Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact..?

[Yeshua1]

No, we are NOT looking at evidence from a preconceived viewpoint.
Evolution was never the "preconceived viewpoint". Creationism was..
Evolution just spent several centuries EARNING its status as the now accepted viewpoint.
No one embraced evolution because it was "preconceived"..
People were dragged against their preconceived creationist views, kicking and screaming to the inevitable validity of evolution because 2 centuries of testing confirmed its validity.

As for the creation of the universe..?
The currently accepted cause of our universe is the Big bang that occurred about 13.7 billion years ago based on the data collected from NASA's WMAP space probe that spent over a decade in space taking readings for NASA..
Now, as for what caused the BB..? Unknown.. and perhaps unknowable.. (since the expansion itself may have wiped out the evidence necessary to make a proper conclusion)
However, even if some entity was responsible for the BB..?
That still would not alter the mountains of evidence we have for a 4.5 billion year old earth, or the evolution of life over that time.

We have NO evidence on how life originated apart from God creating it! Nor ANY evidence to support macro evolution!

 

[Yeshua1]

And here, you're pulling more creationist nonsense from your own rectum.
Geological dating is quite consistent. Its NOT "all over the map".
You'd know this if you read actual GEOLOGY reports rather than parroting drivel from creationist websites

The same geology that did dating at the Mt st Helen site, and got dates ranging from few hundred to thousand of years for same rocks?

 

[Reformed1689]

The same geology that did dating at the Mt st Helen site, and got dates ranging from few hundred to thousand of years for same rocks?

Shhhhhhh! You are giving evidence that they aren't allowed to acknowledge....

 

[Deadworm]

Take timid stroll outside the discredited Baptist creationist talking points and expose yourself to the actual evidence that refutes creationism. Dr. Kenneth Miller, a devout Catholic, has authored respected high school and college biology texts that establish the credibility of evolutionary theory. This short video provides samples of how Miller crushes and silences creationist scientists at the trial presided over by a conservative Bush-appointed judge. Do you have the integrity to temporarily leave their myopic Baptist ideological Ghetto and breathe the fresh air of honest and open intellectual inquiry? If so, I dare you to watch and then discuss this video:

kenneth miller youtube evolution theory - Bing video

 

[KeyserSoze]

We have NO evidence on how life originated apart from God creating it! Nor ANY evidence to support macro evolution!

We have tons of evidence for macroevolution, so that's just silly.
As for your other statement, you've completely reversed the principals of science.
Its not "we have no evidence on how life originated apart from God", since you never offered any empirical evidence FOR God.
Nor have you offered any empirical evidence of what he allegedly did.. Therefore, your statement should read as follows,,
"We have NO evidence that God originated life".. <--- That would be the correct "scientific" statement.

 

[KeyserSoze]

The same geology that did dating at the Mt st Helen site, and got dates ranging from few hundred to thousand of years for same rocks?

You're parroting creationist drivel..
Those Mt St Helens claims have been refuted by geology a 1000 times over now..
You'd know this if you left the bubble that creationists get their information from, and read actual GEOLOGY journals.

<quote>
Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Shhhhhhh! You are giving evidence that they aren't allowed to acknowledge....

No, they're parroting nonsense from creationist charlatans thats been refuted a 1000 times over..

 

[KeyserSoze]

I don't think you understand the inerrant word of God vs interpretation.

I understand it perfectly.. You however seem to be having difficulty.
So, lets break it down for you..
Your "inerrant" interpretation of the word of God is a young earth and creationism.
Their "inerrant" interpretation of the word of God was Geocentrism..
Now, their interpretation was clearly 100% wrong... (since heliocentrism is correct)
Also, YOUR interpretation is also wrong, (as evidence proves Evolution is also correct)
BOTH you and them have botched your interpretations, since YEC has been disproved for over a century..

The above is your ONLY viable option.. as the only alternative is that the word of God is NOT "inerrant"..
Either YOU'RE "errant" or the word of God is..? So which is it..? lol

 

[Deacon]

The Bible itself claims to be infallible and trustworthy in all things that it deals with, so would be the truth even in science as regarding origins!

So you think that science can disprove religion but religion cannot disprove science?

Supporting Young Earth Creationism by saying the Bible is INERRANT is irresponsible!
The claim that the INERRANT Word of God says the Earth is 6000 years old makes it a testable theory, one that science can empirically test. And like it or not, the evidence is so overwhelming that even (most) creationists have to sheepishly admit that the original claim that the earth is 6000 years was dismissed (by most).

And if the Bible is wrong about creation, why would I trust it about other things?

A proper response is to understand that

if the Bible is inerrant,
if the evidence shows that the earth is old,

...then it must be saying something different than the Earth is young.​

The battle is not against science but within theology itself;

What does the inerrant Word of God say about how God created the heavens and the earth?​

Two truths cannot contradict each other. Galileo​

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

Supporting Young Earth Creationism by saying the Bible is INERRANT is irresponsible!
The claim that the INERRANT Word of God says the Earth is 6000 years old makes it a testable theory, one that science can empirically test. And like it or not, the evidence is so overwhelming that even (most) creationists have to sheepishly admit that the original claim that the earth is 6000 years was dismissed (by most).

And if the Bible is wrong about creation, why would I trust it about other things?

A proper response is to understand that

if the Bible is inerrant,
if the evidence shows that the earth is old,

...then it must be saying something different than the Earth is young.​

The battle is not against science but within theology itself;

What does the inerrant Word of God say about how God created the heavens and the earth?​

Two truths cannot contradict each other. Galileo​

Rob

You are arguing against arguments I have not made.

 

[Deacon]

So I guess the next question would be, Then Why Do You Think The Earth is Young?

Present the EVIDENCE
If you're presenting biblical evidence then you are making an argument relating to its inerrancy.

Rob

 

[Reformed1689]

Your "inerrant" interpretation of the word of God is a young earth and creationism.
Their "inerrant" interpretation of the word of God was Geocentrism..

There is no such thing as an inerrant interpretation so your premise is a non-starter.

Also, YOUR interpretation is also wrong, (as evidence proves Evolution is also correct)

Except evolution (macro) has NOT been proven.

since YEC has been disproved for over a century..

No, actually it hasn't. You keep saying this but you ignore mountains of evidence that disproves your position.

Either YOU'RE "errant" or the word of God is..? So which is it..? lol

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, they're parroting nonsense from creationist charlatans thats been refuted a 1000 times over..

Isaac newton believed in God as creator, are you smarter than him?

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no such thing as an inerrant interpretation so your premise is a non-starter.


Except evolution (macro) has NOT been proven.

No, actually it hasn't. You keep saying this but you ignore mountains of evidence that disproves your position.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Macro evolution has been totally disproven, faulty dating methods, evidence for global flood destruction ignored, and Most importantly, Jesus affirmed creation of mankind!

 

[Yeshua1]

Supporting Young Earth Creationism by saying the Bible is INERRANT is irresponsible!
The claim that the INERRANT Word of God says the Earth is 6000 years old makes it a testable theory, one that science can empirically test. And like it or not, the evidence is so overwhelming that even (most) creationists have to sheepishly admit that the original claim that the earth is 6000 years was dismissed (by most).

And if the Bible is wrong about creation, why would I trust it about other things?

A proper response is to understand that

if the Bible is inerrant,
if the evidence shows that the earth is old,

...then it must be saying something different than the Earth is young.​

The battle is not against science but within theology itself;

What does the inerrant Word of God say about how God created the heavens and the earth?​

Two truths cannot contradict each other. Galileo​

Rob

We are not saying that the Earth and Universe is on Ussher timeline, but no where near Billions and Billions of years old, we know that Jesus affirmed mankind was created, not evolved from lower primates, and that there was a global Flood, and that life was created by God, as was the Universe. real science supports all of those facts!

 

[KeyserSoze]

Except evolution (macro) has NOT been proven.
.

You keep making this claim, and you simply refuse to accept that you're 100% wrong.
Macroevolution is considered as "proved" as cell theory, germ theory, or heliocentric theory.
Thats as "proved" as you can possibly get..

The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity.

Paleontology relies for its evidence on two different but historically related fields, biology and geology. Evolution is the central organizing principle of biology, understood as descent with modification. Evolution is equally basic to geology, because the patterns of rock formations, geomorphology, and fossil distributions in the world make no sense without the underlying process of change through time. Sometimes this change has been gradual, and sometimes it has been characterized by violent upheaval. These processes can be seen on the Earth today in the forms of earthquakes, volcanoes, and other tectonic phenomena. Vertebrates have also evolved at a variety of rates, some apparently gradual, and some apparently rapidly. Although the fossil record is not complete, and our knowledge of evolution will always be less than entire, the evidence for the progressive replacement of fossil forms has been adequate to support the theory of evolution for over 150 years, well before genetic mechanisms of evolutionary change were understood. Paleontologists may dispute, on the basis of the available evidence, the tempo and mode of evolution in a particular group at a particular time, but they do not argue about whether evolution took place: that is a fact.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology , Statement on Evolution

Now, as for your other silly claim that, "im ignoring 'mountains" of evidence"..
If thats so, then PRESENT THE EVIDENCE THAT I'M IGNORING..
You keep claiming that i'm ignoring evidence, yet you never put forth any actual evidence for me to ignore..

 

[KeyserSoze]

We are not saying that the Earth and Universe is on Ussher timeline, but no where near Billions and Billions of years old, we know that Jesus affirmed mankind was created, not evolved from lower primates, and that there was a global Flood, and that life was created by God, as was the Universe. real science supports all of those facts!

Here's the problem.. You have YECs on this board saying that the earth is only 1000s of years old..
So, where then are they getting their SPECIFIC age from..? Certainly NOT from any geology resource..
So if they aren't using GEOLOGY to establish their age, then what criteria are they using to establish it.?.

 

[Reformed1689]

You keep making this claim, and you simply refuse to accept that you're 100% wrong.
Macroevolution is considered as "proved" as cell theory, germ theory, or heliocentric theory.
Thats as "proved" as you can possibly get..

The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity.

Paleontology relies for its evidence on two different but historically related fields, biology and geology. Evolution is the central organizing principle of biology, understood as descent with modification. Evolution is equally basic to geology, because the patterns of rock formations, geomorphology, and fossil distributions in the world make no sense without the underlying process of change through time. Sometimes this change has been gradual, and sometimes it has been characterized by violent upheaval. These processes can be seen on the Earth today in the forms of earthquakes, volcanoes, and other tectonic phenomena. Vertebrates have also evolved at a variety of rates, some apparently gradual, and some apparently rapidly. Although the fossil record is not complete, and our knowledge of evolution will always be less than entire, the evidence for the progressive replacement of fossil forms has been adequate to support the theory of evolution for over 150 years, well before genetic mechanisms of evolutionary change were understood. Paleontologists may dispute, on the basis of the available evidence, the tempo and mode of evolution in a particular group at a particular time, but they do not argue about whether evolution took place: that is a fact.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology , Statement on Evolution

Now, as for your other silly claim that, "im ignoring 'mountains" of evidence"..
If thats so, then PRESENT THE EVIDENCE THAT I'M IGNORING..
You keep claiming that i'm ignoring evidence, yet you never put forth any actual evidence for me to ignore..

Yet they are still looking for the missing links....

 

[Reformed1689]

Here's the problem.. You have YECs on this board saying that the earth is only 1000s of years old..
So, where then are they getting their SPECIFIC age from..? Certainly NOT from any geology resource..
So if they aren't using GEOLOGY to establish their age, then what criteria are they using to establish it.?.

Well we know everything was created in seven days. Then we have the Age of Adam and so on and so forth.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Macro evolution has been totally disproven, faulty dating methods, evidence for global flood destruction ignored, and Most importantly, Jesus affirmed creation of mankind!

OK, lets break this down..
Macro evolution has NOT been "disproven".. Its accepted by every science organization there is.
2nd, there is NO evidence for a Global flood.. Egypt has been around long before the alleged "global flood" and it was never destroyed 4400 years ago.. The city has been in existence long BEFORE this alleged flood, and it was still in existence AFTER this alleged flood.. How could there have been a "global flood" and no one in Egypt even noticed it..?
Why werent its buildings and homes destroyed..? Its landmarks, its culture..?
3rd, Dating methods are NOT "faulty". If the dating methods were faulty, you'd be able to present for us tests conducted that show the why the dates we have are faulty.. And NO creationist has ever been able to do so..
Sorry, but just "claiming" that the dates are faulty simply because you dont like the ages they show doesnt count as evidence in the real world.