Fortunately we don't have to deal with this because science agrees with the Scriptures. But ultimately a Christian's authority is from the Bible. However, it's kind of a moot point because we as Christians don't have to worry that science will ever contradict the Bible.
Fortunately we don't have to deal with this because science agrees with the Scriptures. But ultimately a Christian's authority is from the Bible. However, it's kind of a moot point because we as Christians don't have to worry that science will ever contradict the Bible.
What would you say to the suggestion that American Christians are possibly the least educated people in the entire World, so that what they think is irrelevant to anything sensible?
I would say that there are certainly ignorant Christians in the U.S. and everywhere, but there are also certainly very ignorant atheists. You can't group all Christians like that. This is ad hominem, an attack on personal character instead of the actual point. I personally believe the Bible is true, and I have seen numerous evidences that science upholds and supports the Bible. It is not an ignorant belief or one out of blind faith.
I quote from a resource:
"Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. You’ve got hands and feet because your genes code for it. The same is true for any creature—dogs, camels, you name it.
Of course
The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information.
The information does change, either from natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, genetic flow, or separation. Let's discuss the easiest one in my opinion, natural selection. Say you have a group of early primates, and one primate has longer limbs and a sharper mind. That primate is going to experience greater reproductive success than it's companions, and therefore have on average a higher chance to survive to the point of reproduction. When that primate reproduces it passes down its traits and genes through his sperm/her egg. The baby primate will now have a chance to inherit the genes of the smarter and faster primate. These more advanced primates will on average survive longer and reproduce more, so over many generations they will start to make up more and more of the primate proplation, until the primate population is completely made up of what was a singular mutation. Do this over again and again and boom! It's a human now!
then why are there still bugs and fish and so many other things? That kinda seems dumb because you just stated that they would all die out.
Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science—the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results—we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B—at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not—none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still no.
This is plain dumb. We have seen evolution appear before our very own eyes with bacterial strains. You take a population of bacteria with only a few that are immune to a certain antibiotic. All will die expect those that are immune, and they will make up the new population. Fish don't sprout hair and thumbs, we seperated from a common ancestor millions of years ago. Evolution does happen over millions of years, fossils are blatant proof.
We have seen genetic mutations. That is true. Have we seen any organism mutate near close enough to be considered a different species in a repeatable, provable way? No
That first point is devastating enough. But here’s how evolution gets buried even more.
It was more stupid than devastating
You’ve probably heard news accounts about how life could have started on earth “gazillions” of years ago in volcanoes, slush pools, crystals, rocks, you name it. Maybe you’ve heard something about “artificial” life or test-tube life or rotten-food-in-the-refrigerator life (okay, maybe not the last one).
It was more of a chemical soup but ok.
Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law—the Law of Biogenesis, to be exact.
Nope, life came from the primordial soup, and can and has been recreated.
Examples please?
All these failed experiments, like the Miller-Urey experiment, really show us just how much intelligence is required for life to begin in the first place. (That is, way smarter than us.)
Nope, you probably have no idea what you are talking about. The Miller-Urey proved that an electrical current could spark basic life is the right condition, not that here was a higher intelligence. It also wasn't a failed experiment.
I don’t know too much about that but how would they know what the primordial soup was made of, its proportions, or what other elements would have present?
And Yet We’re Here
So, if evolution can’t explain how humans came to be (or any other living thing, for that matter), what can? The Bible. Yep, God’s Word.
The Bible provides an eyewitness account of how the universe and all life came to be. There’s no speculation or strange interpretation needed. You can just read how God created everything in six days a few thousand years ago. Simple. Factual."
This is all easily disproved by science. The Earth is not 6 thousand years old nor did god create all of these species. Get out of your indoctrinated Christian homeschooling and learn some real science.
1. I never stated they would all die out, I just stated that in a separated instance of a population evolution could occur and overtime completely change the genetic makeup of said population. Why would there not be bugs and fish?
2. It takes a long time for something to evolve, so it's generally not observable on a human time scale. However we don't need to see something to be able to prove it happened. For example, take the American revolution. Has a sign;e living persona on this planet seen the American revolution with their own eyes? Of course not! None of us were alive. But do we know the American Revolution happen? Yes we do! Historians can prove the american revolutions by using historical documents from that time period. Fossils are the historical documents for evolution. They provide scientists with genotypic and phenotypic information that can be used to draw the past of evolution, the same way historians use historical documents to paint a picture of the past.
3. What do you mean by examples? Look that the Miller-Urey experiment.
4. I actually don't know how, so I'm doing some reading on that. Here's an article about it. https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/tracing-lifes-origins-with-early-earth-chemistry/
You kinda did say they would die out. Your example, bacteria gaining immunity to pesticides, shows this. You even said so. You, in your example of the apes that the stronger faster ones reproduce ore and thus the others, less. Thus the others would usually go extinct and if you think about it, the chances that this many animals survived when a better version of each was created seems extremely unlikely. I need to go again so i can’t answer your other points rn
Well yes the old populations of bacteria would die out due to the antibodies being administered. Also why would the original primate population die out? They continue to survive just fine, it's just that now there is another brack of species coming off of them
there is a reason the human and ape are so closely related.
but it’s not evolution and no dedicated follower of evolution will be able to find out with a closed made up mind
You are just ignorant, and I've learned quite a lot from AP Biology.
Learn some science.
Fortunately we don't have to deal with this because science agrees with the Scriptures. But ultimately a Christian's authority is from the Bible. However, it's kind of a moot point because we as Christians don't have to worry that science will ever contradict the Bible.
Science definitely contradicts the bible, and it can be seen as early as genesis where humans are created with no need for evolution.
The evidence against evolution is enormous. The evidence points to a creator. Belief in a Creator is much more rational than evolution.
I quote from a resource:
"Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. You’ve got hands and feet because your genes code for it. The same is true for any creature—dogs, camels, you name it.
Of course
The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information.
The information does change, either from natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, genetic flow, or separation. Let's discuss the easiest one in my opinion, natural selection. Say you have a group of early primates, and one primate has longer limbs and a sharper mind. That primate is going to experience greater reproductive success than it's companions, and therefore have on average a higher chance to survive to the point of reproduction. When that primate reproduces it passes down its traits and genes through his sperm/her egg. The baby primate will now have a chance to inherit the genes of the smarter and faster primate. These more advanced primates will on average survive longer and reproduce more, so over many generations they will start to make up more and more of the primate proplation, until the primate population is completely made up of what was a singular mutation. Do this over again and again and boom! It's a human now!
Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science—the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results—we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B—at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not—none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still no.
This is plain dumb. We have seen evolution appear before our very own eyes with bacterial strains. You take a population of bacteria with only a few that are immune to a certain antibiotic. All will die expect those that are immune, and they will make up the new population. Fish don't sprout hair and thumbs, we seperated from a common ancestor millions of years ago. Evolution does happen over millions of years, fossils are blatant proof.
That first point is devastating enough. But here’s how evolution gets buried even more.
It was more stupid than devastating
You’ve probably heard news accounts about how life could have started on earth “gazillions” of years ago in volcanoes, slush pools, crystals, rocks, you name it. Maybe you’ve heard something about “artificial” life or test-tube life or rotten-food-in-the-refrigerator life (okay, maybe not the last one).
It was more of a chemical soup but ok.
Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law—the Law of Biogenesis, to be exact.
Nope, life came from the primordial soup, and can and has been recreated.
All these failed experiments, like the Miller-Urey experiment, really show us just how much intelligence is required for life to begin in the first place. (That is, way smarter than us.)
Nope, you probably have no idea what you are talking about. The Miller-Urey proved that an electrical current could spark basic life is the right condition, not that here was a higher intelligence. It also wasn't a failed experiment.
And Yet We’re Here
So, if evolution can’t explain how humans came to be (or any other living thing, for that matter), what can? The Bible. Yep, God’s Word.
The Bible provides an eyewitness account of how the universe and all life came to be. There’s no speculation or strange interpretation needed. You can just read how God created everything in six days a few thousand years ago. Simple. Factual."
This is all easily disproved by science. The Earth is not 6 thousand years old nor did god create all of these species. Get out of your indoctrinated Christian homeschooling and learn some real science.
But did the genes change? Nope. And this has never been proved that that happens!#2
#3 that is false. You cant believe everything they say, a lot of it is false, especially the skulls they find, one small misplaced piece and it looks like complete proof for evolution.
4# That isn't evolution, thats called an immune system like our bodies and called adapting. NOT evolution.
7# false, also you can only create something with other stuff, you can't have a soup without something to create it!
8# you're fighting a REAL scientists, they know way more than all of us, they've tried the experiments themselves!
Lastly, I see no evidence, just throat-punching force. No proof for old age, in fact, science shows that most places were buried underwater 5,000 years ago
The evidence against evolution is enormous. The evidence points to a creator. Belief in a Creator is much more rational than evolution.
Show me the evidence that points to a creator and rejects evolution,
I quote from a resource:
"Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. You’ve got hands and feet because your genes code for it. The same is true for any creature—dogs, camels, you name it.
Of course
The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information.
The information does change, either from natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, genetic flow, or separation. Let's discuss the easiest one in my opinion, natural selection. Say you have a group of early primates, and one primate has longer limbs and a sharper mind. That primate is going to experience greater reproductive success than it's companions, and therefore have on average a higher chance to survive to the point of reproduction. When that primate reproduces it passes down its traits and genes through his sperm/her egg. The baby primate will now have a chance to inherit the genes of the smarter and faster primate. These more advanced primates will on average survive longer and reproduce more, so over many generations they will start to make up more and more of the primate proplation, until the primate population is completely made up of what was a singular mutation. Do this over again and again and boom! It's a human now!
Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science—the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results—we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B—at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not—none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still no.
This is plain dumb. We have seen evolution appear before our very own eyes with bacterial strains. You take a population of bacteria with only a few that are immune to a certain antibiotic. All will die expect those that are immune, and they will make up the new population. Fish don't sprout hair and thumbs, we seperated from a common ancestor millions of years ago. Evolution does happen over millions of years, fossils are blatant proof.
That first point is devastating enough. But here’s how evolution gets buried even more.
It was more stupid than devastating
You’ve probably heard news accounts about how life could have started on earth “gazillions” of years ago in volcanoes, slush pools, crystals, rocks, you name it. Maybe you’ve heard something about “artificial” life or test-tube life or rotten-food-in-the-refrigerator life (okay, maybe not the last one).
It was more of a chemical soup but ok.
Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law—the Law of Biogenesis, to be exact.
Nope, life came from the primordial soup, and can and has been recreated.
All these failed experiments, like the Miller-Urey experiment, really show us just how much intelligence is required for life to begin in the first place. (That is, way smarter than us.)
Nope, you probably have no idea what you are talking about. The Miller-Urey proved that an electrical current could spark basic life is the right condition, not that here was a higher intelligence. It also wasn't a failed experiment.
And Yet We’re Here
So, if evolution can’t explain how humans came to be (or any other living thing, for that matter), what can? The Bible. Yep, God’s Word.
The Bible provides an eyewitness account of how the universe and all life came to be. There’s no speculation or strange interpretation needed. You can just read how God created everything in six days a few thousand years ago. Simple. Factual."
This is all easily disproved by science. The Earth is not 6 thousand years old nor did god create all of these species. Get out of your indoctrinated Christian homeschooling and learn some real science.
But did the genes change? Nope. And this has never been proved that that happens!#2
#3 that is false. You cant believe everything they say, a lot of it is false, especially the skulls they find, one small misplaced piece and it looks like complete proof for evolution.
4# That isn't evolution, thats called an immune system like our bodies and called adapting. NOT evolution.
7# false, also you can only create something with other stuff, you can't have a soup without something to create it!
8# you're fighting a REAL scientists, they know way more than all of us, they've tried the experiments themselves!
Lastly, I see no evidence, just throat-punching force. No proof for old age, in fact, science shows that most places were buried underwater 5,000 years ago
1. The genes do change and it has been proven. How would species change phenotypically without genotypic change? Do some research.
2. You are mentally challenged. You claim every claim against you is false with no grounds to speak of. Why can't I believe what scientific institutions say? Why can't I trust the words of respected scientists? Ethos exists for a reason. I know it's not false because we performed the experiment ourselves and found that after a few generations the majority of the bacteria population contained genes that allowed them to resist the antibodies when at the start there was only 1. Skulls and fossils can show genotypic and phenotypic proof of evolution.
3. Nope, happened over multiple generations of bacteria, not some sort of "immune response".
4. The soup was created by small organic molecules (monomers) and complex organic molecules (polymers) formed from inorganic materials in the primitive atmosphere.
5. Yes, the real scientists did do the experiment and it showed that life can be created from chemical soup in early earth. They know way more than you, you should listen to them. I am not fighting them , I am agreeing with them.
6. Final claim is ridiculous. Most of Earth was not underwater 5000 years ago. Even if it was evolution occurs underwater as well as on land. You are indoctrinated.
Worldly science goes on their theoretical views of discovery while True SCIENCE IS THAT OF SPIRIT.
OMNIPOTENCE
OMNISCIENCE - that's all Science
OMNIPRESENCE
The 3 OMNIS
^^^ Omnidelusional
..we certainly soon shall see whether I AM CORRECT..👍
I don’t agree with the primary assumptions:
That all genetic similarities indicate similar ancestry
That life can come from non-life
That atoms and molecules can arrange themselves (miraculously!) to form more complex forms…over any period of time, even billions of years..
That thought is simply a biological function that arrived by mutations…
That something can come from nothing