The Battle Between The Christian Religion and Science

[omega2xx]

It evolved.

Thanks for confirming you have no evidence for what you accept by faith alone.

Excuse me! That's what the field of evolutionary study is all about: how one form of life changes into another.

Right, but real science backs up what it say with facts, not with opinions, some of which actually contradict real science.

I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the basics of evolution. Here's an excellent starting point. Just keep clicking on the "next" to continue.

It is always amusing when the evolutionist have no FACTS, they have resort to "you don't understand." Anyone who has been indoctrinated in our failed public education system has been taught what evolution preaches. I strongly suggest you educate yourself in the basics of genetics.

No, but the science of evolution is about evolution..

There is no science in the TOE. If there was it would have been proved years ago. The more we learn from real science, the less likely evolution is true.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Unless I heard a good and reasonable argument to the contrary, I don't suppose I'd be capable of changing my mind.

No, hearing a good argument won't be enough. You have to LISTEN to it, too. With your mind.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thanks for confirming you have no evidence for what you accept by faith alone.



Right, but real science backs up what it say with facts, not with opinions, some of which actually contradict real science.



It is always amusing when the evolutionist have no FACTS, they have resort to "you don't understand." Anyone who has been indoctrinated in our failed public education system has been taught what evolution preaches. I strongly suggest you educate yourself in the basics of genetics.



There is no science in the TOE. If there was it would have been proved years ago. The more we learn from real science, the less likely evolution is true.

Tell us just one thing that has been learned "from real science" that contradicts TOE. Because I can't help but notice that you have made that claim, but not provided anything to substantiate that claim.

 

[Milton Platt]

I honestly don't understand the debate between Christianity and science. If science is what we see with our natural eyes, theories of what we don't understand, and defining things from a "secular" perspective, from a Christian perspective, I'd assume that science is only describing creation and using human means to figure out the nature of it. Outside of that, I don't see the conflict.

Theories are what explain the phenomenon we do understand.......Things we do not have an understanding of will at best rate an hypothesis.

 

[omega2xx]

Tell us just one thing that has been learned "from real science" that contradicts TOE. Because I can't help but notice that you have made that claim, but not provided anything to substantiate that claim.

I have a rule that I will not answer your question until you answer mine. So name one thing science has proved that the TOE says and I will answer yours. Please don't point me to some evolutionary site. They never provide the evidence for what they say. If you do that, I will ignore it.

 

[omega2xx]

It evolved.

Ecclesiastes 10:1 tells us what made the perfumer's oil stink---dead flies. The dead flies in the oil of evolution that makes it stink is how. Real science tells HOW something happened. So take the dead flies out of the TOE and give the science that explains how it happened.

Excuse me! That's what the field of evolutionary study is all about: how one form of life changes into another. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the basics of evolution. Here's an excellent starting point. Just keep clicking on the "next" to continue.

Give me a break. I was uneducated in high school and in college about evolution, but one sip of the kool-aid made me spit it out. I strongly suggest you take a basic course in genetics and then tell me how the laws of genetics are not violated by the TOE.

No, but the science of evolution is about evolution..

When there is real science that proves the TOE, it will be changed to the laws of evolution. If that ever happens, I will jump the fence and join you.

 

[omega2xx]

I believe Science will always win, they have the facts, where as Christianity only have the Myth.

There is no conflict between real science and Christianity. The conflict is between the TOE, which is not based on science, and Christianity. The Bible is not a science oriented book, but where it touches on science, it is correct.

If you have any evidence that Christianity is a myth, please present it. Otherwise it is only your preconceived opinion.

 

[omega2xx]

Everything is in the process of evolution. The earth would not exist if it and we had no evolve from "lower" or simple atoms etc to more complex ones.

First, ther is no such thing as a simple atom. They are very complex. Second, how did the atoms come into existence? Finally how can lifeoriginate fdrom dead elements?

Its the laws of nature.

The laws of nature do not contradict the laws of science. The TOE violates the laws of science.

If christianity denies evolution as defined by scientist not people's guesses and arguments, then they deny gods creation of the world and his role in its continous evolving complexity.

When science proves one doctrine of the TOE, get back o me.

 

[omega2xx]

People who ask questions like this really do display just how little know or understand about what the are talking about it. No animal "turns into" any other animal. It lives and it dies as it was -- whale, dog, fish, bird.

I agree but evolutionists have put pakicetus, a dog-like land animal, in the chain of whale evolution, and they have not explained why or how that could happen. It is absolutely absurd to think a land animal surviving vey will on land,could wade in the water and become a whale. Even a cave man would not accept that.

But all animals that leave descendants leave descendants that are slightly different from themselves. Look at your children. They are not carbon copies of you. They're a little taller (or shorter), darker (or fairer), able to digest some things more or less easily than you are, allergic to things you're not or not allergic to things you are, able to swim a little better, or not as well, and a million more little differences. And they will pass some of those differences on to their own children. That might make your grand-children just little more or less likely to have offspring of their own, to whom they will pass along those changes, and more that occur at random.

True again but my son is still homo sapian, and so is my grand son and so is my great grand son, and they will all only produce "after their kind." The differences are determined by the gene pool of the parents, but a change in eye color is not evidence for evolution.

What people who refuse to see evolution for what it is make the mistake of doing is forgetting that little changes -- happening hundreds, thousands or millions of times -- can really add up. In 100,000 generations, under very different environmental conditions than the first generation, and you can wind up with very, very different creatures.

What evolutionist refuse to see that time will not change the laws of genetics.

 

[omega2xx]

You really do not have a clue with what you're talking about. I taught anthropology for 30 years, and I never had problems getting enough scientific material to teach from. Matter of fact, I had to cut what I covered to squeeze it all in.

Wonderful. Now present some of the evidenced you used to teach them to teach me.

And the fact that you elevate your religion to the level of absolute fact pretty much tells anyone here that you are hardly objective in any way.

I never mention religion when discussing evolution. Lets keep religion out of this discussion an stick to science.

 

[omega2xx]

And bear in mind -- if you accept (as I do NOT) Adam from around 6,000 years ago, that's actually only about 200 generations in the male line. That's not enough generations for evolution to be very noticeable.

Adam and when he lived is irrelevant in any discussion of evolution. Stick to science.

 

[omega2xx]

Please, go right ahead.

Plant some corn and in about 90 days, not only will you not only get corn, you will get the exact same "kind." So unless you can falsify that, "after is kind" has been proven

Now buy a male and female dog and let them mate. What has this combination produced since time began? Even a caveman will understand that it proves "after it kind."

WE could go on to birds and fish and cows, and the results would always be "afer it kind."

Your turn. Show me one thing in the TOE that has been proven. Please no websites, they never offer any real scientific evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

Really? Then you know very little about one or the other -- or more probably both! A bat is not a bird --okay?
The Bible says it is, science says it's not. Score 1 for science.

it is you who does not understand the Bible. The Bible does not say a bat is a bird. Because it has wings, it is listed with other winged species, but "after their kind" stops with the heron(Deut 14:18). Bible 1, atheist website 0

The sun could not have stood still for a day, the only way for that to happen (now that we know how the solar system works) is to stop the planet Earth's rotation in its tracks -- an event that would have caused catastrophic damage to everything. (Think about a fast car hitting a wall. What happens? The planet rotates at the equator over 1000 MPH. Stop that all at once and Joshua's guts would have been torn out of his body in an instant.

Mt 19:26 - And looking at them, Jesus said to them "with people this is impossible, but with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE."

Let us be clear -- you are concerned with the Bible, and have extremely limited knowledge of science. You cannot make comparisons between one thing and another if you don't actually know anything at all about one of them.

Then you don't have enough knowledge of genetics to understand that the laws of genetics make evolution impossible.

 

[omega2xx]

The fact that you use the word "become" tells me that you don't get it and you won't get it. You continue to think of something "changing," and that is definitively NOT what evolution does. I'm not going to try to teach biology -- over the internet -- to somebody waiting for magic tricks. Either do some studying, or give it up.

The bottom line for evolution is change. If there is no change, there is no evolution. How can a dog-like land animal with no fins or blowhole, become a whale without some significant changes.

 

[omega2xx]

The laws of nature do not suggest a supreme deity. Thats humans attributing who or what they think created the world to a world that existed without us and needs no descriptuon ofnits origin. . Evolution isnt creation. So realistically, how does evolution suggest a deity? Why and how in nature does it suggest this deity be supreme?

The only one of many things that underlines life is energy. Where do god fit in to it?

No omnipotent deity, no matter and no life. Do your really think matter created itself out of nothing? Do you think lifeless elements can produce life? Nothing can never produce something. If God didn't not do it, it happen?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No omnipotent deity, no matter and no life. Do your really think matter created itself out of nothing?

I do not believe anything was created. Everything forms from one thing out of or into another. Babies aren't created. They are formed between two separate already existing "things" into who we define another. It's human language not reality. We see something different coming from something else and we designate the creation coming from the thing its made from, a creator. It's totally natural to see someone or something created something that already exists.

Not everyone sees it that way. Where, in nature and the natural world, does it suggest there is a deity involve in creating the world? How do I know this deity and from which religion should I attribute the creation of the world?

Where is this deity's signiture? I believe god is life. I am an atheist. I do not believe in deities. God is not a deity. It just means object or person of worship. Whatever we put as our place, person, idea, or thing of worship is god. So, I understand how nature is from god because god is life and it is ever evolving from one thing to another-not created.

However, you'd have to explain how I can see a deity in nature. That's like my finding out I have a long lost child somewhere in Africa and I'm supposed to think naturally that child's mother is an alien with fifty eyes and forty hands.

I have to be realistic. Without the Bible, how would I know nature shows a deity and by whose or what deity is this religion from?

Do you think lifeless elements can produce life?

Produce and form from one thing to another, yes. Create out of thin air, no. That's like someone saying "if we came from monkeys why can't we see monkeys evolving to humans today".... it's a theory. Likewise, it's like saying, "if we came from god, why can't we see ourselves coming from god (from dust) today (rather than our parents)?" It's a story. A theory. A legend of ways we were created told by different cultures and their stories all around the world. It doesn't mean it has no value. It just means if you judge how you see the world today compared to 2,000 years ago when the Bible was deemed to be inspired, that time lapse isn't great enough to test that theory to be true. It's based on *cough* faith.

Nothing can never produce something. If God didn't not do it, it happen?

Something always existed. God means person or object of worship. How did you come up with a deity out of all things that created the world?

If the connection to your said deity didn't come from you, where did it come from and how can you express how you got this and not an experience from Brahma or any other deity or deity-like entity or consciousness?

Was it a connection you had with god? If god had a connection with you, explain how that connection exists without using human language and attributes about god to describe it.

That, and you can't use the Bible. John, Paul, Moses, et cetera are people too. They are no different than you; so, I'd ask the same questions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

First, ther is no such thing as a simple atom. They are very complex. Second, how did the atoms come into existence? Finally how can lifeoriginate fdrom dead elements?

Simple meaning just as a sperm and egg are simple. They come together to create a complex being. It's in context.

They didn't pop into mid air. They always existed. To say that something was created out of nothing would make it possible for the same to do so today. How could you know what happened thousands of years ago and how can you separate the laws of nature then as they are today? Laws of nature do not change in the last 2,000 years. We don't just pop up out of thin air. Nothing is magic.

Nothing is dead. Everything moves even the table I'm sitting at. The energy or however they define it is moving at a slow pace. Then if it's heated up, it moves faster. It depends on the temperature among other things. Nothing is dead. If you want to have a "creator" the only one I can think of is energy. But energy doesn't create but sustains life. So, god is the sustainer of life. God is the breathe of life. God is the energy of life. God IS life itself.

To make life a person is humans trying to define what, by its nature, cannot be defined. That's why we have all of these religions because we are trying to live within god or however we identify life as best we can. Whether it is through ourselves, an other, a deity, family, or so have you.

The laws of nature do not contradict the laws of science. The TOE violates the laws of science.

They are the same. I just use the laws of nature because it makes more sense and I revere nature. It's a part of my faith. Science is the test and study of nature. So, it's making what I find personal, impersonal. So I don't use the word science unless I'm in biology class or maybe chemistry.

When science proves one doctrine of the TOE, get back o me.

What is TOE?

What do you mean? The Laws of Nature is in itself doctrine. We've been studying, defining, creating stories about it, wrapping dogma about it, making tests, and all of that jazz for as long as the human race came into (not created from) existence.

 

[metis]

Wonderful. Now present some of the evidenced you used to teach them to teach me.
.

Even though it's not an actual science site, there's plenty of information here plus links to scientific studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 

[metis]

I never mention religion when discussing evolution. Lets keep religion out of this discussion an stick to science.

Mt 19:26 - And looking at them, Jesus said to them "with people this is impossible, but with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE."

it is you who does not understand the Bible. The Bible does not say a bat is a bird. Because it has wings, it is listed with other winged species, but "after their kind" stops with the heron(Deut 14:18). Bible 1, atheist website 0

Why did you respond differently with the above?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Plant some corn and in about 90 days, not only will you not only get corn, you will get the exact same "kind." So unless you can falsify that, "after is kind" has been proven

Well sir, I'm glad you chose corn and dogs as your proof that evolution is a farce because that just made my life a whole lot easier...

Before corn ever existed, there was Teosinte. Teosinte is basically a tall wheat grass. It is not a vegetable. It is definitely not corn. It is the ancestor of corn.

Fully developed

The modern corn that you eat is an artificially selected hybrid plant, naturally and biologically crafted to be sweet and juicy. Teosinte was crossbred with Maize. The first few generations were small, hard, and nearly inedible. Over time, and by applying different environmental factors, the corn that you know and love came to be. Within just a few generations, a plant that never before existed on Earth was "created" using the same processes and forces that drive evolution. A species of plant that never before existed now exists entirely independently of its parent populations. Corn is not Teosinte. Corn is not Maize. Corn is corn. There are ever new species of corn that are developing, some sweeter, some more plump, some that grow in different environments.

And that, my friend, is evolution. A new species emerged from a parent species:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/
https://www.learner.org/courses/essential/life/session5/closer1.html

Now buy a male and female dog and let them mate. What has this combination produced since time began? Even a caveman will understand that it proves "after it kind."

You seriously could not have picked a better example of evolution-in-action than dogs!

There was a time, not too long ago, when there were no dogs on planet Earth. There were wolves, which are canid, obviously. But there were no other dogs, anywhere. No Great Danes, no Labradors, no Chihuahuas, and no poodles... just gray wolves as far as the eye could see. Through and initial natural divergence of populations in Europe, followed by thousands of years of artificial selection (which as you should have read above is simply a fine tuned version of natural selection) all of the species of dog that you see today have resulted. Are they all still furry, four-legged, canids? Yes they are. But is a Chihuahua a Gray Wolf? No it's not.

A group of organisms that did not previously exist now thrives and produces "after their own kind" never having to bother with the parent population ever again. Were Chihuahuas "created" by the hand of god? Nope... they sure weren't. They were produced by natural means, over the course of multiple generations, through environmental selection and normal, everyday, biological processes. A wolf never gave birth to a chihuahua. That's a stupid idea. But slow changes to offspring over long periods of time produced Chihuahuas from wolves.

And that, my friend, is evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

WE could go on to birds and fish and cows, and the results would always be "afer it kind."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_fish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2016/02/cattle-domestication-from-aurochs-to-cow/

Oddly enough, you're right! There's not a single living organism today that did not have ancestor parent populations that were entirely different from their modern counterparts. There are extant species of canids, as we've discussed, which live right along side the modern show Poodles. This holds true for birds, fish, cows, horses, dogs, vegetables, and humans.

See how this works?
We weren't Chimpanzees - we just share a common ancestor with them. Our divergence and theirs took very different paths. That's to be expected. But we are both still apes - producing, as you've said multiple times, after our own kind.

Your turn. Show me one thing in the TOE that has been proven. Please no websites, they never offer any real scientific evidence.

I don't have to do anything, really, since you've unwittingly done it for me.