• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I suppose I should point out that the origin of life had nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution. He assumed life began somehow,and described how it changed over time.

And ignored scripture in favor of his evidence-free notions.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Wrong. Generally, evolution means "change."

Nope. You do not face people who claim that things do not change. You face a challenge to the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

Darwinists will do anything to insulate themselves from science — ie, working to falsify ideas.

In biology, it means "change in allele frequencies in a population over time."

Which is just "change" with lots of superfluous babble around it to give the impression of a well-reasoned theory. For example, there is no difference between the ideas conveyed by the word "change" and the phrase "change over time." The "over time" is entirely redundant. Allele frequencies can't change in anything but a population, so that gets rid of "in a population." And Darwinists will commonly point to changes that have nothing to do with genetics and claim evolution. I once saw a Darwinist suggest that a bird changing its song was "speciation." It's safe to read "change in allele frequencies in a population over time" as simply "change."

But Darwinists are not challenged to defend the idea that things change. They just want the discussion to be that because they cannot survive in a discussion without their obfuscations and other fallacies...

Which is the way God creates new taxa.

Other fallacies such as question begging.

I notice many creationist groups are willing to accept this for new species, genera, and families. Sometimes, they'll go a bit farther than that.

And the fallacy of asserting what someone else believes as if it is relevant to the discussion.

As most Christians acknowledge, there is no conflict between scripture and evolution.

And the Darwinist favorite — the appeal to popularity.

When will they learn to engage rationally?
 
Top