creation is science that rejects the possibility of abiogenesis and random creation and manipulation of DNA. I reject secular science because I do not believe in the random addition and alteration of genetic information in the genome.
 

marke

Well-known member
Falsifying requires evidence, and in the case of a theory, a LOT of evidence. Have you provided any in this thread? No. So you are rejecting without evidence, which means rejecting science without evidence. Have you rejected God's creation of the species without evidence? Is that not rejecting non-secular science withut evidence?
 

marke

Well-known member
A. I didn't post anything about Rhodocetus. And rodhocetus is one fossil among a large variety of fossils plus the genetic, anatomical and developmental evidence.

B. Rodhocetus isn't a fake. It was originally reconstructed with very fragmentary bones and was postulated to have features it was later shown to not have, wait for it, because of later discovered EVIDENCE. Those facts are even noted in your video!

Scientists have updated their models. That is a normal thing in science, when an old idea is shown to be wrong it is adjusted to fit the evidence.
Secularist assumptions about Rhodecutus are assumptions, not proven scientific facts. That is true about most evolution assumptions over-eager secularists attempt to claim are proven scientific facts.

The discoverer of Rodhocetus even made a glaring admission. He said, “I speculated that it might have had a fluke. . . . I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail.”11 Furthermore, the hand and feet fossils of Rodhocetus were also missing, which causes a problem for interpreting them as flippers.12 However, subsequent findings of a related species (Rodhocetus balochistanensis) contained both hand and foot bones (fore and hind-limbs).13 The fore-limbs were much shorter than the hindlimbs and contained 5 digits, the middle three of which were weight-bearing and hooved.14 It is assumed that both sets of limbs were webbed and that the animal was semi-aquatic moving on land like a sea lion and swimming in the water by pelvic paddling with its hindlimbs like a Russian Desman.15 So the essential features that most paleontologists tout as being whale-like on Rodhocetus are highly interpretive and the swimming method dictated by the anatomy of the find is somewhat contradictory to what was expected. That’s a big problem.
Though rarely mentioned, and rightly so, Kutchicetus was very similar in size and anatomy to otters. The primary reason that it is sometimes included in a whale series is to try to provide a transitional series for swimming motion—undulatory movements. So it isn’t the anatomy that transitionalists are looking at with this creature (as the skeleton appears to show that it was fully capable of walking on land16) but instead its method of locomotion. But in this case, apparently the fossils don’t tell the whole tale, and a heavy dose of evolutionary interpretation must be added.
 

Right Divider

Body part
For organisms to change from a 'simple' state to a 'complex' state certain additions and alterations to the genetic code would have had to have taken place, yet science does not support such random alterations of the genetic code as Darwinists might think.
Evolution assumes that organisms "started in a simple state". Darwinism and "evolution" in general make SO many assumptions.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
... Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived ...
... and where is that evidence found?

in scripture
His death burial and resurrection are ...
... described in scripture
and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood ...
... and where are those claims to be found?

in scripture


The same scripture that clearly describes a creation process that does not allow for evolution.
 

marke

Well-known member
Most mutations actually don't do anything. Even if a deleterious mutation occurs it is usually removed from the population by natural selection. This kind of selection is usually called purifying selection.
Mutations do not add intelligent information to the genetic pool. Mutations are degenerative by nature.

Question 1: How Does Evolution Add Information?
The theory of evolution explains how strands of DNA change. An X-ray, cosmic ray, chemical reaction or similar mechanism can modify a base pair in the DNA strand to create a mutation, and this modification can lead to the creation of a new protein or enzyme.
The theory of evolution further proposes that billions of these mutations created all of the life forms we see today. An initial self-replicating molecule spontaneously formed. It evolved into single-cell organisms. These evolved into multi-cell organisms, which evolved into vertebrates like fish, and so on. In the process, DNA structures evolved from the asexual single-strand format found in bacteria today into the dual-strand chromosomal format found in all higher life forms. The number of chromosomes also proliferated. For example, fruit flies have five chromosomes, mice have 20, humans have 23 and dogs have 39.
Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA? It is interesting to note that, in all of the selective breeding in dogs, there has been no change to the basic dog genome. All breeds of dog can still mate with one another. People have not seen any increase in dog's DNA, but have simply selected different genes from the existing dog gene pool to create the different breeds.
 

marke

Well-known member
No. There would be far more disease and destruction without mutation and evolutionary change. Organisms that are clonal suffer far more from all of the above.

What is the origin of infectious diseases then, according to you? Were they created by God or no?
Do Darwinists believe unintelligent forces of evolution invented disease and then unintelligent forces of evolution cure disease by somehow randomly altering DNA? That is not science, it is silliness.
 

marke

Well-known member
Why, because you say so? Talk about assumptions. :p Okay so how do you know it's symbolic of Satan then?

And when you see the same leg remnants in whales you say . . . ?

No but it may mean you're distantly related to one. ;)

Here's the thing. Species in evolution never stop reproducing after their "kind". It's just that the "kind" is not static, it changes over time. There is never a point in evolution where, for illustrative purposes, a cat produces a dog offspring.


No, it means change over time. Humans can cause evolution. Why can't God? Why isn't it possible that God designed the potential for evolution into life from the start? Understand again that if God is sovereign there is nothing that is truly random.
Let's assume God could change species by evolution. Is that evidence He did? If evolution takes so long that it cannot be scientifically observed and measured then why do Darwinists claim science proves evolution?
 

marke

Well-known member
The fact that all life on earth uses the same genetic code? The fact that mitochondria and chloroplasts have DNA like bacteria, reproduce like bacteria and have ribosomes like bacteria, and have double membranes like they were swallowed by another cell? (To name just a few.)
Similarity does not prove a common blood relative connection. Watermelons have DNA just like humans but it is the height of stupidity to believe humans and watermelons are linked by a common ancestor through DNA.
 

marke

Well-known member
You reject science you don't like. The definition of not accepting evidence from the earth that God created. Also destroying the planet God gave to us . . .
God gave humans brains but did not expect them to draw stupid erroneous evolutionist conclusions just because they think they can.
 

Right Divider

Body part
The fact that bacteria mutate into bacteria does not prove monkeys evolved into certain sects of humans like early Darwinists wrongly assumed.
Indeed, my point about it being observable today was that this exactly what we see; no significant changes that could turn a monkey into a man.

One of the evolutionists favorite tactics is to extrapolate well beyond what is scientifically reasonable.
 
Last edited:
Top