• 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!

The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Danmac said:
They may share similarities, but that doesn't prove anything. I believe the key is the genome sequence.

Chimp genome sequence very different from man
Click to expand...

Once again you prove that the only reason people reject evolution is because of misinformation from websites like Answers in Genesis.

I'll say this just once:

Answers in Genesis is lying to you.

If you want information on science, do yourself a favor and find valid scientific research. Do not go and find websites like Answers in Genesis who will distort the truth in order to sell you their biased agenda.

Here are some basic starting points on Wikipedia. I strongly suggest you follow the references at the bottom of each page to learn more about the actual science being done in this field by actual scientists and what that science actually says:

Human Genome Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
Common Chimpanzee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Danmac said:
If a man believes a lie to be the truth, the truth will appear to be a lie.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. In fact, you didn't answer anything. So, here is my question again, rephrased:

Do you or do you not agree that "macro-evolution" is a term primarily used by those who are trying to lie and deceive people about evolution?
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
ImmortalFlame said:
Once again you prove that the only reason people reject evolution is because of misinformation from websites like Answers in Genesis.

I'll say this just once:

Answers in Genesis is lying to you.

If you want information on science, do yourself a favor and find valid scientific research. Do not go and find websites like Answers in Genesis who will distort the truth in order to sell you their biased agenda.

Here are some basic starting points on Wikipedia. I strongly suggest you follow the references at the bottom of each page to learn more about the actual science being done in this field by actual scientists and what that science actually says:

Human Genome Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Human evolutionary genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
Common Chimpanzee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I see you like to use wikipedia as a valid source to support your position. May I suggest....

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour..._OgOkH&usg=AFQjCNFURzSoKUZncpUY2Z2u6FQ_irHRBQ

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Danmac said:
I see you like to use wikipedia as a valid source to support your position. May I suggest....

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour..._OgOkH&usg=AFQjCNFURzSoKUZncpUY2Z2u6FQ_irHRBQ

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Read this part again:

Here are some basic starting points on Wikipedia. I strongly suggest you follow the references at the bottom of each page to learn more about the actual science being done in this field by actual scientists and what that science actually says:
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
ImmortalFlame said:
Read this part again:

Here are some basic starting points on Wikipedia. I strongly suggest you follow the references at the bottom of each page to learn more about the actual science being done in this field by actual scientists and what that science actually says:
Click to expand...
Are you a scientist?
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Danmac said:
How bout creation scientists? Like Hugh Ross for example.
Click to expand...

Their science falls apart when submitted to scientific inquiry.

If I'm wrong, then present to me one single advancement ever made in the field of "creation science" by Hugh Ross or any of his other contemporaries.
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
ImmortalFlame said:
Their science falls apart when submitted to scientific inquiry.

If I'm wrong, then present to me one single advancement ever made in the field of "creation science" by Hugh Ross or any of his other contemporaries.
Click to expand...

There are a number of Christian creation scientists that work in the field of science.
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Danmac said:
How bout creation scientists? Like Hugh Ross for example.
Click to expand...

ImmortalFlame said:
Their science falls apart when submitted to scientific inquiry.

If I'm wrong, then present to me one single advancement ever made in the field of "creation science" by Hugh Ross or any of his other contemporaries.
Click to expand...

Danmac said:
There are a number of Christian creation scientists that work in the field of science.
Click to expand...

You failed to answer the question.
Present one single advancement ever made in the field of "Creation" science by any of the number of Christian "creation" scientists.



Note: Hugh Ross is an astronomer and astrophysicist who accepts the scientific evidence of the age of the earth and the age of the universe, however, he rejects evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.
Notice that in his particular fields, the evidence he accepts are an intricate part of that fields studies. He only rejects the evidence presented in the field of biology. A science he has no training in.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
They may share similarities, but that doesn't prove anything. I believe the key is the genome sequence.
Click to expand...
The genome sequence is key... and it supports evolution.
Do you really think God is that stupid and lazy... or that dishonest?

Do you really need to believe in a lazy trickster god hiding out in another dimension so he doesn't get caught?

Genetics show us we are all related:
800px-MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg


Based on genome sequencing
600px-Tree_of_life_SVG.svg.png

wa:do
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
We can trace a poodle back to a wolf, but we cannot go beyond the wolf when tracing a poodle. That would make the wolf the common ancestor (kind) of all dog (species).
Click to expand...
O.K., now you've made an assertion, and we're all waiting for the scientific research that supports it.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
I see you like to use wikipedia as a valid source to support your position. May I suggest....

Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Why on earth would we look at a link about the crucifixion of Jesus, to determine whether all organisms on earth share a common ancestor? If you want to discuss the crucifixion of Jesus, I suggest you start a thread, because it has absolutely nothing to do with this one. Please refer to the OP if you're confused, or ask me and I'll explain it again in terms even a kindergartner could understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top