Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[LastCall]

A scientific theory is above a scientific law, any text book will explain why that is but here is a short article so that you may become informed of your error.

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b

That is a pretty good foot dancing around the law of science and the scientific theory when the article is geared towards treating the evolution theory as if it is true and thus proving to be bias.

Did you note that it did not prove what you said it would that a scientific theory is above scientific law?

The Law of Biogensis is what?  Life did not come from nothing;  life comes from similar life. 

So how do you apply that in observation?  That cows comes from cows;  they may vary in appearances, and even get a new kind of different looking cow, but still a cow.  Same with the dogs.

That also means that no genetic information can be added to a living organism such as a fish to start growing legs.  It cannot happen because that would mean that extra genetic information came from out of nowhere as in coming from nothing for that to happen.  Do you see the problem or not when teh law states that life cannot come from nothing and so no added genetic information can come from nothing to be given to an established living organism?

The Law of Biogenesis can be observed and proven time and time again.  Macroevolution of a cow becoming a whale has not been observed nor can it ever be proven.  There are not even any transitional fossils of this slow transition from the cow to the whale in the fossil records that supposedly happened through gradual macroevolution.

Which was why punctuated macroevolution ( or rapid macroevolution ) was proosed by Gould because of the huge gaps of transtional fossils in the fossil record, but of course he is wrong there too, because the Law of Biogensis debunks such a thing from ever happening when life comes from similar life which that law has been observed and proven time and time again.

We can add intelligent meddling in cross breeding for new species.  Scientists bred a lion with a tiger and managed to get a male liger and a female liger but they could not reproduce at all.

Now consider the ramification of such intelligent design meddling and consider how imporobable the statistic would be for something to become something else entirely by chance alone and yet be able to get a mate by that same statistical improbability to be able to continue as that new entirely different species in reproduction.  ZERO.

There is no evidence of macroevolution that has been observed nor proven.  Microevolution is just a borrowed term from the Law of Biogenesis to make macroevolution believable, but it is not.  Any new species of cows is not macroevolution but the Law of Biogenesis because it is still a cow as life comes from similar life.

But thank you for sharing that link.  At least you are trying to share your knowledge rather than not sharing anything at all.  I understand that article has great influence over you, but it did not do what you said it would.  Do feel free to quote the precise wording if I am wrong, but I don't see it, but a careful explanation of what scientific theory is but hardly proving that it trumps scientific law.

[Alan]

Go back and read the article again, it certainly does indicate that a scientific theory is the "highest honor achievable in a scientific field", and if that particular article doesn't tickle your fancy there are thousands of others that all have the same conclusion. You are obviously uneducated in this field but feel free to carry on with your senseless rant. 

[4WD]

....but somehow you lack Christian love to ......

And you were just a couple of posts ago making the charge of another of personal attacks.  Good show !!

[LastCall]

Go back and read the article again, it certainly does indicate that a scientific theory is the "highest honor achievable in a scientific field", and if that particular article doesn't tickle your fancy there are thousands of others that all have the same conclusion. You are obviously uneducated in this field but feel free to carry on with your senseless rant. 

A bias article is hardly proof.  Come  on.

Theories are to be proven before they become law and yet somehow out of all of this for the sake of the evolution theory, the laws of science are not laws but the evolution theory is treated as such.  While they admit they have changed the facts of the evolution theory down thru history, it just goes to show they are not there yet for it to be actually observed and proven to become law.

No matter how much senseless rant you guys send my way, the laws of science trumps scientific theories, not the other way around.

You guys want to believe in the evolution theory but you are never going to macroevolve ever.

But thanks to Stargate SG-1 , when the rapture comes, you guys will probably say that was proof of macroevolution, and the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ was just a coincidence, mass hysteria, and all that.

The only reason you guys are taken in by that false science, is because you are not grounded in the word to know the truth regarding the generations of man as the genealogy in the Bible proves it.  And the thing is, the Truth is coming and there is no denying Him when He appears because God will judge His House first at the pre great trib rapture event.  That is His warning;  not mine.

Since no lie can be of the truth, should you not take pause and reconsider His unchanging words over the ever changing words of fallible men in that false science, the evolution theory?

You cannot say you represent Him when you represent the lie of the evolution theory that denies Him and the scripture as truth.  So how about stop playing games and start praying for help in seeing the truth in His words to expose the works of darkness that is the evolution theory.

Oh yeah.  God is coming to judge His House first for why saved believers found in iniquity will be left behind because one has to attend the Marriage Supper in Heaven in sincerity and in truth.

1 Corinthians 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

That is what God wants for the church to hold proper fellowship; you better believe that is what He will be doing when judging His House first;  the parallel reason can be seen for those left behind.

1 Corinthians 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

So you decide this day whether to hold unto this lie in science you guys are defending or suffer the consequence for believing the lie that has caused many believers to not believe in the Bible and have walked away from Jesus Christ altogether.  It is too bad you are blind to that evil, but you & God only knows why you take the words of men's over His words. 

You guys need to repent or else.

[LastCall]

And you were just a couple of posts ago making the charge of another of personal attacks.  Good show !!

Correction in getting you to do the right thing, even a rebuke, is hardly the same for what you guys are doing for personal attacks about one's intelligence with no correction at all, lacking His love.

It gets to the point that it is hard to know if you are mockers that know the evolution theory is a lie or just seriously deceived, but God knows, and I think it is time in this discussion to call you on it to repent by going before that throne of grace for help to see the truth in His words in seeing the lie for what the evolution theory is in why it is a false science. 

I'll be praying for you guys.  I know it is on Him to deliver you from your sins and the lies that has blinded you so I turn you all over to Him in prayer.  I know I cannot convince you, but I know in Whom I believe and so Jesus is Lord... the evolution theory is not.

[Ginger Rella]

  I know I cannot convince you, but I know in Whom I believe and so Jesus is Lord... the evolution theory is not.

When you say the evolution theory is not do you even know of what you are talking about because if you read these threads, word for word you would see that there is some differing of opinions among the evolutionery beliefs of many of the posters.

THERE IS NOT ONE that you can name posting that does not believe Jesus is Lord. Not one.

The differences lie in .. well shoot... I am at a loss for words. (Many here will be happy).

Hmmm... You have your scientific believing community that will talk and explain evolution, but that does not mean that they do not believe Jesus is Lord.

You have those that believe the earth is 6000 years old and from Adam unto today and at the end of this age will be the end of an era that Jesus has always been Lord over and it came to its natural end, and we will be judged and sent to our eternal rewards.

And you have people that fall in between. (I fall in between)

This is Grace Centered and we all are Christians. At least all of the regular posters. Jesus is our Lord. It is as simple as that.
Anything else is merely food for thought and stimulation for the mind.

You are out of line suggesting anything different.

[4WD]

Correction in getting you to do the right thing, even a rebuke, is hardly the same for what you guys are doing for personal attacks about one's intelligence with no correction at all, lacking His love.

Of course; us "guys" are issuing personal attacks; you are issuing loving correction.  What self-righteous hypocrisy.

[Alan]

A bias article is hardly proof.  Come  on.

You are not interested in discussion here, if you were you wouldn't have formulated the above statement. The article is not biased, it represents the consensus by the scientific community everywhere.

You still have NO idea what a scientific theory is yet continue to make claims as though you do. 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It would be as silly as trying to fit protons into God's words.   That's not what scripture is for.   As you learned, scripture neither supports nor denies evolution.

Scripture disproves the evolution theory outright.

You're confusing scripture with your modern revision of scripture.   And that proves nothing at all.

Barbarian, regarding evolution:
But since we directly observe it happening, we know it's true.

Based on what?

Observed change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

The behemoth as described in Job chapter 40 is a dinosaur;

I know you want it to be so, but it isn't.   Reptiles don't have external genitalia.

No creature has a tail like a cedar which is a tree.

"Tail" here is a euphemism as are the "stones" of the animal so described.

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Jesus validated scripture that it cannot be broken.

YE creationism tries.    It is vain to imply yom to means literal mornings and evenings in a passage that says there was no sun to have them. 

Jesus even validated the sabbath day for why it was created for man to rest in and why as mentioned in scripture as the day God rested from the six days of creation.

Can you show us that if Jesus mentions something figurative in Genesis, that converts it to a literal history?

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Barbarian observes:
    Even many professional creationists now admit the fact of speciation.   New species evolve from old, and they accept the fact.   What they have done, is deny that evolution of new species is "really evolution."    As you probably know, "microevolution" is are changes in allele frequency within a species, and "macrevolution" is the evolution of new species.

    Yep.   As you learned, the professional creationists now acknowledge the fact of new species coming from old ones.   They just now say that macroevolution "isn't really evolution."

How come you cannot comprehend that " changes in allele frequency within a species" also means and includes the creation of a new variation of that specie within that specie?

The singular of species is "species."   And as you learned, macroevolution has been repeatedly observed.   Your YE leaders just redefined it as "not real evolution."  But there's a hitch.   You see, the difference between families of organisms is larger than the difference between humans and chimps.   So the new "adjustment" made by the ICR and "Answers in Genesis" put humans and apes in the same kind.    Rock and a hard place.

Barbarian observes:
I'm a real scientist.   Guess how I know you aren't.   (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science)

Well, I think you should demand your money back for your education.

That's because you're in way over your head, and have no idea what science is about.    Your YE leaders told you a story, but you got ripped off badly.

Because the laws of science are proven

Nope.   
You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#6382b3732fb1

A Gentle Reminder that a Hypothesis is Never Proven Correct, nor is a Theory Ever Proven to Be True
https://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=52402

Where's the proof in science? There is none
http://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570

If you don't learn anything else about science, learn that.

Set your pride aside, and learn to accept it God's way.   And you won't be troubled about it any longer.

 

[LastCall]

You are not interested in discussion here, if you were you wouldn't have formulated the above statement. The article is not biased, it represents the consensus by the scientific community everywhere.

You still have NO idea what a scientific theory is yet continue to make claims as though you do. 

The example given in that article of the theory of gravity which can be observed is nowhere near the theory of evolution which cannot be observed.

And the law of science means it can be observed and proven time and time again.

That article trying to make the laws of science as if they are not really laws and yet treat the evolution theory as if it is law leaves you wanting for why you even believe in it in the first place.

In no way did that article has proven that scientific theory trumps the laws of science.  You cannot even quote from that article to prove your prior statement.

Since you treat the word of God lightly which hasn't changed, it is hypocritical that you would take the everchanging facts of the evolution theory as truth.

[Alan]

The example given in that article of the theory of gravity which can be observed is nowhere near the theory of evolution which cannot be observed.

And the law of science means it can be observed and proven time and time again.

That article trying to make the laws of science as if they are not really laws and yet treat the evolution theory as if it is law leaves you wanting for why you even believe in it in the first place.

In no way did that article has proven that scientific theory trumps the laws of science.  You cannot even quote from that article to prove your prior statement.

Since you treat the word of God lightly which hasn't changed, it is hypocritical that you would take the everchanging facts of the evolution theory as truth.

Your reading comprehension sucks, it's no wonder you've been easily duped into believing a fantasy.

From the article:

Theory vs Law

Now that we understand the distinction between an English theory and a scientific theory, we can discuss the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. As previously stated, a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. A scientific law is simply an observation of the phenomenon that the theory attempts to explain. For example, suppose that you were lying under an apple tree and observed an apple fall from a branch to the ground. The observation of this phenomena can be called the law of gravity. The law of gravity states that every time you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. The theory of gravity is the explanation as to why the apple falls to the ground. A law is an observation. A theory is an explanation.

Just A Theory

Understanding the difference between a theory and a law makes evident the ignorance of statements like "oh, that's just a theory" when attempting to diminish the integrity of a scientific theory like evolution. This argument doesn't make sense, as a theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field

[LastCall]

Barbarian observes:
It would be as silly as trying to fit protons into God's words.   That's not what scripture is for.   As you learned, scripture neither supports nor denies evolution.

Yet you strove to deny the behemoth as a description of a dinosaur.  That is your choice.

You're confusing scripture with your modern revision of scripture.   And that proves nothing at all.

When the evolution theory is revised, they change "facts".  Birds evolved from dinosaurs has now been put in question because they believe dinosaurs evolved from birds now.

The evolution theory does not deal with facts nor truths;  they only deal with assumptions on a finding making it as an "evidence" to be applied to their theory without proving it or any of it.

When the 1611 KJV was revised, no truth in that Bible was changed.

Not all modern KJV can say the same though like the 21st Century King James and the New King James, but the KJV and the authorized KJV are the same in maintaining truths at Bible Gateway.

It is because of the love of money is why many modern Bibles today are not keeping the truths in His words, due to copyrights demands to make a unique version to get a copyright.

And it is because of the love of money is why scientists are lying when the government only gives grants for proving the evolution theory.  NASA did that when they lay claim to finding evidence of life on Mars per a meteorite that landed on earth.  They got their grant, and that proof turned out to be not really proof and it is back on the shelf somewhere where they drudged it up from.  Couldn't have been an amazing find in the first place when it was sitting on a shelf in storage until they needed to get a grant. 

So basically, I accept that you do not believe in the scripture as it is plainly written because of the evolution theory even though you cannot observe macroevolution at all to prove it to any one.

Can you explain how a dinosaur carving of a Stegasaurus has been found in a ruin as well as drawings of dinosaurs in caves has been found if dinosaurs became extinct hundreds of millions of years before mankind came unto the scene to even see one?  Maybe then you would look at the behemoth for what scripture describes it to be because errant Biblical scholars cannot refer in foot notes that the behemoth is a hippo or an elephant when neither one has a tail like the length of a tree which is what a cedar is.  That is the cost of eduation does to Biblical scholars and Christians everywhere when they cannot see scripture plainly describing the behemoth as a dinosaur.

Jesus is coming soon.  I suggest you read the KJV more with His wisdom rather than with the evolution theory's bifocles if you wish to be found abiding in Him and in His word of truths.



 

[4WD]

So many words from LastCall about science and so little knowledge of it.  Better that one keeps quiet and be thought to be ignorant than to speak and remove all doubt.

[AVZ]

Your reading comprehension sucks, it's no wonder you've been easily duped into believing a fantasy.

From the article:

Theory vs Law

Now that we understand the distinction between an English theory and a scientific theory, we can discuss the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. As previously stated, a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. A scientific law is simply an observation of the phenomenon that the theory attempts to explain. For example, suppose that you were lying under an apple tree and observed an apple fall from a branch to the ground. The observation of this phenomena can be called the law of gravity. The law of gravity states that every time you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. The theory of gravity is the explanation as to why the apple falls to the ground. A law is an observation. A theory is an explanation.

Just A Theory

Understanding the difference between a theory and a law makes evident the ignorance of statements like "oh, that's just a theory" when attempting to diminish the integrity of a scientific theory like evolution. This argument doesn't make sense, as a theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field

Few notes:
a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
You forgot to add something...it should be
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

A law is an observation.
A law is a repeated observation of the same event

a theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
Should be: a valid theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
There are no honors for invalid theories.

As things stand, evolution is not even a theory, its a hypothesis as the "facts" cannot be repeatedly observed and made subject to experiment.

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/is-darwinian-evolution-just-a-theory/

[Alan]

I only extracted a few paragraphs from the particular article, it did touch on the definitions in more detail.


Read the article, it's very good. https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b

[LastCall]

So many words from LastCall about science and so little knowledge of it.  Better that one keeps quiet and be thought to be ignorant than to speak and remove all doubt.

If you were rooted in His words, there would be no doubt in your mind that the evolution theory is a false science no matter how well educated they appear to be in that theoretical science that is false.

[Alan]

If you were rooted in His words, there would be no doubt in your mind that the evolution theory is a false science no matter how well educated they appear to be in that theoretical science that is false.

So do you believe the deception of "false science" was deliberately placed or do you simply believe that 99.9% of thousands of scientists are all wrong in their studies and research?

[AVZ]

So do you believe the deception of "false science" was deliberately placed or do you simply believe that 99.9% of thousands of scientists are all wrong in their studies and research?

If you believe in a personal God and a personal Satan, then it all depends on who you blame for the false science.
The question calls for speculation.
The 99.9% (if at all a reliable number) just represents the group that fell for the deception.

[LastCall]

Few notes:
a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
You forgot to add something...it should be
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

A law is an observation.
A law is a repeated observation of the same event

a theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
Should be: a valid theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
There are no honors for invalid theories.

As things stand, evolution is not even a theory, its a hypothesis as the "facts" cannot be repeatedly observed and made subject to experiment.

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/is-darwinian-evolution-just-a-theory/

Thank you for sharing.

The problem I am having with the definition of scientific theory as is, is that is not how I remembered it to mean as taught in school when a theory proven becomes law.

If you look online, at dictionary web site and universities, you will find some definition of microevolution as separate from macroevolution;  some others will start blurring the lines, and a few will read as if they are saying the same thing.

Then you have evolutionists saying gradual macroevolution and rapid macroevolution are both true and yet rapid macroevolution was proposed because gradual macroevolution cannot be true.

There was even one time when some one insisted in another forum that the Law of Biogenesis only meant life did not come from nothing; cutting off the rest of the definition that life comes from similar life.

Haeckel's fetus drawings were proven to be fraudulant and yet our educational books still carried it past that time it was proven fraud whereas now they are trying to prove that it was right all along.

It reminds me of what Hitler had written paraphrasing that if you say a lie often enough, and loud enough, then people will believe it to be true.

I do not see any discipline in science in regards to the evolution theory.  So when I see the definition of a scientific theory as being applied to the evolution theory, it is good that you point out that it has to be a valid theory which the evolution theory never was one.  For the way beleivers are hyping the evolution theory, you woud think it has become law.

Believers need to comprehend that there are lies in science, government, churches, and unfortunately, modern bibles such as Romans 8:26-27 because John 16:13 cites that the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues for uttering His own intercessions whereas the Romans 8:26-27 of that modern Bible would say otherwise, but the KJV maintains that truth whereas not even the groanings of the Holy Spirit can be uttered.  So many believers today are assuming that tongues can also be for private use when Romans 8:26 in that modern bible they are using, they doubt what Jesus really meant that in John 16:13 of that same modern bible.  We need His help to discern by His words as kept in the KJV to discern good & evil by in these latter days where faith is hard to find.

It is hard to fathom why any believer would defend the evolution theory when they ought to know that it is because of the evolution theory that many doubt God's words and are offended whereby they believe not in Jesus Christ any more.

Matthew 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

That is what the evolution theory does as many beleivers not rooted in His words, fail to see the lie that the evolution theory is, and are made to look foolish for believing in the Bible and in Jesus.

So it seems just to say that the theory of evolution is not a valid theory at all, but even then only God can give the believers that err, ears to hear & eyes to see that truth in light of His words.

Prayer is needed here in order to stand against principalities in the hopes that God is peradventuring to recover some from this snare of the devil called the evolution theory.

Ephesians 6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Thanks again for pointing out that a valid theory is the only one that has the highest honor achievable in the field of science, but one of these days, they just might change that definition too.

[4WD]

If you were rooted in His words, there would be no doubt in your mind that the evolution theory is a false science no matter how well educated they appear to be in that theoretical science that is false.

Of course you are not only an expert in the field of science you are also a preeminent theologian and biblical scholar...

[LastCall]

Of course you are not only an expert in the field of science you are also a preeminent theologian and biblical scholar...

I quote this from one of your buddies' reference;  "As previously stated, a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. A scientific law is simply an observation of the phenomenon that the theory attempts to explain. For example, suppose that you were lying under an apple tree and observed an apple fall from a branch to the ground. The observation of this phenomena can be called the law of gravity. The law of gravity states that every time you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. The theory of gravity is the explanation as to why the apple falls to the ground. A law is an observation. A theory is an explanation."

Let me reword that for you.  A scientific theory is simply a well substantiated explanation of some aspect OF the natural world BY OBSERVING the phenomenon OF that natural world.

The theory of gravity is a valid theory because it can be observed in the natural world.  The theory of macroevolution cannot be observed for it to be a "valid" theory.

quoting AVZ below

"a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
You forgot to add something...it should be
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

A law is an observation.
A law is a repeated observation of the same event

a theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
Should be: a valid theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
There are no honors for invalid theories.

As things stand, evolution is not even a theory, its a hypothesis as the "facts" cannot be repeatedly observed and made subject to experiment.

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/is-darwinian-evolution-just-a-theory/

[LastCall]

Of course you are not only an expert in the field of science you are also a preeminent theologian and biblical scholar...

The reason we are at an impasse is that I see you as mocking or deceived whereas you see me as uneducated because you fail to comprehend that I do not see the evolution theory as a valid theory.

Wisdom comes from the Lord as we are to prove all things.  Just because the evolution theory is a popular theory, that still does not make it a valid one, when it never was.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. 25 Brethren, pray for us.

[Alan]

As things stand, evolution is not even a theory, its a hypothesis as the "facts" cannot be repeatedly observed and made subject to experiment.

It is indeed a theory and also a fact.


http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

[LastCall]

It is indeed a theory and also a fact.


http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

When in according to the scientific theory of observing a phenomenon in the natural world, the evolution theory as far as macroevolution, that phenomenon cannot be observed in the natural world.

Feel free to state something that I can observe as macroevolution happening in the natural world.


And I point out that any new species that is different and never before seen but yet the same species is not macroevolution;  that is the Law of Biogenesis.

[AVZ]

It is indeed a theory and also a fact.


http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

It is only a fact in the sense that it has to apply to present observations which must be subject to experiment.
What today's "facts" cannot establish is evidence for something that happened in the past, because past events cannot be observed or tested.

The reality is that even in case you would find evidence of macro-evolution today (which you don't), it still does not prove anything for the past.
Very simply because past events cannot be observed and tested.

Hence the evolution theory cannot be a theory because it misses the basic elements of a theory being a theory: observation and experiment.

[Alan]

It is only a fact in the sense that it has to apply to present observations which must be subject to experiment.
What today's "facts" cannot establish is evidence for something that happened in the past, because past events cannot be observed or tested.

The reality is that even in case you would find evidence of macro-evolution today (which you don't), it still does not prove anything for the past.
Very simply because past events cannot be observed and tested.

Hence the evolution theory cannot be a theory because it misses the basic elements of a theory being a theory: observation and experiment.

You are not the scientific community that has deemed it a theory, take up your argument with them, although you won't get very far since your reasons are shortsighted and unrealistic.

[The Barbarian]

    Barbarian observes:
    It would be as silly as trying to fit protons into God's words.   That's not what scripture is for.   As you learned, scripture neither supports nor denies evolution.

Yet you strove to deny the behemoth as a description of a dinosaur.

Because, as you now see, it wasn't a dinosaur.   The description in scripture clearly shows that it is not.  I'll go with scripture.
 

That is your choice.

And it was your choice to ignore scripture in this matter.  Fortunately, God doesn't judge you on that.  You're confusing scripture with your modern revision of scripture.   And that proves nothing at all.

When the evolution theory is revised, they change "facts".

Nope.  Theories are revised as new facts become known.   You have it backwards again.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs has now been put in question because they believe dinosaurs evolved from birds now.

Nope.   You were misled about that, too.

YE creationis does not deal with facts nor truths;  they only deal with assumptions on a finding making it as an "evidence" to be applied to their revision of scripture without proving it or any of it.

So basically, you do not believe in the scripture as it is plainly written because of your modern revision of scripture even though macroevolution has been directly observed.

Can you explain how a dinosaur carving of a Stegasaurus has been found in a ruin

It's obviously not a stegosaurus.   A tiny tail, lacking a thagomizer, makes that clear.

I suggest you read the Bible without injecting your own desires into it.

[AVZ]

You are not the scientific community that has deemed it a theory, take up your argument with them, although you won't get very far since your reasons are shortsighted and unrealistic.

I wonder why you think that.
These people apparently agree with me and dont think its shortsighted and unrealistic: https://dissentfromdarwin.org

[4WD]

I wonder why you think that.
These people apparently agree with me and dont think its shortsighted and unrealistic: https://dissentfromdarwin.org

Are you sure you understand that dissentfromdarwin.org promotes?  From that web site:

"Darwinian evolution should be fully and completely taught in public schools, and schools need to teach more about evolution, not less. Unfortunately, most biology classrooms teach a one-sided, pro-Darwin-only curriculum that censors serious any scientific critique of neo-Darwinism. This makes for bad science education. It doesn't teach students how to think, just what to think. Instead, schools should teach about both the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories and let students critically evaluate the arguments and evidence in this debate."

I suspect that Barbarian might quite agree with that statement.  And I didn't see anything in that web site that would support anything that you have presented here.

[LastCall]

You are not the scientific community that has deemed it a theory, take up your argument with them, although you won't get very far since your reasons are shortsighted and unrealistic.

If you do not follow the definition of a scientific theory for what is requires to be a valid theory, why is it that you cannot fathom that so called scientific community to be totally in error as seen by us?

If the Catholic Church teach a false doctrine and they lay claim to scripture as teaching it, what do you do?  You go to scripture in reproving it.

If the scientific community teach a false science, and they lay claim to it by using the definition of a scientific theory as proof, what do you do?  You make sure they quote the WHOLE definition for how a scientific theory is even to be considered by when it is only a valid one wherein that phenomenon can be observed in the natural world.

So you should not be harping the evolution theory at all as a fact nor as the truth.  That is why I call it a false science that exists only in the realm of men's imaginations with no proof at all.

[Alan]

The scientific community is not in error, they most certainly do adhere to the definitions of scientific theories. The issue lies within those that display their lack of understanding.

[LastCall]

Are you sure you understand that dissentfromdarwin.org promotes?  From that web site:

"Darwinian evolution should be fully and completely taught in public schools, and schools need to teach more about evolution, not less. Unfortunately, most biology classrooms teach a one-sided, pro-Darwin-only curriculum that censors serious any scientific critique of neo-Darwinism. This makes for bad science education. It doesn't teach students how to think, just what to think. Instead, schools should teach about both the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories and let students critically evaluate the arguments and evidence in this debate."

I suspect that Barbarian might quite agree with that statement.  And I didn't see anything in that web site that would support anything that you have presented here.

Well, I do not know about that web site as anything I should consider when I am still taking God's words over the evolution theory.

And as far as that web site goes, enjoy the world you are supporting in how the evolution theory makes believers not rooted in the word to be offended thereby NOT believing in the Bible over man's false science when they turn away from the Bible and Jesus altogether.  Mockers that are atheists enjoy taking the light out of the eyes of Christians just as they enjoy you guys in being blind to how you are supporting that offense for why believers turn away from the Bible & Jesus altogether.

As long as evolution theory is taught in schools, there are no consequence for right & wrong, and bullying and abortion will be the norm as naturally selecting the weak for extinction as it is a dog eat dog world and this life is all that you have.

Can you imagine an atheist succeeding in turning a new convert that has been a murderer by convincing the evolution theory is a lie and laughs at him for not believing it to be true as you guys do?  That now former believer may just kill that guy as naturally selecting his life to extinction.

You better believe God will hold that against you for causing believers not rooted in the word to stumble and fall.

Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Romans 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

You know evolutionists as atheists are delighting that some believers are doing their work for them.  You know babes in Christ are turning away from Him because of that evolution theory.  No matter how you defend the faith, you are doing half of the work in making believers weak for atheistic evolutionists to finish the job in turning them away from Jesus Christ altogether.

Indeed, your laughing and belittling believers of their lack of education is their M.O. as if by doing so shames them and thus offending them for believing in the Bible & Him.  So why is it yours?

[The Barbarian]

I wonder why you think that.]
These people apparently agree with me and dont think its shortsighted and unrealistic: https://dissentfromdarwin.org

Comparing your numbers with the numbers from Project Steve, we find about three-tenths of a percent of scientists with a PhD in biology or a related discipline agree that Darwnian theory might not be correct.  That's not three percent; it's three-tenths of a percent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve   

Feel free to do your own numbers.    Just pick out the PhD biologists named "Steve" or some variant.    Then compare to the number on the Steve-o-Meter.    Do you now realize now why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for YE creationism?

[Alan]

As long as evolution theory is taught in schools, there are no consequence for right & wrong, and bullying and abortion will be the norm as naturally selecting the weak for extinction as it is a dog eat dog world and this life is all that you have.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. The schools teach evolution because it's a fact, not because they have some agenda of natural selection, thanks for your unsupported and obtuse opinion though and thank heavens it is completely meaningless. 

[LastCall]

That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. The schools teach evolution because it's a fact, not because they have some agenda of natural selection, thanks for your unsupported and obtuse opinion though and thank heavens it is completely meaningless. 

I did not say that the schools had an agenda.  I was only pointing to the effect for which the evolution theory being taught in our schools is the cause.

Clearly you are not comprehending my words as you are not comprehending the definition of a scientific theory requiring to be valid by observing the phenomenon of macroevolution in the natural world.