Why do people still believe in macro evolution?

[ObligationLaunch]

Wow! The Ad Hominem again! Something I wrote?
Lunatic? No, Conspiratist (=fact seeker) , yes!! yes!! What is wrong with that?
Read this:...

Hey Loony Tune..

Why this ad hominem? Something I wrote?
Are you not aware of Gandhi?

]quote]
Do you have any Reply to the EVIDENCE I put up in support of evolution?

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT evidence?

OR will it be the DISHONEST Focus on only the small Ad Hom part.

I do what I can , girly.

Nor have you explained Your theory, since you don't believe in Evolution OR creation.

What has that to do with anything? I am prepared to believe macro evolution to be true if I see any evidence..
But so far...

And What does a CIA graphic/quote have to do with Darwinian Evolution?

So, you haven't read it and for sure haven't understood it!

You are Certifiably insane

Why exactly? Tell me why.

and I don't imagine will be around here long.

in real live? are you threatening? lol

BTW, you should give the other patients a chance at the machine.
+

why you are saying this. Can you explain?

 

[SixFoot]

I'm a Christian and I believe evolution to be a valid theory. If God created the Universe with a grand design in mind, I don't see why it's so far-fetched to acknowledge that it would include designing the very laws of physics/mechanics that govern our lower-dimensional existence.

...unless one reads the Bible in a strictly literal sense. In that case, I could understand one's confusion on the existence of existence.

So the Bible isn't literal? Then how do you if ANYTHING it says is even remotely true? I've never understood people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the fundamentals of Christianity".

The Bible, much likes one's faith, is up to one's own personal interpretation(s). That's why there are multiple denominations of people who have figured out the "correct" way of worship.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm a Christian and I believe evolution to be a valid theory. If God created the Universe with a grand design in mind, I don't see why it's so far-fetched to acknowledge that it would include designing the very laws of physics/mechanics that govern our lower-dimensional existence.

...unless one reads the Bible in a strictly literal sense. In that case, I could understand one's confusion on the existence of existence.

So the Bible isn't literal? Then how do you if ANYTHING it says is even remotely true? I've never understood people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the fundamentals of Christianity".

The Bible, much likes one's faith, is up to one's own personal interpretation(s). That's why there are multiple denominations of people who have figured out the "correct" way of worship.

No. It isn't. Sorry. There is nothing in the Bible which dictates how an individual must worship. Thus there is no "interpretation" of how one must worship.

On the other hand, is says very clearly sleeping with someone you are not married to, and homosexuality, is a sin. There is no other interpretation of that.

Most denominations are simply we like doing X, which isn't defined in the Bible. That's fine. There are some denomination, very few, which say "we believe Y which is in the Bible, can be reinterpreted". Those are people who are sinners and wrong. You can't just change what the Bible says. Sorry. You are wrong.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

I'm a Christian and I believe evolution to be a valid theory. If God created the Universe with a grand design in mind, I don't see why it's so far-fetched to acknowledge that it would include designing the very laws of physics/mechanics that govern our lower-dimensional existence.

...unless one reads the Bible in a strictly literal sense. In that case, I could understand one's confusion on the existence of existence.

So the Bible isn't literal? Then how do you if ANYTHING it says is even remotely true? I've never understood people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the fundamentals of Christianity".

The Bible, much likes one's faith, is up to one's own personal interpretation(s). That's why there are multiple denominations of people who have figured out the "correct" way of worship.

No. It isn't. Sorry. There is nothing in the Bible which dictates how an individual must worship. Thus there is no "interpretation" of how one must worship.

On the other hand, is says very clearly sleeping with someone you are not married to, and homosexuality, is a sin. There is no other interpretation of that.

Most denominations are simply we like doing X, which isn't defined in the Bible. That's fine. There are some denomination, very few, which say "we believe Y which is in the Bible, can be reinterpreted". Those are people who are sinners and wrong. You can't just change what the Bible says. Sorry. You are wrong.

Isn't the Bible so full of contradictions, flaws,horrors and what have you?

I for sure can't take the bible seriously.

ins't it about a man, who was born the 25th bla bla bla

No, that wasn't jezus,'he' lived years before there was a jesus and both are myths,.

 

[Andylusion]

Why do people still believe in macro-evolution?

There is not a shred of evidence that macro evolution is true!

And no , I am not a creationist, I just simply look for evidence and if there is none,

then I think it to be untrue.

To believe in macro evolution , against all odds, is , in my humble opinion, ridiculous.

What is 'macro evolution'?

There is evolution.

If you want to deny the evidence that points to evolution being the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, that is your right.

What is the theory that you believe explains the diversity of life on Earth?

Macro Evolution is the concept that something came from nothing, and grew to something else, which grew to something else, and eventually over the magic of time and chance, we're now humans.

Micro Evolution, is really the idea of adaptation, where you take a fruit fly, and gradually over hundreds of generations, lower the humidity level, to well below where they naturally thrive, and if you do this slowly enough, the fruit flies will adapt until they are able to survive in low humidity.

Most of those who think that evolution is supported by the "evidence" often are really showing support for adaptation. For example, the prior post talking about 'Anatomical vestiges'. These do not support evolution, by any stretch of ones imagination. What is shows is adaptation, where a particular function was no longer needed in a given environment, and thus was lost.

A true support of evolution would come from showing an animal which needed a NEW function, and gain a third eye, or something like that.

But no such example throughout all human scientific history can be found. In fact, DNA that is lost, can't be remade. When they did the research on the fruit flies, they tried to bring the humidity back up, but the flies all died. The DNA that was lost, which allowed them to function in a low humidity environment, did not magically come back, when they moved them back up to a humid environment.

There is no known biological method for adding any information to DNA.

Even then, adaptation has limits. No matter how far an adaptation can go in allowing an organism to survive by adapting to a different environment, there is at concrete limit to how far that can go. This idea that you can evolve into anything, is not supported by the evidence. That somehow, you can just have a fruit fly adapt endlessly, until they are able to live in any environment... not true. There are limits to how far adaptation can go.

So while there is tons of evidence that supports adaptation, there is none, none whatsoever that supports evolution.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm a Christian and I believe evolution to be a valid theory. If God created the Universe with a grand design in mind, I don't see why it's so far-fetched to acknowledge that it would include designing the very laws of physics/mechanics that govern our lower-dimensional existence.

...unless one reads the Bible in a strictly literal sense. In that case, I could understand one's confusion on the existence of existence.

So the Bible isn't literal? Then how do you if ANYTHING it says is even remotely true? I've never understood people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the fundamentals of Christianity".

The Bible, much likes one's faith, is up to one's own personal interpretation(s). That's why there are multiple denominations of people who have figured out the "correct" way of worship.

No. It isn't. Sorry. There is nothing in the Bible which dictates how an individual must worship. Thus there is no "interpretation" of how one must worship.

On the other hand, is says very clearly sleeping with someone you are not married to, and homosexuality, is a sin. There is no other interpretation of that.

Most denominations are simply we like doing X, which isn't defined in the Bible. That's fine. There are some denomination, very few, which say "we believe Y which is in the Bible, can be reinterpreted". Those are people who are sinners and wrong. You can't just change what the Bible says. Sorry. You are wrong.

Isn't the Bible so full of contradictions, flaws,horrors and what have you?

I for sure can't take the bible seriously.

ins't it about a man, who was born the 25th bla bla bla

No, that wasn't jezus,'he' lived years before there was a jesus and both are myths,.

Can't say that I have seen any contradiction yet. There are translation errors. But you can easily look up what the scriptures say, and find out what it means.

Even those, are really not worth bickering about.

As for the supposed myths.... not so much. What you take seriously or don't, is your business.

 

[abu afak]

DISHONEST Andylusion had NO answer to this direct quote of him and reply by me.
The Idiot Conspiracyst ObligationLaundry didn't either.
AGAIN

WHAT?
ALL species have ancestors.. with Fossil Evidence.
ALL species are transitional/constantly evolving.. or have gone/will go extinct.
There is no 'final form'.

ie, We Humans/the Latest Homo, like all animals, have ANATOMICAL VESTIGES of our ancestors.
An immaculate 'creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges

Some of the most renowned Evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
[.......]
Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.

Confirmation:
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. [/B]For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae[/B] (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes....
[.......]
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth).
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted(Notes). These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death.

Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."

Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult.The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system ... Our internal tail is Unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...
[.......]​

+

 

[Andylusion]

DISHONEST Andylusion had NO answer to this direct quote of him and reply by me.
The Idiot Conspiracyst ObligationLaundry didn't either.
AGAIN

WHAT?
ALL species have ancestors.. with Fossil Evidence.
ALL species are transitional/constantly evolving.. or have gone/will go extinct.
There is no 'final form'.

ie, We Humans/the Latest Homo, like all animals, have ANATOMICAL VESTIGES of our ancestors.
An immaculate 'creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges

Some of the most renowned Evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
[.......]
Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.

Confirmation:
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. [/B]For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae[/B] (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes....
[.......]
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth).
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted(Notes). These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death.

Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."

Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult.The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system ... Our internal tail is Unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...
[.......]​

+

First off, when you start screaming.... that is a sign you don't have a good argument.

Second, I already answered it. Nothing of what you post, shows support for evolution. Not one thing shows NEW DNA information. In fact, the Appendix, is not even true at all. We now know that the appendix serves a very important function. So that information is completely out of date.

But even then, all the rest of that, shows information that based on our current adaptation, we no longer use a specific function.

Now show us something that humans did not have before, that now we do have. Something that did not exist in our DNA code, that magically got there over time.

No such example exists.

 

[abu afak]

First off, when you start screaming.... that is a sign you don't have a good argument.
Second, I already answered it. Nothing of what you post, shows support for evolution. Not one thing shows NEW DNA information. In fact, the Appendix, is not even true at all. We now know that the appendix serves a very important function. So that information is completely out of date.
But even then, all the rest of that, shows information that based on our current adaptation, we no longer use a specific function.
Now show us something that humans did not have before, that now we do have. Something that did not exist in our DNA code, that magically got there over time.
No such example exists.

First, second AND third off..
You are LIAR and conspicuously did NOT answer my post #11, even while you did others.

Fourth off... "anatomical Vestiges" do not go "Out of date" you Stupid Clown.
That's just idiotic and Dishonest dismissal because you have no reply TO Evidence you claimed didn't exist.
Neither does the Fossil Record and it's predictable intermediate species, which get more filled in Every year.. as predicted only by.. Evolution.
+

 

[Andylusion]

First off, when you start screaming.... that is a sign you don't have a good argument.
Second, I already answered it. Nothing of what you post, shows support for evolution. Not one thing shows NEW DNA information. In fact, the Appendix, is not even true at all. We now know that the appendix serves a very important function. So that information is completely out of date.
But even then, all the rest of that, shows information that based on our current adaptation, we no longer use a specific function.
Now show us something that humans did not have before, that now we do have. Something that did not exist in our DNA code, that magically got there over time.
No such example exists.

First, second AND third off..
You are LIAR and conspicuously did NOT answer my post #11, even while you did others.

Fourth off... "anatomical Vestiges" do not go "Out of date" you Stupid Clown.
That's just idiotic and Dishonest dismissal because you have no reply TO Evidence you claimed didn't exist.
Neither does the Fossil Record and it's predictable intermediate species, which get more filled in Every year.. as predicted only by.. Evolution.
+

Actually, there is not yet a single conclusive example of an intermediate species.

Not one. Many propose that fossil X or fossil Y could be... but that's as much opinion, as "I think the packers are going to win another super bowl".

You are looking at a fossil, and assuming it is a transitional species, when the reality is, you don't "know" anything. The only thing that is absolutely 'known' is that there is a fossil. You then "interpret" that fossil to fit with an ideological belief.

Take the coelacanth. Supposedly 650 millions of years old. Extinct. Widely considered a transitional specifies... until 1938, when one was caught alive. Oops. The coelacanth was only found in the "fossil record" along side dinosaurs. They were never found in the same area along side human remains in the fossil record.

Yet here they are alive. People claim that humans were not alive when dinos were around, because they are not together in the fossil record, and yet coelacanth were not either, and yet they are alive with us today.

And what of this transition? What of this change over time? What of the evolution? The coelacanth alive today, are exactly the same as those in fossils supposedly 650 million years old. How does that fit with evolution? Why were they exempt from the change over time? Where is the transition?

What of that 'transitional species" theory? When they did careful study of the coelacanth, it turns out.... it's just a fish. What a shock to everyone but those who accept "G-d said".

 

[Old Rocks]

What is the theory that you believe explains the diversity of life on Earth?

Yawwwwn

That I have no theory makes a wong theory not right, of course.

Only evidence does, Problem here: There is no evidence

Only billions of fossils, and the dna in every cell of your body, as well as the dna in all the cells in the other many organisms that inhabit this planet.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm a Christian and I believe evolution to be a valid theory. If God created the Universe with a grand design in mind, I don't see why it's so far-fetched to acknowledge that it would include designing the very laws of physics/mechanics that govern our lower-dimensional existence.

...unless one reads the Bible in a strictly literal sense. In that case, I could understand one's confusion on the existence of existence.

So the Bible isn't literal? Then how do you if ANYTHING it says is even remotely true? I've never understood people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the fundamentals of Christianity".

The Bible, much likes one's faith, is up to one's own personal interpretation(s). That's why there are multiple denominations of people who have figured out the "correct" way of worship.

No. It isn't. Sorry. There is nothing in the Bible which dictates how an individual must worship. Thus there is no "interpretation" of how one must worship.

On the other hand, is says very clearly sleeping with someone you are not married to, and homosexuality, is a sin. There is no other interpretation of that.

Certainly adultery is a sin in the Bible- both the New and the Old Testament?

But homosexuality? Jesus never even mentions homosexuality- even as he repeatedly condemned adultery.

Where in the bible does it say that women having sex together is a sin? As you said- there is no 'other interpretation' so there must be clear language in the Bible which says that sex between two women is a sin- and you should be able to show that language that has no other interpretation.

 

[Syriusly]

And yes- we have lots of evidence.

SHOW THEM!!!!!

WHY DON'T PEOPLE DO THIS? BECAUSE THERE IS NONE!

As if you are willing or able to accept any evidence?

Others in this thread have posted it- and of course you reject all of the evidence- because you can't handle the facts.

 

[Syriusly]

Most denominations are simply we like doing X, which isn't defined in the Bible. That's fine. There are some denomination, very few, which say "we believe Y which is in the Bible, can be reinterpreted". Those are people who are sinners and wrong. You can't just change what the Bible says. Sorry. You are wrong.

So Divorce and remarriage- is that a sin- or not?

Catholics say divorce is a sin- most Protestant denominations are okay with divorce- and remarriage.

Donald Trump- sinner?

 

[Syriusly]

Why do people still believe in macro-evolution?

There is not a shred of evidence that macro evolution is true!

And no , I am not a creationist, I just simply look for evidence and if there is none,

then I think it to be untrue.

To believe in macro evolution , against all odds, is , in my humble opinion, ridiculous.

What is 'macro evolution'?

There is evolution.

If you want to deny the evidence that points to evolution being the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, that is your right.

What is the theory that you believe explains the diversity of life on Earth?

Macro Evolution is the concept that something came from nothing, and grew to something else, .

In other words- you have just made up your own definition of Macro Evolution?

You want everyone to dispute your own invented definition of Macro Evolution

Here is what Webster says is Macro Evolution.
evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)

Is there evidence for evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes- such as species formation- yes there is.

Yes- the same evidence that points towards evolution as being the best theory that explains the diversity of life on earth- mind you have no better alternative theory- no theory which matches the evidence that points towards evolution- no theory which explains the DNA evidence which links species- no theory that explains the fossil evidence which shows species changing over time.

You have no competing theory- all you do is reject the only theory which fits the evidence we have- and argue we should ignore that theory.......for what you offer- which is nothing.

 

[SixFoot]

I'm a Christian and I believe evolution to be a valid theory. If God created the Universe with a grand design in mind, I don't see why it's so far-fetched to acknowledge that it would include designing the very laws of physics/mechanics that govern our lower-dimensional existence.

...unless one reads the Bible in a strictly literal sense. In that case, I could understand one's confusion on the existence of existence.

So the Bible isn't literal? Then how do you if ANYTHING it says is even remotely true? I've never understood people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the fundamentals of Christianity".

The Bible, much likes one's faith, is up to one's own personal interpretation(s). That's why there are multiple denominations of people who have figured out the "correct" way of worship.

No. It isn't. Sorry. There is nothing in the Bible which dictates how an individual must worship. Thus there is no "interpretation" of how one must worship.

On the other hand, is says very clearly sleeping with someone you are not married to, and homosexuality, is a sin. There is no other interpretation of that.

Most denominations are simply we like doing X, which isn't defined in the Bible. That's fine. There are some denomination, very few, which say "we believe Y which is in the Bible, can be reinterpreted". Those are people who are sinners and wrong. You can't just change what the Bible says. Sorry. You are wrong.

I don't need to change what the Bible says, I just need to remember what Christ said. You can quote what ever you'd like from the law of man, but I'm still actually actually quite right with what I said. I simply understand the Bible differently than you do, and I'm still just as good in God's eye as anyone else.

But anyway, back to science.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Lots of hogwash here, that is for sure.

However, all the 'evidence' shown here is only 'evidence' if you already

BELIEVE the (marco)-evolution Bollocks and shite!

Just like a christian believer who is convinced that ordinary water at the
eye of a statue of Mary or Jezus or whatever as 'evidence' for real tears.

There is really NO DIFFERENCE


If you start from scrath with an open mind, you will understand there is
NO EVIDENCE for macro evolution.

I am not rejecting any, THERE IS NONE!


We are talking the "Emperor's Clothes" here.

 

[Andylusion]

What is the theory that you believe explains the diversity of life on Earth?

Yawwwwn

That I have no theory makes a wong theory not right, of course.

Only evidence does, Problem here: There is no evidence

Only billions of fossils, and the dna in every cell of your body, as well as the dna in all the cells in the other many organisms that inhabit this planet.

Again, there is no evidence that DNA has any ability to create new information. DNA itself is an evolutionary impossibility.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm a Christian and I believe evolution to be a valid theory. If God created the Universe with a grand design in mind, I don't see why it's so far-fetched to acknowledge that it would include designing the very laws of physics/mechanics that govern our lower-dimensional existence.

...unless one reads the Bible in a strictly literal sense. In that case, I could understand one's confusion on the existence of existence.

So the Bible isn't literal? Then how do you if ANYTHING it says is even remotely true? I've never understood people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the fundamentals of Christianity".

The Bible, much likes one's faith, is up to one's own personal interpretation(s). That's why there are multiple denominations of people who have figured out the "correct" way of worship.

No. It isn't. Sorry. There is nothing in the Bible which dictates how an individual must worship. Thus there is no "interpretation" of how one must worship.

On the other hand, is says very clearly sleeping with someone you are not married to, and homosexuality, is a sin. There is no other interpretation of that.

Most denominations are simply we like doing X, which isn't defined in the Bible. That's fine. There are some denomination, very few, which say "we believe Y which is in the Bible, can be reinterpreted". Those are people who are sinners and wrong. You can't just change what the Bible says. Sorry. You are wrong.

I don't need to change what the Bible says, I just need to remember what Christ said. You can quote what ever you'd like from the law of man, but I'm still actually actually quite right with what I said. I simply understand the Bible differently than you do, and I'm still just as good in God's eye as anyone else.

But anyway, back to science.

But why do you need to remember anything that Christ said, if you can just 're-interprete' it to mean whatever suits you in the moment?

Words have specific meaning. If red can mean orange... then the word "red" has no real meaning anymore. The Bible is not the 'law of man', because if it is, then why believe it, anymore than any other man made law? Why not believe killing the infidels is perfectly acceptable?

 

[SixFoot]

I'm a Christian and I believe evolution to be a valid theory. If God created the Universe with a grand design in mind, I don't see why it's so far-fetched to acknowledge that it would include designing the very laws of physics/mechanics that govern our lower-dimensional existence.

...unless one reads the Bible in a strictly literal sense. In that case, I could understand one's confusion on the existence of existence.

So the Bible isn't literal? Then how do you if ANYTHING it says is even remotely true? I've never understood people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the fundamentals of Christianity".

The Bible, much likes one's faith, is up to one's own personal interpretation(s). That's why there are multiple denominations of people who have figured out the "correct" way of worship.

No. It isn't. Sorry. There is nothing in the Bible which dictates how an individual must worship. Thus there is no "interpretation" of how one must worship.

On the other hand, is says very clearly sleeping with someone you are not married to, and homosexuality, is a sin. There is no other interpretation of that.

Most denominations are simply we like doing X, which isn't defined in the Bible. That's fine. There are some denomination, very few, which say "we believe Y which is in the Bible, can be reinterpreted". Those are people who are sinners and wrong. You can't just change what the Bible says. Sorry. You are wrong.

I don't need to change what the Bible says, I just need to remember what Christ said. You can quote what ever you'd like from the law of man, but I'm still actually actually quite right with what I said. I simply understand the Bible differently than you do, and I'm still just as good in God's eye as anyone else.

But anyway, back to science.

But why do you need to remember anything that Christ said, if you can just 're-interprete' it to mean whatever suits you in the moment?

Words have specific meaning. If red can mean orange... then the word "red" has no real meaning anymore. The Bible is not the 'law of man', because if it is, then why believe it, anymore than any other man made law? Why not believe killing the infidels is perfectly acceptable?

You seem both very confused and very angry about the Bible and Christianity in general. That's cool though, I'm still right about what I said no matter how much it may vex you, and I'm still interested in the science that God created for us.

Hopefully, an interesting thread will be created about an interesting topic, and we can all have an interesting conversation about it, minus all the boring "my political dick is bigger than everyone else's!"

Oh, to dream, right?