|
Joelcool7 said:
Rather knows what he's talking about. As for the other reply ummm no the link does not support Macro evolution also my understanding of evolution comes from my biology class and secular text books which defined Macro evolution as evolution of one species into another.
The evidence that we all contain DNA road maps belonging to other species really proves nothing. Assuming a God created us their is no reason to believe he did not design us using such traits. We really don't know precisely how God created us the Bible defines a time line it does not explicitly give us a road map.
The idea that big bang theology and abiogenesis can never be accepted as factual is even if they are proven to be possible nobody can ever prove that they did occur and nobody could prove even if they did that God did not cause or use them.
Theology? That's a misrepresentation of the big bang. Also while it likely can never be proven that life began by abiogenesis the big bang theory can be proven. We can observe the edge of the universe. We have observed the edge of the universe. The big bang theory fits the evidence exceptionally well and the more evidence that is gathered the more it backs the big bang theory up. You are correct that there is no way to prove that God did not cause the big bang.
As for living fossils. The coelecanth was declared extinct it was gone no record in the fossil record of it living recently. Then suddenly it was found alive and the fossil record was corrected. Just watching Discovery channel and History Channel you will notice very fast that the record is constantly changing and that even discoveries we have made get proven and disprove on a regular basis.
Ah you are talking about Lazarus taxon, species which disappear and reappear in the fossil record. The fossil record is without a doubt not perfect due to the fact that fossilisation is a very rare event. Sometimes purely down to the way that fossilisation randomly 'samples' the population you do get interesting things like that.
Example a megaladon tooth was found it was dated only thousands of years ago. The researchers pulled the tooth out to re-test it. They said they couldn't test it the documentary left it as unknown but it was then classified as millions of years old with no evidence.
This is anecdotal evidence about a documentary you watched. It's not very convincing.
Constantly if you watch science programs their are inconclusive results or things that cannot be dated. Different groups then twist the evidence to support their theories.
Science programs are not usually thorough, scientific journals are where the real research is.
I do not reject science. I however only rely on scientific fact not theory I am skeptical and will always question any science that cannot be observed and repeated. I take science for what it is.
Once again you fundamentally fail to understand what a theory is in science.
It wasn't all that long ago that science claimed the earth was flat their was evidence to support that. If you lived at that time you'd look at the ground and say ya its flat. But as we improved we realized hey it isn't flat. Wow the earth isn't center of the universe. Holy crap we rotate around the sun not vice versa?
Scientific theory should always be questioned and always improved upon.
Firstly the scientific method has only truly existed for a few hundred years, well after the ideas of flat earths and geocentricism had been abandoned. Secondly while scientific theory should always be questioned (afterall a key idea in science is falsifiability) scientific consensus generally falls behind the theory with the most evidence. In terms of the origin of species there is only currently one scientific theory with any evidence at all - evolution.
The idea of evolution being both theory and fact is true. But one does not have to say all evolution is fact because it isn't. And one can't say all evolution is false because it isn't.
The fact of evolution (in the scientific sense) is the observed change in species. That is the observation.
Things are more complicated then that. Also yes I only have a Bio 11 education in evolution but of course that is also a Canadian one.
Again I do not reject science, I question anything that cannot be observed and repeated. I don't think its a bright idea to throw your entire belief system behind a set of theories.
Lastly the Bible does not disprove evolution or refute it for that matter. Anybody with any kind of Biblical education is aware of this. As a matter a fact the Bible actually suggests micro evolution, the Ark carried two of every animal now was that two of every breed? Was it two Dalmatians and two Doberman? No it was two dogs and so fourth. So how do we have so many species today? Well obviously the Bible clearly suggests they had to have evolved.
It is fairly ignorant to say a Christian cannot believe in evolution. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God nor does the proven facts refute the Bible. In fact even Macro evolution doesn't disprove the Bible. Again if you study the Bible and by that I mean the Hebrew texts and study biblical theology you will not make a claim that a Christian cannot believe in evolution.
I don't think I've ever claimed Christians can't accept evolution, or that evolution disproves God. It does raise a pretty damned good argument against a literal intepretation of the bible though.
|
