Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Evidence for Evolution

- - - - -

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
59 replies to this topic

#1
HumbleThinker

HumbleThinker

    Junior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

So before I start anything, who here is actually interested in discussing the evidence for evolution? I'm not looking to convince you of the factual nature of evolution because I could honestly care less. I'd care slightly more if I met you people in person, but still marginally above 0. Even if you somehow become convinced of the scientific validity of evolution, you still don't have to accept it. I encourage you all to look up Todd Wood, a creationist who accurately depicts evolution as supported by mounds of scientific evidence but does not accept it because he believes the Bible does not allow him to.

What I would like to do, though, is to have an discussion about evolution that will hopefully increase the accurate representation of evolution for all parties involved, including myself. No matter what you believe or why you believe it, God demands we give an accurate account of things. No exceptions. So even if evolution is the most Satanic thing of all time, misrepresenting it for the purposes of discrediting it is still a sin. A sin that can be easily corrected, but a sin nonetheless. And not only is it a sin, it is not pragmatic to do so, for the truth is a much stronger weapon than misinformation. So if there are some among you that realllllllly desire for your words to debunk evolution or convince someone that evolution is wrong, the most pious and effective way to do that is to learn the ins-and-outs of evolution and talk about them accurately.

So now that the prolouge's done, who would actually like to discuss the evidence for evolution? And if you would, did you have something in mind, or would you like to pick a piece of evidence from this site, or would you like me to bring up a piece of evidence first?

 

ETA: Oh, and just as a reminder to keep everyone on track, evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time. The theory of evolution is all the mechanisms that are proposed to accomplish this, such as natural selection, random mutation, neutral drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc. Speciation, or the branching off of one distinct population from another due to some form of isolation mechanism, is a result of evolution over usually long periods of time. Descent with modification is a conclusion given evolution and based on multiple independent lines of evidence, or depending on how you look at it another definition of evolution, that states that lifeforms give rise to further life forms that are slightly modified from their ancestor. The conclusion of descent with modification is that all life can be traced back to one or more universal common ancestors. Further evidence would make a single or multiple common ancestors more or less probable. Hopefully these basic definitions can streamline the discussion.


Edited by HumbleThinker, 08 December 2013 - 09:16 AM.


#2
HumbleThinker

HumbleThinker

    Junior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

So before I start anything, who here is actually interested in discussing the evidence for evolution? I'm not looking to convince you of the factual nature of evolution because I could honestly care less. I'd care slightly more if I met you people in person, but still marginally above 0. Even if you somehow become convinced of the scientific validity of evolution, you still don't have to accept it. I encourage you all to look up Todd Wood, a creationist who accurately depicts evolution as supported by mounds of scientific evidence but does not accept it because he believes the Bible does not allow him to.

What I would like to do, though, is to have an discussion about evolution that will hopefully increase the accurate representation of evolution for all parties involved, including myself. No matter what you believe or why you believe it, God demands we give an accurate account of things. No exceptions. So even if evolution is the most Satanic thing of all time, misrepresenting it for the purposes of discrediting it is still a sin. A sin that can be easily corrected, but a sin nonetheless. And not only is it a sin, it is not pragmatic to do so, for the truth is a much stronger weapon than misinformation. So if there are some among you that realllllllly desire for your words to debunk evolution or convince someone that evolution is wrong, the most pious and effective way to do that is to learn the ins-and-outs of evolution and talk about them accurately.

So now that the prolouge's done, who would actually like to discuss the evidence for evolution? And if you would, did you have something in mind, or would you like to pick a piece of evidence from this site, or would you like me to bring up a piece of evidence first?
 
ETA: Oh, and just as a reminder to keep everyone on track, evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time. The theory of evolution is all the mechanisms that are proposed to accomplish this, such as natural selection, random mutation, neutral drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc. Speciation, or the branching off of one distinct population from another due to some form of isolation mechanism, is a result of evolution over usually long periods of time. Descent with modification is a conclusion given evolution and based on multiple independent lines of evidence, or depending on how you look at it another definition of evolution, that states that lifeforms give rise to further life forms that are slightly modified from their ancestor. The conclusion of descent with modification is that all life can be traced back to one or more universal common ancestors. Further evidence would make a single or multiple common ancestors more or less probable. Hopefully these basic definitions can streamline the discussion.


I'll frame this another way: if evolution were demonstrated as being the process the brought about the diversity of life to your satisfaction, then how would you reconcile that with the Bible? To reassure you once more, I am not trying to convince you of anything so this is not a trick question or a trap. I simply want to discuss our positions and lead both of us to a more accurate appraisal of God's Creation.

#3
Guest_man_*

Guest_man_*
  • Guests

I'll frame this another way: if evolution were demonstrated as being the process the brought about the diversity of life to your satisfaction, then how would you reconcile that with the Bible? To reassure you once more, I am not trying to convince you of anything so this is not a trick question or a trap. I simply want to discuss our positions and lead both of us to a more accurate appraisal of God's Creation.

 

 

 

It can't be done. Not without altering the Word. Evolution has us crawling out of the ocean. Scripture states we were created from the dust of the earth. 



#4
HumbleThinker

HumbleThinker

    Junior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

I'll frame this another way: if evolution were demonstrated as being the process the brought about the diversity of life to your satisfaction, then how would you reconcile that with the Bible? To reassure you once more, I am not trying to convince you of anything so this is not a trick question or a trap. I simply want to discuss our positions and lead both of us to a more accurate appraisal of God's Creation.

 
 
It can't be done. Not without altering the Word. Evolution has us crawling out of the ocean. Scripture states we were created from the dust of the earth.


Thanks for the response! So then I'll reverse the question: how would you reconcile that with God's Creation? If God's Creation cannot be reconciled with the Bible, then why do two of God's works give conflicting testimonies?

#5
Guest_man_*

Guest_man_*
  • Guests

Thanks for the response! So then I'll reverse the question: how would you reconcile that with God's Creation? If God's Creation cannot be reconciled with the Bible, then why do two of God's works give conflicting testimonies?

 

 

 

The theory of evolution is not the work of God.



#6
HumbleThinker

HumbleThinker

    Junior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

Thanks for the response! So then I'll reverse the question: how would you reconcile that with God's Creation? If God's Creation cannot be reconciled with the Bible, then why do two of God's works give conflicting testimonies?

 
 
The theory of evolution is not the work of God.


But that natural processes referred to by the theory of evolution are. And whether you accept this or not is irrelevant to this thread unless you wish to discuss the evidence for evolution. What the poster was responding to was a hypothetical question meant to gauge how one would reconcile God's Creation with the Bible, or vice versa if you prefer, if the ToE accurately depicted the mechanisms leading to the diversity of life. How would you?

#7
Guest_man_*

Guest_man_*
  • Guests

And whether you accept this or not is irrelevant to this thread unless you wish to discuss the evidence for evolution. 

 

 

Let's start here. This photo was taken from the link you provided.

 

There are 14 different skulls here. Where are the rest of them? 

 

Evolution is a slow gradual process. There is no physical evidence of this slow gradual physical change. All the evolutionist has is what it was (A) and what it evolved into (B). There is no fossil evidence of that slow gradual transition.

 

 

hominids2.jpg

 

 

 

What the poster was responding to was a hypothetical question meant to gauge how one would reconcile God's Creation with the Bible, or vice versa if you prefer, if the ToE accurately depicted the mechanisms leading to the diversity of life. How would you?

 

 

The theory of evolution can't be reconciled with God's creation because the theory is false. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the claim that all life evolved from a single cell entity. 



#8
HumbleThinker

HumbleThinker

    Junior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

 

And whether you accept this or not is irrelevant to this thread unless you wish to discuss the evidence for evolution. 

 
 
Let's start here. This photo was taken from the link you provided.
 
There are 14 different skulls here. Where are the rest of them? 
 
Evolution is a slow gradual process. There is no physical evidence of this slow gradual physical change. All the evolutionist has is what it was (A) and what it evolved into (B). There is no fossil evidence of that slow gradual transition.

 

 
 
hominids2.jpg
 
 
 

What the poster was responding to was a hypothetical question meant to gauge how one would reconcile God's Creation with the Bible, or vice versa if you prefer, if the ToE accurately depicted the mechanisms leading to the diversity of life. How would you?

 
 
The theory of evolution can't be reconciled with God's creation because the theory is false. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the claim that all life evolved from a single cell entity. 

Where are the rest of them? We either haven't found them or they are lost to time. Only a minority of specimens fossilize. We also have more than what are in that picture. 

 

But I'm curious why you focus on what is not there instead of what is there. These fossils clearly show a morphological progression through time. And even if these fossils were the only reasons for understanding a progression, your logic leads us to an inability to connect any two events because we cannot utilize cause and effect. If you put a barrier between two related events/phenomena of X time apart, such that we can no longer make the reasonable conclusion that they are connected, then this requires a great bit of reasoning to back it up.

 

And there is evidence for slow gradual change and the fossil record is a huge example of it as you can see morphological transitions between species and higher taxa. Ring species are another living example of evolution that can be observed right now, specifically intervals in the process of complete speciation. Would you like to discuss one of these or another bit of evidence?



#9
Guest_man_*

Guest_man_*
  • Guests

But I'm curious why you focus on what is not there instead of what is there. These fossils clearly show a morphological progression through time.

 

 

Because what's there isn't proof of anything. The only thing those skulls have in common are that they are skulls. 



#10
silviawang

silviawang

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 656 posts

i do not think there are full evidence of evolution,how to explain the DNA?and eye,and Cambrain Explosion

but i have the evidence that GOD is GOD 

 

and.....how to explain the black people,white people,yellow people look like so different?

the science shows that all the human being come from one man



#11
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,715 posts

Man does make a good point.  Evolutionists do not have what many call "the missing link."  That has always been missing.  They do offer "evidence" but it is hardly convincing evidence.  There is nothing that shows once species changed into another.  You can see minor changes in the appearance of one type of animal, but a dog doesn't become a cat, and a lion doesn't become a bear.  There will be minor changes in appearance based on who mates with who.  As people come together from different parts of the globe for instance, you will see gradual changes in appearance as a white European marries someone who is oriental.  When a white American marries an African American, that too creates gradual changes.  This does not support the theory of evolution, as it only shows gradual changes to the appearance of human beings.  They are still humans. 

 

Much of what evolutions are pushing are similarities in the DNA between man and animals.  That doesn't prove anything, except that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same.  At the same time, each type of animal is as it always has been.  There is "evidence" for evolution, but not nearly enough to make it reality.  There is much more evidence that God created everything as it exists today.  Evidence doesn't equal fact.  If you watch a trial, all kinds of evidence are presented, but you have to have enough to prove your case.  Evolutionists aren't even close to proving their claims. 

 

You claim it is a sin to misrepresent what evolution is to it's detriment.  I believe it is a bigger sin to try to sow seeds of doubt about the truth of God's Word.  I don't need to misrepresent the theory of evolution.  I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it. 



#12
HumbleThinker

HumbleThinker

    Junior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

But I'm curious why you focus on what is not there instead of what is there. These fossils clearly show a morphological progression through time.

 
 
Because what's there isn't proof of anything. The only thing those skulls have in common are that they are skulls.

Correct that there isn't proof of anything because science doesn't deal in proof. It doesn't deal in absolute certainty. I'm curious: what training do you have in comparative morphology to say that "The only thing those skulls have in common are that they are skulls?" If you have none, this would be like telling a 30 year veteran of Biblical language studies that he is mistranslating a Koine Greek phrase when you have absolutely no experience with Koine Greek. Do you see how this behavior is both wrong and should be corrected through humility?

Edited by HumbleThinker, 11 December 2013 - 05:24 PM.


#13
HumbleThinker

HumbleThinker

    Junior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

i do not think there are full evidence of evolution,how to explain the DNA?and eye,and Cambrain Explosion[/size]
but i have the evidence that GOD is GOD 
 
and.....how to explain the black people,white people,yellow people look like so different?
the science shows that all the human being come from one man[/size]


If you wish to discuss the evidence, pick some detail about one of those things or give me the cue to pick something and we can begin. I'm glad you have evidence that God is God. That's a blessing. God has graced me with such evidence myself. But "God is God" doesn't mean anything by itself, so when you use it, it is appearing to me that you are simply using it as a placeholder for whatever position you hold that conflicts with evolution, and that by cloaking it with God you make anyone who disagrees with you disagreeing with God. If that's what you're doing, that doesn't affect me one way or the other. I also God's Creation is God's Creation, but that doesn't tell you anything other than implying that I think you are disagreeing with God's Creation that evolution happened and happens. Better, though, would be to go into detail and actually have a discussion about it.

Please link me to a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates humans come from one man because I can assure you that genetics makes that impossible. That would be a genetic bottleneck that would be impossible to overcome without massive interbreeding with other compatible populations of organisms.

#14
HumbleThinker

HumbleThinker

    Junior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

Man does make a good point.  Evolutionists do not have what many call "the missing link."


Because the "missing link" concept hasn't been science for a while. You might as well point out that evolutionists do not have evidence for the Great Chain of Being. Now if you're talking about transitionals, then by all means say so and we can discuss that.

Much of what evolutions are pushing are similarities in the DNA between man and animals.  That doesn't prove anything, except that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same.  At the same time, each type of animal is as it always has been.  There is "evidence" for evolution, but not nearly enough to make it reality.  There is much more evidence that God created everything as it exists today.  Evidence doesn't equal fact.  If you watch a trial, all kinds of evidence are presented, but you have to have enough to prove your case.  Evolutionists aren't even close to proving their claims.


Science doesn't deal in proof, so don't expect it or scientists to prove anything. Also, you are presuming your conclusion when you say that it proves, which again science cannot do, "that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same." For natural phenomena to support your position (support is the word you are looking for) you would first have to demonstrate that you are not just inventing an explanation. We could all come up with a near infinite number of explanations for any given phenomenon, but coming up with explanations after observing a phenomenon then declaring that that phenomenon support your explanation is not how science works. How would you test your explanation?
 

You claim it is a sin to misrepresent what evolution is to it's detriment.  I believe it is a bigger sin to try to sow seeds of doubt about the truth of God's Word.  I don't need to misrepresent the theory of evolution.  I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it.


It's a sin to misrepresent anything, which is a pretty well established Christian principle. Claiming that it is the lesser of two evils, which is what your above statement sounds like. Saying "I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it" doesn't really mean anything, particularly when you are bemoaning it in the same breath. If you ere to let it stand and fall on its own, then it would stand proudly, for scientists have given reams of evidence to support it. Simply claiming that it speaks for itself and it is saying that it is wrong is just a convoluted way of saying you think it's wrong without giving any reason beyond bare assertions.

Since there is evidence on the table for it, which part of it would you like to discuss? Or are you happy to let it stand and fall on its own and so forfeit any valid opinion to it? I'm not trying to be pushy here, but you're trying to have your cake and eat it to it seems.

Edited by HumbleThinker, 11 December 2013 - 05:45 PM.


#15
Guest_man_*

Guest_man_*
  • Guests

Correct that there isn't proof of anything because science doesn't deal in proof. It doesn't deal in absolute certainty. 

 

 

That's your proof? Science imagined it so it has to be true? 

 

"Science doesn't deal in proof"...........................that's a good one.   :laugh:



#16
HumbleThinker

HumbleThinker

    Junior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

Correct that there isn't proof of anything because science doesn't deal in proof. It doesn't deal in absolute certainty. 

 
 
That's your proof? Science imagined it so it has to be true? 
 
"Science doesn't deal in proof"...........................that's a good one.   :laugh:


Please try to remain accurate. In nowhere did I say "Science imagined it so it has to be true," nor did what you emphasize even imply this. I also note that you repeated the word proof. In my experience, before one can understand the reasoning and evidence behind any scientific topic, a prerequisite is understanding that science does not deal with proof but what the most probable conclusion is. Consilience, or the convergence of multiple independent lines of evidence on a single position, is a huge indicator that a position has a high probability of being correct. Evolution has spades of consilience. Your mistake is understandable because proof and theory and other such words are used very loosely in the public sphere, but they cause many problems when people begin to talk about science in any kind of serious manner.

Edited by HumbleThinker, 11 December 2013 - 06:55 PM.


#17
Guest_man_*

Guest_man_*
  • Guests

 

 

Correct that there isn't proof of anything because science doesn't deal in proof. It doesn't deal in absolute certainty. 

 
 
That's your proof? Science imagined it so it has to be true? 
 
"Science doesn't deal in proof"...........................that's a good one.   :laugh:

 


Please try to remain accurate. In nowhere did I say "Science imagined it so it has to be true," nor did what you emphasize even imply this. I also note that you repeated the word proof. In my experience, before one can understand the reasoning and evidence behind any scientific topic, a prerequisite is understanding that science does not deal with proof but what the most probable conclusion is. Consilience, or the convergence of multiple independent lines of evidence on a single position, is a huge indicator that a position has a high probability of being correct. Evolution has spades of consilience. Your mistake is understandable because proof and theory and other such words are used very loosely in the public sphere, but they cause many problems when people begin to talk about science in any kind of serious manner.

 

 

 

For the sake of this conversation I choose not to deal in accuracy. That way my words appear more viable.



#18
silviawang

silviawang

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 656 posts

 


If you wish to discuss the evidence, pick some detail about one of those things or give me the cue to pick something and we can begin. I'm glad you have evidence that God is God. That's a blessing. God has graced me with such evidence myself. But "God is God" doesn't mean anything by itself, so when you use it, it is appearing to me that you are simply using it as a placeholder for whatever position you hold that conflicts with evolution, and that by cloaking it with God you make anyone who disagrees with you disagreeing with God. If that's what you're doing, that doesn't affect me one way or the other. I also God's Creation is God's Creation, but that doesn't tell you anything other than implying that I think you are disagreeing with God's Creation that evolution happened and happens. Better, though, would be to go into detail and actually have a discussion about it.

Please link me to a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates humans come from one man because I can assure you that genetics makes that impossible. That would be a genetic bottleneck that would be impossible to overcome without massive interbreeding with other compatible populations of organisms.

 

about the evolution ,i myself assume the Theistic Evolution,but i can not assure,i am not the biologist,but i have the full knowledge of biology and Physics,from DNA theory to big-bang theory,after studied all of these,i think GOD is exist,and then i tried pray for the Biblical  miracle,after 10 moths'deadly faith trial,the miracle i demanded happened,.....so i said "God is God“



#19
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,715 posts

 

Man does make a good point.  Evolutionists do not have what many call "the missing link."


Because the "missing link" concept hasn't been science for a while. You might as well point out that evolutionists do not have evidence for the Great Chain of Being. Now if you're talking about transitionals, then by all means say so and we can discuss that.

Much of what evolutions are pushing are similarities in the DNA between man and animals.  That doesn't prove anything, except that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same.  At the same time, each type of animal is as it always has been.  There is "evidence" for evolution, but not nearly enough to make it reality.  There is much more evidence that God created everything as it exists today.  Evidence doesn't equal fact.  If you watch a trial, all kinds of evidence are presented, but you have to have enough to prove your case.  Evolutionists aren't even close to proving their claims.


Science doesn't deal in proof, so don't expect it or scientists to prove anything. Also, you are presuming your conclusion when you say that it proves, which again science cannot do, "that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same." For natural phenomena to support your position (support is the word you are looking for) you would first have to demonstrate that you are not just inventing an explanation. We could all come up with a near infinite number of explanations for any given phenomenon, but coming up with explanations after observing a phenomenon then declaring that that phenomenon support your explanation is not how science works. How would you test your explanation?
 

You claim it is a sin to misrepresent what evolution is to it's detriment.  I believe it is a bigger sin to try to sow seeds of doubt about the truth of God's Word.  I don't need to misrepresent the theory of evolution.  I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it.


It's a sin to misrepresent anything, which is a pretty well established Christian principle. Claiming that it is the lesser of two evils, which is what your above statement sounds like. Saying "I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it" doesn't really mean anything, particularly when you are bemoaning it in the same breath. If you ere to let it stand and fall on its own, then it would stand proudly, for scientists have given reams of evidence to support it. Simply claiming that it speaks for itself and it is saying that it is wrong is just a convoluted way of saying you think it's wrong without giving any reason beyond bare assertions.

Since there is evidence on the table for it, which part of it would you like to discuss? Or are you happy to let it stand and fall on its own and so forfeit any valid opinion to it? I'm not trying to be pushy here, but you're trying to have your cake and eat it to it seems.

 

I want to deal with one of your comments, "Science doesn't deal in proof."  In another thread, you are speaking of a hypothetical situation where science proves something in scripture false.  You have just admitted that cannot happen because "science doesn't deal in proof."  It is a belief system, nothing more, and nothing less.  Some scientists look at the things that exist and see evolution.  Others look at the things that exist and see creation.  When a person dies, we bury that person, and return them to the ground they were created from.  I have had pets that died, and have likewise buried them, and returned them to the ground they were created from.  It is not like I had to put a lot of thought into this.  I knew both man and animal came from the ground.  I just knew a divine creator fashioned us from the earth.  Scientists want to claim similarities in DNA shows evidence of evolution, and I say it shows no such thing. 

 

The question is, what do I have more faith in?  Science books or the Bible?  I have more faith in the Bible, and you appear to put more faith in science books.  We are both acting in faith, seeing as though you have admitted "science doesn't deal in proof."  What more is there to say? 



#20
HumbleThinker

HumbleThinker

    Junior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

Man does make a good point. Evolutionists do not have what many call "the missing link."

Because the "missing link" concept hasn't been science for a while. You might as well point out that evolutionists do not have evidence for the Great Chain of Being. Now if you're talking about transitionals, then by all means say so and we can discuss that.

Much of what evolutions are pushing are similarities in the DNA between man and animals. That doesn't prove anything, except that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same. At the same time, each type of animal is as it always has been. There is "evidence" for evolution, but not nearly enough to make it reality. There is much more evidence that God created everything as it exists today. Evidence doesn't equal fact. If you watch a trial, all kinds of evidence are presented, but you have to have enough to prove your case. Evolutionists aren't even close to proving their claims.

Science doesn't deal in proof, so don't expect it or scientists to prove anything. Also, you are presuming your conclusion when you say that it proves, which again science cannot do, "that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same." For natural phenomena to support your position (support is the word you are looking for) you would first have to demonstrate that you are not just inventing an explanation. We could all come up with a near infinite number of explanations for any given phenomenon, but coming up with explanations after observing a phenomenon then declaring that that phenomenon support your explanation is not how science works. How would you test your explanation?

You claim it is a sin to misrepresent what evolution is to it's detriment. I believe it is a bigger sin to try to sow seeds of doubt about the truth of God's Word. I don't need to misrepresent the theory of evolution. I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it.

It's a sin to misrepresent anything, which is a pretty well established Christian principle. Claiming that it is the lesser of two evils, which is what your above statement sounds like. Saying "I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it" doesn't really mean anything, particularly when you are bemoaning it in the same breath. If you ere to let it stand and fall on its own, then it would stand proudly, for scientists have given reams of evidence to support it. Simply claiming that it speaks for itself and it is saying that it is wrong is just a convoluted way of saying you think it's wrong without giving any reason beyond bare assertions.Since there is evidence on the table for it, which part of it would you like to discuss? Or are you happy to let it stand and fall on its own and so forfeit any valid opinion to it? I'm not trying to be pushy here, but you're trying to have your cake and eat it to it seems.
I want to deal with one of your comments, "Science doesn't deal in proof." In another thread, you are speaking of a hypothetical situation where science proves something in scripture false. You have just admitted that cannot happen because "science doesn't deal in proof." It is a belief system, nothing more, and nothing less. Some scientists look at the things that exist and see evolution. Others look at the things that exist and see creation. When a person dies, we bury that person, and return them to the ground they were created from. I have had pets that died, and have likewise buried them, and returned them to the ground they were created from. It is not like I had to put a lot of thought into this. I knew both man and animal came from the ground. I just knew a divine creator fashioned us from the earth. Scientists want to claim similarities in DNA shows evidence of evolution, and I say it shows no such thing. The question is, what do I have more faith in? Science books or the Bible? I have more faith in the Bible, and you appear to put more faith in science books. We are both acting in faith, seeing as though you have admitted "science doesn't deal in proof." What more is there to say?
If I used proof or prove then I was in error and apologize, but I suspect you may have mistook strongly supporting or similarbphrase with proof. The aquinas quote may also have made youthink this but Aquinas was not speaking as a scientist. Another false equivocation that we should come to common ground on is between the bible and science texts. The Bible and creation are two great works of God while science books are works of men containing information derived from one of Gods works. Creation and the Bible are the proper equivocation.

The false question but correct equivocation would be do you believe God's Creation or the Bible? The correct question and correct equivocation is do you believe your and others interpretations of the Bible or yours and others interpretation of Creation?

Edited by HumbleThinker, 13 December 2013 - 10:24 AM.





Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network