Science has proven the universe and life on earth both had origins. God provides the missing miracle of "cause" that Darwinistis find so elusive and impossible to explain scientifically.
I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
There is no reason to rule God out of science except for irreligious or theistic bias. Men can try to limit science to nothing but secular atheistic ideas, but bias is not science, it is bias.Gee I was unaware that stripe's opinions are the final arbiter of what is science or not.
I'm a scientist and I lecture for a living.I study what science is as well as practicing it. You have your own ideas you've decided are fact without evidence.
Science is a collection of ideas and a process of studying the natural world. Scientific ideas must be testable and consistent with the data we observe. Evolution easily fits that description. The fact you don't like it, doesn't make it not science.
For organisms to change from a 'simple' state to a 'complex' state certain additions and alterations to the genetic code would have had to have taken place, yet science does not support such random alterations of the genetic code as Darwinists might think.
I don't reject evolution because of religious beliefs. I reject evolution because it contradicts known science.It's certainly rejecting a core scientific idea of biology. Mind you many of the same people want to reject other aspects of science, such as climate science.
It's not simply *my* assertion it's thousands of textbook and scientific papers for 150 years. It's also super obvious if you understand what science is and how it works. The only people that make your kind of claim are the specific kind of Christians that reject evolution purely because of religious belief AND hold science up as highly valuable. That perverse combination means any science they disagree with becomes "not science". It's quite a convoluted position.
Evolution is secular science that rejects the possibility of God. Creation is science that rejects the possibility of abiogenesis and random creation and manipulation of DNA. I reject secular science because I do not believe in the random addition and alteration of genetic information in the genome.
Right Divider
Body part
I and many others would claim that GTY ToE does not qualify as a valid theory.
- It is vague and infinitely adaptable; therefore unfalsifiable.
- A great deal of evidence invalidates it.
Secularist assumptions about Rhodecutus are assumptions, not proven scientific facts. That is true about most evolution assumptions over-eager secularists attempt to claim are proven scientific facts.
Whale Evolution
Evolutionists tout the whale series as one of the best evidences for evolution. However, there are lots of problems with the story of whale evolution. Evolutionists are not telling the whole story.
answersingenesis.org
Though rarely mentioned, and rightly so, Kutchicetus was very similar in size and anatomy to otters. The primary reason that it is sometimes included in a whale series is to try to provide a transitional series for swimming motion—undulatory movements. So it isn’t the anatomy that transitionalists are looking at with this creature (as the skeleton appears to show that it was fully capable of walking on land16) but instead its method of locomotion. But in this case, apparently the fossils don’t tell the whole tale, and a heavy dose of evolutionary interpretation must be added.
Right Divider
Body part
Evolution assumes that organisms "started in a simple state". Darwinism and "evolution" in general make SO many assumptions.
Right Divider
Body part
Biological evolution does NOT confirm GTY ToE.
Biological evolution TODAY is observable and testable TODAY; GTY ToE is NOT!
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
... and where is that evidence found?
in scripture
... described in scripture
... and where are those claims to be found?
in scripture
The same scripture that clearly describes a creation process that does not allow for evolution.
The fact that bacteria mutate into bacteria does not prove monkeys evolved into certain sects of humans like early Darwinists wrongly assumed.
Mutations do not add intelligent information to the genetic pool. Mutations are degenerative by nature.
How Evolution Works
Evolution is fascinating because it attempts to answer one of the most basic human questions: Where did life, and human beings, come from? The theory of evolution proposes that life and humans arose through a natural process.
The theory of evolution explains how strands of DNA change. An X-ray, cosmic ray, chemical reaction or similar mechanism can modify a base pair in the DNA strand to create a mutation, and this modification can lead to the creation of a new protein or enzyme.
The theory of evolution further proposes that billions of these mutations created all of the life forms we see today. An initial self-replicating molecule spontaneously formed. It evolved into single-cell organisms. These evolved into multi-cell organisms, which evolved into vertebrates like fish, and so on. In the process, DNA structures evolved from the asexual single-strand format found in bacteria today into the dual-strand chromosomal format found in all higher life forms. The number of chromosomes also proliferated. For example, fruit flies have five chromosomes, mice have 20, humans have 23 and dogs have 39.
Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA? It is interesting to note that, in all of the selective breeding in dogs, there has been no change to the basic dog genome. All breeds of dog can still mate with one another. People have not seen any increase in dog's DNA, but have simply selected different genes from the existing dog gene pool to create the different breeds.
Who is so proud that he thinks he can correct the historical record of the Bible?
Do Darwinists believe unintelligent forces of evolution invented disease and then unintelligent forces of evolution cure disease by somehow randomly altering DNA? That is not science, it is silliness.
Let's assume God could change species by evolution. Is that evidence He did? If evolution takes so long that it cannot be scientifically observed and measured then why do Darwinists claim science proves evolution?Why, because you say so? Talk about assumptions.
And when you see the same leg remnants in whales you say . . . ?
No but it may mean you're distantly related to one.
Here's the thing. Species in evolution never stop reproducing after their "kind". It's just that the "kind" is not static, it changes over time. There is never a point in evolution where, for illustrative purposes, a cat produces a dog offspring.
No, it means change over time. Humans can cause evolution. Why can't God? Why isn't it possible that God designed the potential for evolution into life from the start? Understand again that if God is sovereign there is nothing that is truly random.
Similarity does not prove a common blood relative connection. Watermelons have DNA just like humans but it is the height of stupidity to believe humans and watermelons are linked by a common ancestor through DNA.
God gave humans brains but did not expect them to draw stupid erroneous evolutionist conclusions just because they think they can.
Right Divider
Body part
Indeed, my point about it being observable today was that this exactly what we see; no significant changes that could turn a monkey into a man.
One of the evolutionists favorite tactics is to extrapolate well beyond what is scientifically reasonable.
Last edited:
Means?