• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
First Baseman said:
Genesis 1 and the rest of the Bible support the theory quite well, actually. Also, you can find more ways of interpreting the "evidence" here:

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-splendor-of-gods-creation/
Click to expand...
Well, obviously, the basic rules of logic forbid one from using the Bible as valid support for the Bible. Again, that is nothing but circular reasoning. It isn't valid unless you assume your proposition that the Bible is accurate.

Do you have any actual supporting evidence rather than mere circular reasoning?
 
First Baseman

First Baseman

Retired athlete
dust1n said:
Right, so Creationism isn't a science, it's just an extension of Genesis. We all know this already. It's why it's not allowed to be taught in science classes.
Click to expand...

If you'll read further on that site you'll see that science substantiates Genesis. It isn't taught in science classes because academia has rejected creation.
 
First Baseman

First Baseman

Retired athlete
leibowde84 said:
No, there is actual evidence. We can see one species and find evidence that it is related, through evolutionary changes, to previous species.
Click to expand...

You can only assume it, you cannot prove it happened. You cannot prove an ape-like creature that existed long ago evolved into a man. You can assume it did but you can't prove it.

I do agree that changes do occur among like kinds but do not change into different creatures. That is an assumption only.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
First Baseman said:
You can only assume it, you cannot prove it happened. You cannot prove an ape-like creature that existed long ago evolved into a man. You can assume it did but you can't prove it.
Click to expand...
I never said prove absolutely, but there is an abundance of supporting evidence. We can see the chain of species that eventually became the human species.
 
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
First Baseman said:
The Bible is quite credible. If you don't think it is then prove Genesis 1 and 2 didn't happen.
Click to expand...

First Baseman said:
If you'll read further on that site you'll see that science substantiates Genesis. It isn't taught in science classes because academia has rejected creation.
Click to expand...

Are these the hard facts you supposedly needed from God? Okay, so how did you go about testing Genesis, something that supposedly happened 6000 years ago.

Hold on let's see.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

How did you go about testing this hard fact?

2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasfnon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

How did you go about testing these two facts?

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

How did you go about testing these two facts?

4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

How did you go about these two facts?

Oh wait, you didn't. All these "hard facts" you have never tested. And can't. Because it happened supposedly 6000 years. And according to your own admission, there's no one to test something that happened that long ago. We can't date things to see if they around that age according to you.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
First Baseman said:
You can only assume it, you cannot prove it happened. You cannot prove an ape-like creature that existed long ago evolved into a man. You can assume it did but you can't prove it.

I do agree that changes do occur among like kinds but do not change into different creatures. That is an assumption only.
Click to expand...
And, with all due respect, it's hard to take your criticism seriously when you have nothing but circular reasoning to back up your theory.
 
First Baseman

First Baseman

Retired athlete
leibowde84 said:
Well, obviously, the basic rules of logic forbid one from using the Bible as valid support for the Bible. Again, that is nothing but circular reasoning. It isn't valid unless you assume your proposition that the Bible is accurate.

Do you have any actual supporting evidence rather than mere circular reasoning?
Click to expand...

It isn't circular. It only seems circular if you do not accept that God exists.

Good day, I have to go now.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
First Baseman said:
It isn't circular. It only seems circular if you do not accept that God exists.

Good day, I have to go now.
Click to expand...
That is blatantly false, and a cop out. I am a Theist and a Christian. So, I certainly do believe in God. But, I also understand the history of the Bible and how it was put together.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
First Baseman said:
It isn't circular. It only seems circular if you do not accept that God exists.

Good day, I have to go now.
Click to expand...
I would also suggest doing some research on the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Because, using the Bible to support the claim that the Bible is accurate is indisputably using circular reasoning.
 
Y

Yorutenchi

Member
First Baseman said:
You need to research about your dating methods. The reason why different ones are used is to obtain the closest to the desired/expected results. If something is dated and it reveals a highly unexpected result it is thrown out. Of course the scientists don't tell you about that.
Click to expand...
The above is pure falsehood. The reason why different dating methods are used is because there are different circumstances in which different ones are accurate. If we took a dating method that would date something as being very very very very very old vs young but it was consistent then we would have to assume that there is truth to the consistency. But if it is not consistent then we know it can be wrong. If we take several different dating methods and all of them produce the same result consistently then we can trust it. You need to research the methods and how they are applied.
Microevolution among like kinds is just what happens as a result of creation. Macroevolution does not happen and you cannot prove it does because it doesn't. DNA evidence proves macroevolution most likely did not happen as a matter of fact. Of course your scientists don't tell you about that, either.
Click to expand...
Falsehood again. DNA demonstrably proves that macroevolution did happen. We have half of our DNA indentical to a Banana. The closer we are evolutionarily the closer our DNA is. Humans are all 99.9% identical in DNA. We share 96% of our DNA with a Chimpanzee but only about 80% or so with most reptiles. The further away we go the less we have in common. We can see in the DNA where we had certain major changes. We can see and plot where certain species split.

You have been told very wrong if you believe otherwise. It is not a conspiracy. This is taught all over the world in every country with modern science and is accepted by scientists in every major religion. This is because it is true and the evidence is solid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top