Jump to content
IGNORED

Intelligent Design, Science & Religion


bcbsr

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

21 hours ago, dhchristian said:

When You are ready, we can move to point number 2. :whistling:

Very well, now that I’ve shown why point number 1 is false, I am fine moving on to point number 2.

The author’s attempted point takes an overly narrow view of sexual reproduction. The author is apparently completely unaware of the thousands of species of protists and fungi that are capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction. With this reproductive flexibility, the “where are the parents??!” attempted point is easily dismissed. Sexual reproduction has evolved from a very simple process in single-celled organisms like yeast to more complicated processes as seen in vertebrates.

Point number 2 is just as easily dismissed as point 1. If you are sure you want to move on, I’ll be happy check out point 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Very well, now that I’ve shown why point number 1 is false, I am fine moving on to point number 2.

A debate is not about winning or losing, but about presenting the facts. I Showed how evolutionary theory was flawed in its understanding and had to apply punctuated equilibrium to their science, which is the foundational fact of creation science. Thus science is giving credence to the Word of God. 

 

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

The author’s attempted point takes an overly narrow view of sexual reproduction. The author is apparently completely unaware of the thousands of species of protists and fungi that are capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction. With this reproductive flexibility, the “where are the parents??!” attempted point is easily dismissed. Sexual reproduction has evolved from a very simple process in single-celled organisms like yeast to more complicated processes as seen in vertebrates.

Point number 2 is just as easily dismissed as point 1. If you are sure you want to move on, I’ll be happy check out point 3.

Once again, you fail to understand the point being made. Here is a snippet from an evolutionist publication that illustrates this problem...

There are several reasons why the origin of sex presents a problem. For starters, there is the waste of resources in producing males. Assuming a sexually-reproducing female gives birth to an equal number of male and female offspring, only half of the progeny will be able to go on to have more offspring (in contrast to the asexually reproducing species, all the offspring of which can subsequently reproduce). Thus, it is to be expected that the asexual female will proliferate, on average, at twice the rate of the sexual species. Given the disadvantage thereby confronting the sexually-reproducing species, one would expect them to be quickly outcompeted by the asexual species. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that, in contrast to the asexual species, the females of the sexually-reproducing species perpetuate only half of their successful genotype. To transition, therefore, from a state of asexuality to sexual reproduction is, in effect, to gamble with 50% of one’s successful genotype. Given that the whole purpose of natural selection is the preservation of those organisms which pass on their successful genes, this strikes at the heart of evolutionary rationale.

The problems extend even deeper than this. For there is, of course, the additional conundrum related to the fact that gametes (i.e. sex cells) undergo a fundamentally different type of cell division (i.e. meiosis rather than mitosis). Meiosis entails the copying of only half of the chromosomal material. In similar fashion to mitosis (which occurs in somatic cells), each chromosome is duplicated to yield two chromatids. In contrast to mitosis, however, the homologous chromosomes are also associated. So, at the start of meiosis, each visible ‘chromosome’ possesses four chromatids. At the first division, these homologous chromosomes are separated such that each daughter nucleus has exactly half the chromosome number. At this stage, each is present as two copies (chromatids). These chromatids are hence separated at the second division such that each new nucleus only has a single copy. In order for sexual reproduction to work, it is essential that the process of meiosis evolve to halve the chromosome number. And this ability must also only occur in the gametes and not in the somatic cells. This difficulty is accentuated by the multitude of novel elements which are found in meiosis, rendering it unlikely to be explicable in terms of single mutational steps.
And then there is the added problem of male and female complementarity — a seemingly remarkable incidence of co-evolution.

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/07/spinning_fanciful_tales_about_/

The Two attempts to solve this problem in the article are Nothing more than hilarious. 

One says:

the evolutionary driver of sexual reproduction is a need to avoid death by parasites.

The other says:

According to Heng, the hidden advantage sex has over asexual reproduction is that it constrains macroevolution — evolution at the genome level — to allow a species’ identity to survive. In other words, it prevents “Species A” from morphing into “Species B.” Meanwhile, it also allows for microevolution — evolution at the gene level — to allow members of the species to adapt to the environment.

Obviously They Both cannot be right, can they? So Even Evolutionists admit this is a problem, How is it that you do not? this is a conundrum even science fails to explain. The second one is hilarious to me as a creationist... Sexual reproduction formed to prevent macro evolution from happening... How About that God created it this way. "Male an female created he them". 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

 

2 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

A debate is not about winning or losing, but about presenting the facts.

I'm pretty sure we weren't debating. You presented work from another author and I was explaining why the "facts" the author presented were false.

3 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Showed how evolutionary theory was flawed

Not in the least. You posted a quote with multiple errors. You did follow up with mention of punctuated equilibrium. So what had been proposed 150 years ago was shown to be incomplete and needed modification of existing theory. That's a rather minor flaw. The field of genetics has also been updated in the last 150 years. That doesn't mean that the field of genetics should be discarded.

6 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Once again, you fail to understand the point being made.

No, I understand the point that was made, I just explained why the point was inaccurate and worthless as evidence against evolution.

 

7 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Here is a snippet from an evolutionist publication that illustrates this problem...

I understand your confusion, but "Evolution News and Views" is absolutely NOT an evolutionist publication. It is the primary blog of the ID movement, the main public outreach effort of the Discovery Institute. It is completely anti-evolution.

9 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

There are several reasons why the origin of sex presents a problem. For starters, there is the waste of resources in producing males.

Yes, there are trade-offs to sexual reproduction. There is definitely an energy requirement for sexual dimorphism. However, this is offset by the increased genetic variability inherent in sexual reproduction and why even many single-celled organisms have the capability of sexual reproduction.

Yes, meiosis is complex and differs from mitosis. However, the argument that "this process is complex, so could not have evolved" is opinion unsupported by evidence (therefore, not a scientific argument).

Neither point 1 nor point 2 is an effective argument against evolution.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Not in the least. You posted a quote with multiple errors. You did follow up with mention of punctuated equilibrium. So what had been proposed 150 years ago was shown to be incomplete and needed modification of existing theory. That's a rather minor flaw. The field of genetics has also been updated in the last 150 years. That doesn't mean that the field of genetics should be discarded.

No, Wrong, I am showing you how science is proving scripture. The fact that punctuated equilibrium had to be introduced points to the flood as recorded in scripture. This is What I am trying to show you. 

 

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I understand your confusion, but "Evolution News and Views" is absolutely NOT an evolutionist publication. It is the primary blog of the ID movement, the main public outreach effort of the Discovery Institute. It is completely anti-evolution.

I Understand that, but the people quoted in the article were evolutionists, and also identified the same problem. The two theories to explain the problem are from evolutionists, thus they acknowledge the problem.

 

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, there are trade-offs to sexual reproduction. There is definitely an energy requirement for sexual dimorphism. However, this is offset by the increased genetic variability inherent in sexual reproduction and why even many single-celled organisms have the capability of sexual reproduction.

Yes, meiosis is complex and differs from mitosis. However, the argument that "this process is complex, so could not have evolved" is opinion unsupported by evidence (therefore, not a scientific argument).

Neither point 1 nor point 2 is an effective argument against evolution.

According to the second evolutionist, you are wrong in stating that sexual reproduction increases genetic variability.

Heng and fellow researcher Root Gorelick, Ph.D., associate professor at Carleton University in Canada, propose that although diversity may result from a combination of genes, the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it’s about keeping the genome context — an organism’s complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology — as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species’ identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.
“If sex was merely for increasing genetic diversity, it would not have evolved in the first place,” said Heng. This is because asexual reproduction — in which only one parent is needed to procreate — leads to higher rates of genetic diversity than sex.

The Point here, Is that Sexual reproduction as opposed to Asexual reproduction is a less efficient way to reproduce, yet this form of reproduction is the standard for more complex  creatures, which belies the logic of evolution in which efficiency enable the survival of species. Not to mention the fact that male and female had to simultaneously emerge for that step in evolution to succeed, again, which is mathematically next to impossible. 

SO, the question is, which came first, the chicken or the egg? If the chicken, How did they know how to reproduce (sexually), and what were the chances of a male and a female chicken forming simultaneously. Remember Hybridization yields animals that are sterile, such as Mule, So We had to have not a hybrid, But a full blown new species, Both male and female evolve at once, and they KNEW they had to "get busy" to produce offspring with one another. How did they Know, especially if they were the first? 

 

 

 

Edited by dhchristian
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

On 8/27/2019 at 7:17 PM, dhchristian said:

Organ development

  • How did the heart, lungs, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, did the first animal develop 10 percent of complete veins, then 20 percent, and on up to 100 percent, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
  • Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this.
  • How did the animal survive during these changes (and over thousands of years)? Of course, at the same time, the animal’s eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food, and its brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, brain, veins and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal’s body must be fully functional in the first moments of life.
  • The preceding points indicate that evolution couldn’t occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn’t occur! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never even could have gotten started. Or is your attitude going to be: Don’t bother me with such details; my mind is made up.

Next point when you are ready.... Do You understand the point here? Here is an analogy... A bunch of braincells Got together and said to the heart cells, "can we get some nutrients delivered to us so that we can sit here and think about things like evolution"...And then the heart cells obliged, but had to have a pow wow with the blood cells that were puddled over yonder and the cells that make up the veins said, "hey we can help" and formed a straw like structure and sucked the blood to the heart, and then connected those straws to the brain cells... Ad infinitum...  I Know this is kind of a mocking example, But that is what it takes to believe in evolution, does it not? I mean an Amoeba, as loving as they are, have no heart, and no brain for that matter, so somewhere along the line this sort of "conversation" had to take place, so please explain how this happened? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

30 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

No, Wrong, I am showing you how science is proving scripture.

Although it is tangential to the point, you are completely missing my view of scripture. God's Word is true, it does not need our defense or our proof, or that of science. You believe that the creation account in Genesis is entirely literal. I believe that aspects of the creation account are figurative. You are trying to defend a literal viewpoint of the Genesis account with scientific evidence, but the available scientific evidence supports evolution of life over billions of years, rather than a 144-hour creation 6000 years ago.

37 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

The two theories to explain the problem are from evolutionists, thus they acknowledge the problem.

I do not have the books that have been quoted here, but I can guarantee that there is additional material from the authors that offers their hypothesis for an explanation. I'm not arguing that the development of sexual reproduction is obvious. I'm saying that it is much more plausible when one is really informed of the facts. Your "point 2" quote was from someone who obviously did not have all the facts.

40 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Heng and fellow researcher Root Gorelick, Ph.D., associate professor at Carleton University in Canada, propose that although diversity may result from a combination of genes, the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it’s about keeping the genome context — an organism’s complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology — as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species’ identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.
“If sex was merely for increasing genetic diversity, it would not have evolved in the first place,” said Heng. This is because asexual reproduction — in which only one parent is needed to procreate — leads to higher rates of genetic diversity than sex.

It is widely believed among scientists that the primary advantage of sexual reproduction is the inherent genetic diversity. There are certainly other reasons why it is important. Some (like in this example) may have a differing opinion about what the primary advantage is. The particular details regarding the development of sexual reproduction, particularly as we see it in vertebrates, may be unknown, but that is a far cry from evidence against evolution.

49 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

The Point here, Is that Sexual reproduction as opposed to Asexual reproduction is a less efficient way to reproduce, yet this form of reproduction is the standard for more complex  creatures, which belies the logic of evolution in which efficiency enable the survival of species.

No argument that sexual reproduction is less efficient. But again, there are advantages to sexual reproduction, primarily increased genetic diversity.

51 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Not to mention the fact that male and female had to simultaneously emerge for that step in evolution to succeed, again, which is mathematically next to impossible.

You are overcomplicating sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction occurs even in many single-celled organisms, where there is no such thing as "male" or "female", but cells of different mating type. In Brewer's yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the mating types are "a" and "alpha". While these can't really be considred two different sexes, one can easily imagine mating types developing over time into progressively less-and-less similar organisms, finally developing into male and female versions of a species like we see today.

55 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

SO, the question is, which came first, the chicken or the egg? If the chicken, How did they know how to reproduce (sexually), and what were the chances of a male and a female chicken forming simultaneously.

Due to reasons I have explained, this is not a valid question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

36 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Know this is kind of a mocking example, But that is what it takes to believe in evolution, does it not?

This question suggests that you believe a fully-formed vertebrate organism one day did not have a heart or blood vessels, and then the next day had a fully functional cardiovascular system. It is a caricature that is far-removed from evolutionary theory.

I don't know where you copied this series of "points disproving evolution", but the author repeatedly shows a level of scientific competence I would expect in a middle-school student, yet believes that they know more then experts in these specific fields.

We can look at the variety of living organisms today and see simpler versions of all of these organ systems. It is no stretch to actually see how these organisms developed. Let's use the heart as an example. Fish have a two-chambered heart - a single atrium for receiving incoming blood and a single ventricle for sending blood out into the circulatory system. The hypothetical transition from an aquatic environment to terrestrial environment (remember the Tiktaalik) would require a greater efficiency in the cardiovascular system. Amphibians, which of course are partially aquatic. They can absorb some oxygen through the skin, but also have lungs (derived from the fish swim bladder, by the way). The heart gets a little more complicated than the fish heart, and typically has three chambers, instead of two. They still have a single ventricle, which pumps blood into both the pulmonary circuit and the systemic circuit, but have two atria - one for accepting blood from the pulmonary circuit and one accepting blood from the systemic circuit. Yes, the heart did require a transition, but there is no reason to believe that this could not happen by a slow, steady development of the heart into the more efficient version. Terrestrial turtles and tortoises have a three chambered heart with a partial septum in the single ventricle. You can see where this is going... Just a little bit more development, and then you have the classic four-chambered heart that we see in mammals and birds. A very similar progression can be inferred for all of our organ systems just by observing and studying other organisms on the planet today.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

44 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'm saying that it is much more plausible when one is really informed of the facts.

Plausibility is not good science.

45 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I believe

Belief is not good science

46 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It is widely believed among scientists that the primary advantage of sexual reproduction is the inherent genetic diversity.

Concensus of belief is not good science

47 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

one can easily imagine mating types developing over time into progressively less-and-less similar organisms, finally developing into male and female versions of a species like we see today.

Imagination is not scientific methodology

48 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

this is not a valid question.

Proclaiming something invalid is not how science is done, All criticism must be considered...

26 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This question suggests that you believe a fully-formed vertebrate organism one day did not have a heart or blood vessels, and then the next day had a fully functional cardiovascular system. It is a caricature that is far-removed from evolutionary theory.

It is common sense... Even questions that are unscientific must be considered by good science....

26 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

shows a level of scientific competence I would expect in a middle-school student, yet believes that they know more then experts in these specific fields.

Again, Criticizing a person is not answering, or being able to answer a common sense question. I do not care if a middle schooler asks a Question about Creation, I will answer them respectfully rather than nullifying their question.

27 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It is no stretch to actually see how these organisms developed.

But it is a stretch unless the specifics are not explained fully...

28 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

but there is no reason to believe that this could not happen by a slow, steady development of the heart into the more efficient version.

More belief required to imagine that evolution is probable and true...

28 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

A very similar progression can be inferred for all of our organ systems just by observing and studying other organisms on the planet today.

Science is not done by inferring anything, but by proving everything.

Conclusion of this debate. 

It takes as much faith to believe in evolution, if not more so than to believe in God. I admire your faith, though it is misplaced. I have selected these comments from your words here, to show you that evolution is a religion, nothing more, Yes there are very imaginative and smart people known as scientists that believe in evolution, But that does not make them Wise, nor does it make evolution True. Paul the apostle states that People that deny the common sense evidences of the creation, which God has given us "think they are wise, but are fools" Please take the time to read Romans 1:18-23 at the link...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/1/18/ss0/s_1047018

And continue reading the rest of the chapter to show you where this mindset CAN lead one.

I Have tried to show you several examples here, where Science is leading to conclusions which verify scripture. Undoubtedly there are many counterclaims to what I have said here, and natural explanations that can be implied to explain these supernatural events, and You are free to make and consider those counter claims as I obviously cannot stop you from doing so. Supernatural acts of a creator God are just that, Supernatural. They are beyond natural explanations. Though the Bible speaks of a worldwide flood, Science can deny it, or try to explain it naturally, or say it was a localized flood, etc, but When evidence comes out of a worldwide flood by science itself, or the mapping of the Ocean floors reveals a rip in the ocean floor that runs around the globe (Fountains of the deep opening), Or science starts to consider that speed of light was near instantaneous, and is not a constant but is decelerating...Then You need to sit back and Give Glory to the God who authored the Word of God. You can make all the fancy terms for this you want such "punctuated Equilibrium" or You can Give Glory to God And His Wisdom. 

Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. (Isa 40:28)

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

8 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Plausibility is not good science.

Your argumentation is growing desperate if you are ignoring the facts I am presenting and focusing on word choice. It may be about time to wrap this up. When the available evidence repeatedly points to evolution as the most plausible explanation, that is doing good science.

3 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Science is not done by inferring anything, but by proving everything.

Sometimes, scientific answers must be inferred. Unless you propose an experiment by which a researcher collects data for 30 million years to test the Cambrian explosion. The best available evidence is carefully analyzed (in the case of the Cambrian explosion, this is the fossil record) and most plausible explanations are drawn. The plausibility of large-scale evolution is based on smaller-scale evolution that can be observed by direct experimentation. Thus, some science is done by inference.

20 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

It takes as much faith to believe in evolution, if not more so than to believe in God.

Here is something I can actually agree with. Growing up in a Christian home with parents that taught me well about my Savior, belief in God came quite easily for me. The evidence surrounding the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the development of the early church support my belief in the one, true God. My belief in evolution as a tool of the Creator came much harder. I grew up as a Young Earth Creationist and it took roughly a decade of education in Biology (I earned a PhD about 20 years ago) for me to accept evolution. This is not because the evidence is weak, but because I was wrongly taught that a non-literal view of Genesis was accepting the word of man over the Word of God. All truth is God's truth - the truth of His Word and the truth of His might works. When evidence is clear that a literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't match the evidence of His works, then there was a fundamental misunderstanding of His Word. Historically we have seen this as Christians have come to accept that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa, as well as several other misunderstandings about nature that began with an overly literal interpretation of the Bible. You may argue that science is the work of man, but I would counter that interpretation of the Bible is also the work of man and both of these can be in error.

27 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I have selected these comments from your words here, to show you that evolution is a religion, nothing more

This is another desperate argument that does not deal with the information I have shared with you. I can understand why you may not want to face the real evidence for evolution, rather than the easily-discredited "proofs against evolution", such as those you have supplied. I was in the same position one day.

Thanks for the conversation, but I agree this has probably wound to a close. Respond if you like, but I suspect that this will be my last post on this thread. I look forward to a day when fellow believers in Christ can agree to disagree on such issues and focus on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

Just now, one.opinion said:

This is another desperate argument that does not deal with the information I have shared with you. I can understand why you may not want to face the real evidence for evolution, rather than the easily-discredited "proofs against evolution", such as those you have supplied. I was in the same position one day.

Thanks for the conversation, but I agree this has probably wound to a close. Respond if you like, but I suspect that this will be my last post on this thread. I look forward to a day when fellow believers in Christ can agree to disagree on such issues and focus on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thank You as well for being cordial and actually taking the time to debate and present the facts. Science is not the enemy of the church, though some have used it as such, and without the church, science would not exist as we know it for science is built on the foundation of discovering the Truth, And Jesus is the truth Personified. (John 14:6). One day we will know the truth, and I will then nudge you on the shoulder and tell you "I told you so" 

I Myself began as a YEC, became a TE proponent, Till I had my eyes opened to what the theological ramifications of that position entailed. So there is hope for you yet. All Kidding aside, Thank you for the cordial debate, again. I Have had some nasty debates before about these topics that descend into name calling and your character shows in how you handled yourself.

God Bless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...