Evolution evidence: the truth

[AnAtheist]

Chris LaRock:

Ok. How’s this for a fact:

Evolution is only a theory, hence the title ‘the theory of evolution’. It’s regarded as a theory because it’s not scientifically proven.

That is **NOT **the definition of a *scientific *theory. You deliberately mix the common usage of the term theory with the scientific term to beat a strawman.

 

[Orogeny]

1st, for any Chrisitan to believe in evolution would be going against the word of God…thus calling him a liar. If a non-christian believes in evolution, (too me) that is fine and it is not worth arguing about.

Well, here we go again. George gave a very good rebuttal, but I wanted to comment only on this statement.

To those who deny the evidence of evolution: Do not question the faith of those who use the God-given intelligence we have. You are not only being incredibly insulting, but you are revealing the ugly Pharisee side of your faith.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. Of all things seen and unseen.

Based on that statement, do you have any questions regarding who I think is responsible for EVERYTHING?

Peace

Tim

 

[YahShuaMessiah]

Interesting, that if God says he created man in his own image, in a “day”, I wonder what 100,000 million period that is. God would be a liar. He either created man in that day or he didn’t. He says he did. So again, I restate. Believing in evolution is not from God given intelligence, but from Satan’s evil influence.

I understand you cannot see that.

 

[YahShuaMessiah]

Orogeny:

You are not only being incredibly insulting, but you are revealing the ugly Pharisee side of your faith.

I am Catholic. Is it against the Catholic faith to believe in the word of God?

 

[Orogeny]

YahShuaMessiah:

I am Catholic. Is it against the Catholic faith to believe in the word of God?

Is it ok to be “Holier than thou” just because you are Catholic? Don’t assume.

Since you are Catholic, you would agree that the Church, not you, decides on these matters. My beliefs are exactly in line with Church teaching. So much for me calling God a liar.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

YahShuaMessiah:

Interesting, that if God says he created man in his own image, in a “day”, I wonder what 100,000 million period that is. God would be a liar. He either created man in that day or he didn’t. He says he did. So again, I restate. Believing in evolution is not from God given intelligence, but from Satan’s evil influence.

Tell that to the Pope. From bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

1. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

That is a beautiful document. I strongly recommend that you follow the link I gave and read the document in it’s entirety.

Peace

Tim

 

[George_Waters]

YahShuaMessiah:

Interesting, that if God says he created man in his own image, in a “day”, I wonder what 100,000 million period that is. God would be a liar. He either created man in that day or he didn’t. He says he did. So again, I restate. Believing in evolution is not from God given intelligence, but from Satan’s evil influence.

I understand you cannot see that.

OK, we’ll play the literalism game.

Let’s start with God creating man in His image. Therefor God is male, not female. Sorry ladies, but according to our literalist friend you are not in God’s image.

But wait! How can all men be created in God’s image when some men are Caucasian, Hispanic, African, Asian, native-American, pacific islander? God is only what, whatever race you are?

A day is a day is a day right? We are being literal here. A day is based on one rotation of the Earth around the sun, i.e. twenty-four hours. On the third day God created every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it, but how can that be a “day” when God did not create the sun and moon until the fourth day? So you are saying God is a liar??? Do you think that maybe a day to God is not a 24-hour day? Hard to reconcile that possibility when you insist on being literal, huh?

There you go again questioning the will and workings of God… Don’t you find your claim of divine knowledge just a wee bit presumptuous?

What I understand is that you do not really know what Natural Selection really is; you believe what someone says it is and have not done any research yourself or only use materials that will support your pre-conceived notions. It’s like the idiotic insistence that evolution teaches that with enough time a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) will turn into a man (Homo sapiens)!

Peace,

George

 

[YahShuaMessiah]

Orogeny:

Tell that to the Pope. From bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

That is a beautiful document. I strongly recommend that you follow the link I gave and read the document in it’s entirety.

Peace

Tim

Yes, I am familiar with this document and do not agree with it in its entirety.

 

[YahShuaMessiah]

George Waters:

On the third day God created every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it, but how can that be a “day” when God did not create the sun and moon until the fourth day? So you are saying God is a liar???

Quite to the contrary. I agree exactly with what GOD said. He created it exactly as he states. No disagreement with the Word of God there.

 

[Orogeny]

YahShuaMessiah:

Yes, I am familiar with this document and do not agree with it in its entirety.

Do you consider the Pope a liar?

Peace

Tim

 

[George_Waters]

YahShuaMessiah:

Yes, I am familiar with this document and do not agree with it in its entirety.

So your Catholic and believe that no Christian can believe in evolution without going against the word of God regardless of what the magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church teaches? Please remember what Tim said, some things are not subject to our opinions or interpretations, but to the Church as is guided by the Holy spirit. Please also remember that the process God uses for creation is His to decide. We just need to remember that it was He who created the universe and our immortal souls.

Peace,

George

 

[YahShuaMessiah]

Orogeny:

Do you consider the Pope a liar?

Peace

Tim

No, a liar would be one who intentionaly misleads when the truth is known to be something different.

I believe his opinion to be erroneous. However I do believe he believes it to be the truth.

 

[YahShuaMessiah]

George Waters:

So your Catholic and believe that no Christian can believe in evolution without going against the word of God regardless of what the magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church teaches? Please remember what Tim said, some things are not subject to our opinions or interpretations, but to the Church as is guided by the Holy spirit. Please also remember that the process God uses for creation is His to decide. We just need to remember that it was He who created the universe and our immortal souls.

Peace,

George

So really then, using this logic, on the other threads about Fundamentalists and wine. When the bible refers to “wine” it could very well be just a seed of a grape vine. That would be a far stretch, however in line with your reasoning. They would say “wine” but the actual product in their hand would be a grape seed…which would turn into a vine…which would produce grapes…which would then produce grape juice…which would then produce wine. The word of God says not. God said he created man on a certain day. Not a 1 celled organism that through millions of years has developed into man. Sorry.

I believe one brother on this thread provided a link to clain $250,000 if they could prove evolution. There is no evidence. Period. Plus, evolution is not a science it is a “theory”. I do realize Satan is blinding though so all cannot see God’s word.

 

[Orogeny]

YahShuaMessiah:

No, a liar would be one who intentionaly misleads when the truth is known to be something different.

I believe his opinion to be erroneous. However I do believe he believes it to be the truth.

Is he calling God a liar? If not, why not? According to you, Christians who accept anything but a literal reading of Genesis are calling God a liar. Do you have a double standard for the Pope versus those who agree with the Pope?

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

Chris LaRock:

I quoted my source: The Evidence Bible.

Chris, I am afraid you are missing the point here. I am sure that you got your quotes from the Evidence Bible, but that is not the original source of the quotes. For example in your post #15 you quoted Charles Darwin. You did not tell us where in Darwin’s works that quote came from. When I showed the correct quote in my post #18 I gave the book and chapter that the quote came from, together with a web-link so people could read it for themselves. That is what people are asking you for - the original work from which the quote came together with a web-link if possible. There should be a section of references in the Evidence Bible to tell you where each quote came from, that is what you need to tell us. If you are still in college or school then talk to one of your teachers or lecturers about why giving references is important.

The reason for this is so that mistakes in quotations can be corrected. Your quotation from Darwin was incorrect, as can be seen if you compare the Evidence Bible version with the original. If you had gone back to the original then you would have seen this and not given me an easy point to score.

The same thing is also shown by your quote from Sir Arthur Keith. I have been having some difficulty tracking down the original source of this quote. The reason seems to be that the quote is entirely fabricated - see this webpage, quote #81. If you are going to throw around accusations of fraud then you have to be very careful that what you post here is not itself fraudulent. The way to avoid that is to check the original source first. I am sure that you do not want to inadvertently post false quotes here.

Your source has misquoted Darwin and has copied a fraudulent quote supposedly from Sir Arthur Keith. Please try to find a better source, even for a creationist book the Evidence Bible seems to be sub-standard.

rossum

 

[George_Waters]

YahShuaMessiah:

So really then, using this logic, on the other threads about Fundamentalists and wine. When the bible refers to “wine” it could very well be just a seed of a grape vine. That would be a far stretch, however in line with your reasoning. They would say “wine” but the actual product in their hand would be a grape seed…which would turn into a vine…which would produce grapes…which would then produce grape juice…which would then produce wine. The word of God says not. God said he created man on a certain day. Not a 1 celled organism that through millions of years has developed into man. Sorry.

I believe one brother on this thread provided a link to clain $250,000 if they could prove evolution. There is no evidence. Period. Plus, evolution is not a science it is a “theory”. I do realize Satan is blinding though so all cannot see God’s word.

No, the term wine has never refereed to a grape seed. I have never had cause to question wine means anything other than wine. Wine fits the context and the historical record. I do have an issue with the term “day” being literally interpreted as a 24-hour day especially in light of the following footnote from The New American Bible, Genesis 1:5, 3 [5] In ancient Israel a day was considered to begin at sunset. **According to the highly artificial literary structure of Genesis 1:1-2:4a, God’s creative activity is divided into six days to teach the sacredness of the sabbath ** (Emphasis Added) rest on the seventh day in the Israelite religion (Genesis 2:2-3). That does not shake my faith one bit, as I know God created the universe and my soul.

Your right God said He created man, He did, and He created everything else too. Did God create Satan? He does not explicitly say He did, so by your logic I should admit there is no Satan (Wouldn’t Satan just love that?). Genesis does not address the creation of the Heavenly host either, so what, no angels? How can that be when Gabriel appeared to Mary? Since God is not a liar perhaps you should just consider that God should not have to answer to us and explain everything thing in the smallest detail for us to believe and trust in Him.

Your right evolution is a theory, but religion is not a science. There are issues with evolution and 500 years ago there were issues with many, many hard sciences. That does not make them invalid, just not fully understood at that time.

As far as that whole $250,000 things, you are right there is no evidence that will convince whoever to part with his money, but that proves nothing. I can ask for indisputable evidence that there is a God and offer $1000000, but you’ll never be able to collect it, as I will control what constitutes “indisputable evidence”.

Peace,

George

 

[buffalo]

George Waters:

Let’s start with God creating man in His image. Therefor God is male, not female. Sorry ladies, but according to our literalist friend you are not in God’s image.

This is a poor example. God does not have a gender. Created in His image does not mean this.

 

[rossum]

Chris LaRock (post #22):

Evolution supposedly happened randomly and without purpose

This just shows that you do not understand evolution. How can you criticise it effectively if you don’t even understand it? Mutations are random with respect to their effect on the phenotype. Natural selection is most certainly not random and you are incorrect to say that natural selection happens randomly. Suppose an eagle chick hatches with a random mutation causing it to be blind. Do you think it is random that it will have less chance of survival than another chick with normal eyesight? Natural selection is anything but random.
Chris LaRock:

Darwin’s theory states that men are more evolved than women.

If I say “Christianity says that the moon is made of green cheese” would you believe me? Of course not, you would expect me to provide some evidence. I am asking you for your evidence on this point: who said this and where did they say it? I am not prepared to take anything from your Evidence Bible on trust since it has shown itself to be in error on so many things.
Chris LaRock:

You did not address the rest of the quotes I posted.

You have failed to address my points about the fossil record, the shared errors in DNA and that humans are evolving now. Why do you expect me to address all your points when you have failed to address mine? I have dealt with enough of your points to show that your source is not very reliable.
Chris LaRock:

Nebraska man is still included in the evolutionary chart. In spite of the mistake, many still use it as proof of evolution.

This is wrong yet again. There is no current “chart” that uses Nebraska Man to show evolution. If you have one then it should be easy for you to give us the reference: name a current textbook that uses Nebraska Man to show evolution. If you cannot then please withdraw your point. Evolution has plenty of evidence without using Nebraska Man.
Chris LaRock:

How exactly would I be looking for in rocks to prove that creationism is true?

According to Genesis there were cattle [Gen 1:24] on earth during creation week. What I am asking for is evidence of fossil cattle from early rocks - say Devonian or earlier. Devonian rocka have animals fossils in them so they obviously date from after creation. I want you to show me a fossilised Devonian cow. If you can’t manage a cow then a rabbit will do. Until then I will continue to say that there is no positive evidence for creationism.
Chris LaRock (post #23):

Evolution is only a theory, hence the title ‘the theory of evolution’. It’s regarded as a theory because it’s not scientifically proven.

This is another argument that Answers in Genesis thinks that you should not use.The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin-Landau/Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc.Please do try to at least stay abreast of current creationist thinking. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, see here. Gravity is also both a theory and a fact. Do you doubt gravity because it is “only a theory”? All scientific theories are not proven because they are all subject to change as new evidence comes in. Mathematical theorems are proven, not scientific theories. Newton’s theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein’s. Einstein’s theory will be replaced by a new theory of quantum gravity. Any scientific theory can only ever be “the best explanation we currently have of the facts available”. Evolution is a far better explanation of the available facts than creationism.
Chris LaRock:

The fact remains that no scientist can explain how the complex lifeforms we have on earth got here by accident.

Life did not get here by accident, it got here by chemistry, and chemistry is not accidental. For a reasonably recent survey on origin of life (abiogenesis) research see here. This is not a complete explanation, but it does show that scientists do have some ideas as to the origin of life.

rossum

 

[rossum]

YahShuaMessiah,

I thought that the long list of questions looked familiar. A quick google found me this webpage with a familiar looking list of questions on it. Could it be that you have cut and pasted this long list of questions from Kent Hovind’s Dr Dino website? You certainly failed to acknowledge that your posts were not your own work but were in fact copied from another source. In scientific discussion it is wrong to use someone else’s work without attributing it to them. You are on shaky moral ground here; plagiarism is considered by some to be a form of stealing. Even on a practical level it is not a way to win arguments since it hands me the opportunity to score an easy point against you: creationism 0, evolution 1.

If I do decide to answer any of the questions then I will post the answers to Kent Hovind, since he is the one asking them. If you want me to answer your questions then make sure that they are indeed your own and not copied from someone else. Asking fewer questions will be more likely to get answers.

You claimed in your opening paragraph to want to “add something new”. You didn’t, what you added was both old and borrowed.

7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

Piltdown Man, Lucy, Java Man and Neanderthal Man were mentioned in the opening post of this thread and have already been covered in the subsequent discussion. Did you fail to read what you copied before posting it here? If you can’t even bother to read it yourself then why do you expect me or anyone else to read it?

You have not done well so far, hopefully you can learn from your mistakes and do better in future.

rossum

 

[George_Waters]

buffalo:

This is a poor example. God does not have a gender. Created in His image does not mean this.

You are absolutely correct buffalo! My point exactaly! My apologizes if I did not make that clear.

It is a very poor example, but as we being literal…

Peace,

George