I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

6days

New member
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.
Evolution? Do you mean the process by which organisms change over time from mutations, drift, and selection? That is observational, empirical testable science which is consistent with the Biblical creation model.
Common ancestry is a false belief system that perverts science and rejects Scripture. We can see a long, long history of false claims based on evolutionism which science later proves false. (Junk DNA, useless appendix, dimwitted inarticulate Neandertals, pseudogenes and retroviruses, simple cells, eye evolution, Darwin's tree, the peppered moth story, primitive lungs and stubby limbs on extinct coelacanths, Piltdown, Gill slits on human embryos, backwards wired retina, Radiometric dating backflips of 200 million years)
 

Alate_One

New member
Evolution? Do you mean the process by which organisms change over time from mutations, drift, and selection? That is observational, empirical testable science which is consistent with the Biblical creation model.
Technically we agree on this in a sense, I just don't think the Bible puts forth a "model" of creation other than God created everything. How, is not really specified.

Common ancestry is a false belief system that perverts science and rejects Scripture.
No, and No. Common ancestry too is well supported by a wide variety of evidence.
We can see a long, long history of false claims based on evolutionism which science later proves false.[/QUOTe]Yeah that very same science that says common ancestry is real. :rolleyes:

(Junk DNA,
Not False.
useless appendix,
In dispute either way.
dimwitted inarticulate Neandertals,
Not really scientific to begin with. They have a larger brain size than modern humans.
pseudogenes and retroviruses,
Still very much real. simple cells,
eye evolution, Darwin's tree, the peppered moth story, primitive lungs and stubby limbs on extinct coelacanths,
All still real.

Piltdown,
This one is the only actual Hoax on your list. But not many scientists were convinced by it since it did not fit well with the other evidence.

Gill slits on human embryos,
Pharyngeal pouches which are not technically gill slits but the same structures do become gills in Fish

backwards wired retina, Radiometric dating backflips of 200 million years)[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]
All still real things.


Then we have evidence the earth is 6-10,000 years old:
....
....
....

Complaints about scientific evidence
....
....

And nothing else.
 

User Name

New member
Common ancestry from the created kinds is well supposed.
Common ancestry from a SINGLE "common ancestor" is not. That is one of the great myths of "evolution".

When you start out by assuming the truth of your conclusion, you're not doing science, so engaging over the evidence is probably a waste of time.
 

Child of God

BANNED
Banned
That's hilarious. You assume on thing, I assume another. Everyone starts out with SOME assumption.

I am making a comment on something in you tag or whatever it is called.


Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.


Who told you that it was kept secret?

Your statement is OBVIOUSLY True.

If someone told you it has been kept secret, but yet you know it has been revealed, what would you think of this person?

Who told you this SECRET? that has been revealed since the beginning of Creation?

You should look at them.

Someone is trying to be Exalted for providing Secrets Hidden, when those things are available to all.
 

Alate_One

New member
That's hilarious. You assume on thing, I assume another. Everyone starts out with SOME assumption.

That's true, but you're assuming what you want to believe from the start. The only assumption evolution has is that natural events in the past operated using the same basic laws of nature as natural events today. Scientists observe the evidence all around us and then use that basic principle, that the present is the key to the past and read the available evidence to figure out what happened in the past.

So what reason do you have to say that evolution stops at a magical "kind" barrier?

Creationists can't even define where one kind stops and another kind starts. That very gradation is evidence of common ancestry.
 

Right Divider

Body part
That's true, but you're assuming what you want to believe from the start.
So are you.

The only assumption evolution has is that natural events in the past operated using the same basic laws of nature as natural events today.
An unverifiable assumption. You cannot repeat the past and do not know what might have changed.

Scientists observe the evidence all around us and then use that basic principle, that the present is the key to the past and read the available evidence to figure out what happened in the past.
Once again, you cannot repeat the past and do not know what might have changed.

Making that assumption might be right or it might be wrong. How do you know?

So what reason do you have to say that evolution stops at a magical "kind" barrier?
How wrong can you be? We do NOT say that it stops there, were say that it STARTS there!

If you have such a poor understanding of the creationist position, how can you "analyze" it?

Creationists can't even define where one kind stops and another kind starts. That very gradation is evidence of common ancestry.
Just because we cannot definitively determine what the original kinds are does not mean that they didn't exist. This is another place were we trust God and His Word, whereas you trust your own "infinite" judgement.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I am making a comment on something in you tag or whatever it is called.

Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

Who told you that it was kept secret?
The Word of God said that is WAS kept secret. I didn't say that it was STILL kept secret.

Your statement is OBVIOUSLY True.

If someone told you it has been kept secret, but yet you know it has been revealed, what would you think of this person?
I didn't say that it was STILL kept secret.

Who told you this SECRET? that has been revealed since the beginning of Creation?

You should look at them.

Someone is trying to be Exalted for providing Secrets Hidden, when those things are available to all.
Someone, you, is completely confused.

P.S. Your post was completely out of context for this thread.
 

7djengo7

New member
When you start out by assuming the truth of your conclusion, you're not doing science, so engaging over the evidence is probably a waste of time.


When User Name claims, "______ is evidence," User Name is assuming that what he is claiming is true--User Name is assuming that it's true that ______ is evidence. User Name calls his assumption that ______ is evidence, "doing science". User Name starts out by assuming that ______ is evidence.
 

7djengo7

New member
Complaints about scientific evidence

When you claim (as you do, here) that something (say, E) is evidence, are you assuming that E is evidence, or are you concluding, from evidence (say, E2), that E is evidence?

When you claim that E is evidence, do you expect others to come to believe your claim that E is evidence simply because you claim that E is evidence? Why should anybody believe your claim that something is evidence? Should they do so in hope of avoiding being branded a complainer, by you? Is that a good motive for people to simply take your word for it that what you claim is evidence is evidence?
 

7djengo7

New member
That's true, but you're assuming what you want to believe from the start. The only assumption evolution has is that natural events in the past operated using the same basic laws of nature as natural events today. Scientists observe the evidence all around us and then use that basic principle, that the present is the key to the past and read the available evidence to figure out what happened in the past.

So what reason do you have to say that evolution stops at a magical "kind" barrier?

Creationists can't even define where one kind stops and another kind starts. That very gradation is evidence of common ancestry.

Darwinists--evolutionists--as you, and your comrades, have consistently demonstrated, can't even define what it would be for something to "evolve into" something. This, of course, is--and has been, all along--due to the fact that you use the word, "evolve", meaninglessly, just as you use the word, "evidence", meaninglessly.
 
Top