disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[one.opinion]

13 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

Disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less...

That's simple, just study the intricacy of the human eye or ear! 

There is no scientific reason to assume that God could not have created through evolution.

[one.opinion]

19 hours ago, Behold said:

There is no extant connecting "fossil" record, and you stating that there is, is not proof.

An honest statement, should you be interested, would be to state that you don't believe the hominid fossil record. To say that it doesn't exist is simply repeating false statements, something I think we can agree that a follower of Christ should try to avoid.

Supporting evidence is always good, so feel free to check out the National Museum of Natural History webpage (http://humanorigins.si.edu/exhibit). Here is another article detailing much more of the recently discovered fossil evidence - https://medium.com/@johnhawks/how-much-evidence-have-scientists-found-for-human-evolution-355801dfd35c. A google search could connect you with dozens of pages containing evidence of the connecting "fossil" record, if you are interested in actually learning about the evidence.

19 hours ago, Behold said:

God literally made "everything after its KIND"

Let's try looking at what the Word of the Creator says in Genesis 1:24 "Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that crawl, and the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so." Notice how it says "Let the earth produce"? Doesn't that sound like a process that God set in motion, rather than "poofing" into existence? Of course there are different "kinds" that He cause the earth to produce, but there is nothing in the text indicating that a "kind" is some rigid, biological classification that forms boundaries that confine the process of evolution. This assumption is a man-made conjecture about what God meant, not a fact established in Scripture.

[PoN]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

There is no scientific reason to assume that God could not have created through evolution.

There is actually !  Science requires naturalistic explanations.  Anything invoking God as an explanation is not scientific from the definition of science.  Instead the process is called theistic evolution.

So is it possible God used theistic evolution to create life on earth ?  Of course it is possible !  Did He do it that way ?  VERY unlikely owing  to the following significant problems it creates:

https://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by PoN

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, PoN said:

So is it possible God used theistic evolution to create life on earth ?  Of course it is possible !

Notice that I stated there is no scientific reason to assume that God could not have created through evolution. I understand that sincere Christ-followers may reject that view for theological reasons.

I stand as a personal testament that one can accept the scientific evidence of evolution while still loving my Lord, Savior, and Creator with all my heart.

[PoN]

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Notice that I stated there is no scientific reason to assume that God could not have created through evolution.

I thought a scientific explanation must require a naturalistic process which by definition excludes God from any theory.

[one.opinion]

15 minutes ago, PoN said:

I thought a scientific explanation must require a naturalistic process which by definition excludes God from any theory.

I'm sure that you and I agree that God is the author of all nature. Therefore, a naturalistic process is only observation of what He has made. Scientists confined to physical tools of investigation and discovery cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, so researching naturalistic processes cannot exclude God - only limit the scope of study to the physical. Study of the physical evidence for evolution does not exclude God any more than studying the physical evidence for earthquakes, volcanoes, or lightning.

Edited April 26, 2019 by one.opinion

[PoN]

I see.  A secular scientist will observe things directed by God but he will be none the wiser that God was causing/driving it.  Instead he comes up with an explanation which by definition must exclude God. 

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, PoN said:

I see.  A secular scientist will observe things directed by God but he will be none the wiser that God was causing/driving it.  Instead he comes up with an explanation which by definition must exclude God. 

Not necessarily. A “secular” scientist (I’m going to assume you mean atheistic) and a Christian scientist can look at the exact same evidence and come to the exact same conclusion. The Christian scientist may be struck in awe and wonder at the power and creativity of the Creator that allowed the subject of the discovery, while (sadly) the atheistic scientist would miss out on that experience of worship. But the explanation derived from the evidence may be exactly the same.

[JustPassingThru]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

There is no scientific reason to assume that God could not have created through evolution.

Like I said just do a thorough study of your eye, or your ear!

Today's cell phones have incredible camaras, but they don't even come close to the intricacy of the human eye, ...so with such complexity, ...why would God let man walk around blind for millions of years before He finished designing his eye?

[Behold]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

An honest statement, should you be interested, would be to state that you don't believe the hominid fossil record.

Ive already made honest statements.

Each and every one.

I told you there there exists no "Provable" connecting fossil record, (extant).   Your response is to give a bone collection a name,  that is defined by SOME scientist's as a "record".

This is not provable, but, some Scientists, say that the hominid fossil record, should be accepted as proof, because they want you to believe it.

So, your "proof" is to say im not being honest, while you provide no proof, but you did name the bone collection as Hominid........so, thank you.

Next, i told you over a week ago, that Carbon Dating, is not accurate, and that much of evolutionary theoretical history is balanced on this error prone dating service.

You had nothing to say about that.....also.

So, this is for your fact sheet,   = Because it is radioactive, carbon 14 steadily decays into other substances. ... But scientists have long recognized that carbon dating is subject to error because of a variety of factors, including contamination by outside sources of carbon.

 

So, lets end our discussion, as you posted no proof, you only insinuated against my honesty, so,  we're done.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Behold