Hmm. That is what i am trying to do....
Theistic Evolution -- Should Christians consider Evolutionary Creationism?
Sort:
And btw people believing in evolution have many problems.... They are like the liberals... Ignoring anything else out of their comfort zone and just trying to figure out something that is impossible to settle.... I have a question... Are a banana and elephant related??
Elroch, you seem very educated; are you a scientist or something?
Apr 29, 2019
0
#86
He does, doesn't he? Well, if he is than at least we have somebody in this forum that knows all the basics and whatnot.
I do not know but he seems like he might be
Benjibass wrote:
And btw people believing in evolution have many problems.... They are like the liberals... Ignoring anything else out of their comfort zone and just trying to figure out something that is impossible to settle.... I have a question... Are a banana and elephant related??
You’re attacking the people whom you are arguing against. That is a logical fallacy, which means the tactic doesn’t create a valid argument. Please see the link.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Apr 30, 2019
0
#89
trump2020maga1 wrote:
It Comes down to this, there's no proof for evolution witch means it's a religion too
I think it's fair to say that some species 'evolve' thru cross-breeding, or am i being a bit too naive to say....
Apr 30, 2019
0
#90
trump2020maga1 wrote:
Elroch, you seem very educated; are you a scientist or something?
Thank you. Not a bad guess: I was originally a mathematician, worked in scientific research for 14 years and currently work on AI research, retaining a strong interest in the natural sciences.
I still study a lot to this day, mostly stuff that is relevant to my work, but I took modules on astronomy and climate modelling a couple of years back as well, for example.
Apr 30, 2019
0
#91
Elroch wrote:
trump2020maga1 wrote:
Elroch, you seem very educated; are you a scientist or something?
Thank you. Not a bad guess: I was originally a mathematician, worked in scientific research for 14 years and currently work on AI research, retaining a strong interest in the natural sciences.
I still study a lot to this day, mostly stuff that is relevant to my work, but I took modules on astronomy and climate modelling a couple of years back as well, for example.
I despise it, but can you give me info you have learned about how the big bang is false?
Apr 30, 2019
0
#92
Guineaster wrote:
Elroch wrote:
trump2020maga1 wrote:
Elroch, you seem very educated; are you a scientist or something?
Thank you. Not a bad guess: I was originally a mathematician, worked in scientific research for 14 years and currently work on AI research, retaining a strong interest in the natural sciences.
I still study a lot to this day, mostly stuff that is relevant to my work, but I took modules on astronomy and climate modelling a couple of years back as well, for example.
I despise it, but can you give me info you have learned about how the big bang is false?
The big bang is the event where "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". Why would it be false?
Apr 30, 2019
0
#93
If God spent 6 days making the earth, then he did not spend one millisecond.
Apr 30, 2019
0
#94
Guineaster wrote:
Elroch wrote:
trump2020maga1 wrote:
Elroch, you seem very educated; are you a scientist or something?
Thank you. Not a bad guess: I was originally a mathematician, worked in scientific research for 14 years and currently work on AI research, retaining a strong interest in the natural sciences.
I still study a lot to this day, mostly stuff that is relevant to my work, but I took modules on astronomy and climate modelling a couple of years back as well, for example.
I despise it, but can you give me info you have learned about how the big bang is false?
ok, I am a bit puzzled here. The Big Bang is the established cosmology of the early Universe. Almost a century old, it has become substantially more detailed and well established with a list of key successful predictions that give a lot of confidence that it is basically right. So how can I give you info about how it is false? You might as well ask me for info that shows World War 2 didn't happen.
Apr 30, 2019
0
#95
trump2020maga1 wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
Benjibass wrote:
if 1 million world leaders said that poop is chocolate, would you believe them??
NO.
But again, the evidence supports Evolution.
There is no more evidence of poop chocolate, than there is of a 6000 year old universe.
Or evolution so stop calling your theory science because it's not
Actually, there is a ton of evidence for Evolution.
Which is the definition, of science.
varelse1 wrote:
trump2020maga1 wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
Benjibass wrote:
if 1 million world leaders said that poop is chocolate, would you believe them??
NO.
But again, the evidence supports Evolution.
There is no more evidence of poop chocolate, than there is of a 6000 year old universe.
Or evolution so stop calling your theory science because it's not
Actually, there is a ton of evidence for Evolution.
Which is the definition, of science.
If that's the definition then evolution iso not science
Apr 30, 2019
0
#97
Benjibass wrote:
And btw people believing in evolution have many problems.... They are like the liberals... Ignoring anything else out of their comfort zone and just trying to figure out something that is impossible to settle.... I have a question... Are a banana and elephant related??
Yes.
In fact, Evolution is an inappropriate term for the theory. Even Ken Ham will concede things evolve a little. Evolution only means change. Which in itself, is not disputed.
A newer, more concise term that is coming onto the scene, is UCD. Universal Common Descent. The theory that every living organism in biosphere of the Earth, is related.
Now back your question. To find the MRCD (Most Recent Common Ancestor) between to disparate species as a banana tree and an elephant, you would need to go back a long ways. Probably over 2 billion years back.
Most likely, would be a unicellular organism. (Don't quote me on that part, though.)
Apr 30, 2019
0
#98
trump2020maga1 wrote:
If that's the definition then evolution iso not science
This statement would be valid, if not for the evidence supporting Evolution.
Like what
If one thinks that the Bible is correct until proven wrong and science wrong until proven correct, then their arguments regarding evolution and creationism cannot be grounded in good logic. In order to successfully show that one alternative is more valid than another, one has to use the same foundation of reasoning for each option, otherwise it’s an opinion made from pure bias.