Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact..?

[KeyserSoze]

Again, I can show change with a species,but never from one to another different one!

Well, here's what you can do then..
Read Padian's court testimony, and then show us the evidence here that demonstrates where he's wrong..

 

[Yeshua1]

"la la la la".. Cant hear you cant hear you.. lol
Try using that defense in court.. See how far you get..
THIS is why creationism loses every court case its in..
Denial of evidence does nothing to refute it.

What species has ever demonstrated change to another then?

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, here's what you can do then..
Read Padian's court testimony, and then show us the evidence here that demonstrates where he's wrong..

Flowers still are flowers, birds still birds, human and apes different, when was there shown change again?

 

[KeyserSoze]

Those vaunted peer reviews just refuse to review any holding to non evolutionist viewpoint, so cannot use that as proving anything!

No, once again thats a creationist distortion..
In reality, Creationists never submit material for peer review on creationism..
Thats because they never have anything to submit,

 

[KeyserSoze]

What species has ever demonstrated change to another then?

You do understand that we have OBSERVED speciation..
Plants, Birds, Insects, etc..
New species for all the time.. Do some research into allopatric speciation..

 

[Yeshua1]

No, once again thats a creationist distortion..
In reality, Creationists never submit material for peer review on creationism..
Thats because they never have anything to submit,

We have those holding to Intelligent design and creationism holding same degrees from same places as evolutionists, so its not due to being dumb or uninformed!
Newton held to creator God, would say that he was smarter than you or any other evolutionist could name today!

 

[Yeshua1]

You do understand that we have OBSERVED speciation..
Plants, Birds, Insects, etc..
New species for all the time.. Do some research into allopatric speciation..

Still at dna core stayed flowers, birds bugs, need to show where bugs became birds!

 

[Deacon]

The pitfall if using the authority of the Bible to support a position that has flimsy empirical evidence is that when enough evidence is gathered against the position, the claim of inerrancy is shaken.

If my faith is based upon holding firm to a young earth interpretation because I believe that is what the Bible says, then I will hold the position even when evidences are presented to the contrary.

I think that’s where some Christian are. They grasp at weak arguments presented by organizations that are experts dancing around and twisting data to their position.

But if our faith is in God alone, understanding that information/evidence/data we collect will help us to understand more of our creation, our faith will stand sure, not rocked by shaky theories that pop up on both sides of the equation.

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

YDo some research into allopatric speciation..

It is all speculation and theoretical models nothing confirmed.

 

[KeyserSoze]

You are assuming a steady state process here, as there can be changes, why light always at same rate for example?

No, we're not..
Its simple physics.. Radiation creates heat.. We can measure how much elements have decayed on this planet, and the resulting heat that would be generated by that decay.
If you attempt to condense 4.5 billion years of decay down into a 6000 year timeframe, that means you have to increase the amount of heat generated by that decay..
That resulting heat would have kept the planet entirely molten if all this decay occurred in only 6 to 10,000 years.

 

[KeyserSoze]

It is all speculation and theoretical models nothing confirmed.

You do understand the concept of "OBSERVED speciation"..?

 

[Revmitchell]

The pitfall if using the authority of the Bible to support a position that has flimsy empirical evidence is that when enough evidence is gathered against the position, the claim of inerrancy is shaken.

If my faith is based upon holding firm to a young earth interpretation because I believe that is what the Bible says, then I will hold the position even when evidences are presented to the contrary.

I think that’s where some Christian are. They grasp at weak arguments presented by organizations that are experts dancing around and twisting data to their position.

But if our faith is in God alone, understanding that information/evidence/data we collect will help us to understand more of our creation, our faith will stand sure, not rocked by shaky theories that pop up on both sides of the equation.

Rob

First, we cannot have faith in God without scripture. Second, it seems that there are some who when the word "science" is attached to something believe it is unassailable. Somehow science cannot be wrong or biased ever and what is found can never be misunderstood. Only scripture can be misunderstood.

Scripture does not give us a date or time of creation but we can deduce that it is far from millions of years ago. We believe in a literal Adam and Eve because those passages which tell of them are historical and Moses and Jesus treated them as such. What is weak is the arguments for evolution.

The evolutionary field is rather homogeneous. It does not tolerate any questioning of evolution as being legitimate for when someone does they are ostracized from the scientific community. The field is ripe with distorted facts, ignoring evidence that does not lead toward evolution, and in some cases down right dishonesty.

 

[Revmitchell]

You do understand the concept of "OBSERVED speciation"..?

You do realize I quoted you when you said "allopatric speciation"

 

[KeyserSoze]

The pitfall if using the authority of the Bible to support a position that has flimsy empirical evidence is that when enough evidence is gathered against the position, the claim of inerrancy is shaken.

If my faith is based upon holding firm to a young earth interpretation because I believe that is what the Bible says, then I will hold the position even when evidences are presented to the contrary.

I think that’s where some Christian are. They grasp at weak arguments presented by organizations that are experts dancing around and twisting data to their position.

But if our faith is in God alone, understanding that information/evidence/data we collect will help us to understand more of our creation, our faith will stand sure, not rocked by shaky theories that pop up on both sides of the equation.

Rob

Well stated Rob..
People like Ken Ham of AiG have come to the realization that science holds an enormous amount of clout in our society.
Hes watched for years as people abandoned YEC because of the scientific evidence that makes his beliefs untenable.
So ultimately, he has reasoned that if he wants to stop that trend, then he needed to claim that his beliefs had scientific merit.
So he distorts every science we have to try and convince the layman that such young earth ideas have some scientific merit.
Had he just said, "i believe the earth is young because i think my Interpretation of scripture says so", no one would care..
But that's not what he does.. because if he just left it to faith alone, the exodus from YECism would cause it to "go extinct"..

 

[KeyserSoze]

. Second, it seems that there are some who when the word "science" is attached to something believe it is unassailable. Somehow science cannot be wrong or biased ever and what is found can never be misunderstood. Only scripture can be misunderstood.

There is a reason why science is held in such high regard.. Its because IT WORKS..
It gets results. People figured out ages ago that if you want RESULTS, you accept pure science.
That's why we don't teach alchemy.. Or astrology, etc.
Ages ago, people thought that infection was caused by demonic possession..
So patients looked to their Bibles, & anointed their heads with oil and prayed to be healed.. And yet, they still died..
Now, along comes science.. they discover germ theory.. Antibiotics are created and infection deaths plummet..
Science WORKS.. yet in your mind, we should abandon what works just because you wanna go back to the days of anointing your head..
If you think the science is wrong, stop "claiming" its wrong.. get your butt into a lab and conduct the tests that SHOW its wrong.

 

[Revmitchell]

If you think the science is wrong, stop "claiming" its wrong.. get your butt into a lab and conduct the tests that SHOW its wrong.

Can't be done. The current scientific community would never allow any finding to come to the light of day. You don't trust the bible and I do not trust scientists for the most part.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Can't be done. The current scientific community would never allow any finding to come to the light of day. You don't trust the bible and I do not trust scientists for the most part.

Horse manure.
people don't get famous in science for maintaining the status quo. They get famous by overturning the prevailing ideas.
Einstein got famous for showing where Newton got it wrong.
Alfred Wegener revolutionized Geology when he came across plate tectonics (no one in geology wanted that idea to be true.. lol)
And Darwin altered Creationism..
You dont make your mark in history agreeing with everyone else.. You get your butt in a lab and prove them wrong with EVIDENCE until they have no choice but to accept it.. Just as Alfred Wegener did..

 

[Revmitchell]

Horse manure.
people don't get famous in science for maintaining the status quo. They get famous by overturning the prevailing ideas.
Einstein got famous for showing where Newton got it wrong.
Alfred Wegener revolutionized Geology when he came across plate tectonics (no one in geology wanted that idea to be true.. lol)
And Darwin altered Creationism..
You dont make your mark in history agreeing with everyone else.. You get your butt in a lab and prove them wrong with EVIDENCE until they have no choice but to accept it.. Just as Alfred Wegener did..

So your argument is unless we are willing to get in a lab we should just shut up and believe them no matter what?

 

[Reformed1689]

We're not testing God, we're testing the actual earth.

Actually, you are. You are challenging what he has said.

If the earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago, it would still be completely molten.

You are making a lot of assumptions here.

The very fact that the planet is NOT completely molten shows that it can NOT be young.

You are making assumptions. For example, you are assuming the earth was not created with maturity. Was Adam a baby or an adult? Oh right, you don't believe Adam existed....

 

[Reformed1689]

Oh good grief.. If there was a science organization that accepted a young earth or creationism, then you'd be able to name it..

ICR, AIG, and more.

But you cant, because like i already said, there are NONE..

See above.

This was established IN COURT in 2005 in the Dover PA Intelligent design trial..

Apparently the Court was wrong, see above.

2nd, the Grand Canyon is NOT evidence for a global flood. Its evidence AGAINST ONE..
The Grand Canyon has been and is the most geologically studied landmark on the entire planet.. And once again, NO GEOLOGY Organization in existence attributes the canyon to a global flood.. If you know of one that does, once again, present it here..

Again, see above.