The scientific evidence supporting evolution is undeniable... The facts that we have both gill pouches and tails as embryos, just like chicks, and all other animals, show there must be a common ancestor... The anatomy of our arms and the formation of bones in our arms is identical to that of a bat's wing, a whale's flipper, and a cat's forearm.... I can go on and on with evidence....

 

Also, I see no reason why someone can't believe in God and accept the facts of evolution...

The scientific evidence supporting evolution is undeniable... The facts that we have both gill pouches and tails as embryos, just like chicks, and all other animals, show there must be a common ancestor... The anatomy of our arms and the formation of bones in our arms is identical to that of a bat's wing, a whale's flipper, and a cat's forearm.... I can go on and on with evidence....

 

Also, I see no reason why someone can't believe in God and accept the facts of evolution...[/QUOTE]

 

There you have it.

The scientific evidence supporting evolution is undeniable... The facts that we have both gill pouches and tails as embryos, just like chicks, and all other animals, show there must be a common ancestor... The anatomy of our arms and the formation of bones in our arms is identical to that of a bat's wing, a whale's flipper, and a cat's forearm.... I can go on and on with evidence....

 

Also, I see no reason why someone can't believe in God and accept the facts of evolution...

 

The "scientific" evidence supporting evolution is not undeniable. In fact many supposed "facts" have been destroyed (Carbon dating has been proven to be inaccurate on a number of occasions and if its wrong once, it can be wrong, very wrong, again. http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm) What gill pouches? What tails? My great-great grandpa was a porpoise, a monkey, or a lizard? I don't think so. You can believe this garbage if you want to. I will just take the Genesis account of creation chronicled in God's Holy Word at face value. I serve the Lord of Lords and King of Kings the CREATOR of the universe. He spoke the world into existence. But, we can agree to disagree. Both positions take faith and IMVHO it takes a lot more faith believing that we have common ancestors from another species than to believe that we are descendants of Adam and Eve.

Carbon dating is a tool used by scientists to date. If the scientists misuse the tool then it wont work. It's like if I try to build a table but don't know how to use a hammer, then my table won't work. It doesn't mean the hammer is flawed just the user. The website you site in your post sites creationist literature as references as to why C-14 dating is flawed. Most of the examples used in these books comes from a lack of understanding as to how it works.

 

You can't carbon date something from the ocean for instance b/c of the resavior effect in the oceans. If something like coal or other things gets into the thing being tested then the test will not work.

 

Tree ring dating gives us ages older than 6,000 years. Stars millions and billions of light years away are proof of an old universe. And there is volumes of studies in the fields of genetics that backs up evolution through natural selection. You can believe in God and evolution.......I do.

The "scientific" evidence supporting evolution is not undeniable. In fact many supposed "facts" have been destroyed (Carbon dating has been proven to be inaccurate on a number of occasions and if its wrong once, it can be wrong, very wrong, again. http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm)

 

Here is the problem with articles like this. I would bet that it wasn't written by a scientist. The founder of the (non)scientific idea of intelligent design was created by a non-scientist.

 

What gill pouches? What tails? My great-great grandpa was a porpoise, a monkey, or a lizard? I don't think so. You can believe this garbage if you want to.

 

Have you ever seen a picture of the human embryo at 8 weeks old? At 12 weeks? If you had, you would know that a human embryo and a tadpole look very similar. Secondly understand the bolded. You are correct. Evolutionists do not belive that humans evolved from monkeys, apes, sheep, whatever. People that subscribe to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, feel we all have common ancestors, and that species that share common ancestors will have similar characteristics. We have a spine. Chimps have a spine. We share common ancestors and the spine is an obvious similar characteristic we share.

 

I will just take the Genesis account of creation chronicled in God's Holy Word at face value. I serve the Lord of Lords and King of Kings the CREATOR of the universe. He spoke the world into existence. But, we can agree to disagree. Both positions take faith and IMVHO it takes a lot more faith believing that we have common ancestors from another species than to believe that we are descendants of Adam and Eve.

 

Bolded- I disagree. Faith is used for something we cannot see. Reason is for something we can see. There is empirical and quantifiable evidence in place for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. I have God-given reason to use. If I fail to use my brain, I belive that it is a sin.

 

 

And yes, I am a born-agian Christian.

^^^^God who created you gave you that choice.

^^^^God who created you gave you that choice.

And I agree with you.

Carbon dating is a tool used by scientists to date. If the scientists misuse the tool then it wont work. It's like if I try to build a table but don't know how to use a hammer, then my table won't work. It doesn't mean the hammer is flawed just the user. The website you site in your post sites creationist literature as references as to why C-14 dating is flawed. Most of the examples used in these books comes from a lack of understanding as to how it works.

 

You can't carbon date something from the ocean for instance b/c of the resavior effect in the oceans. If something like coal or other things gets into the thing being tested then the test will not work.

 

Tree ring dating gives us ages older than 6,000 years. Stars millions and billions of light years away are proof of an old universe. And there is volumes of studies in the fields of genetics that backs up evolution through natural selection. You can believe in God and evolution.......I do.

 

You could use a nail gun...I've evolved past hammers.

You could use a nail gun...I've evolved past hammers.

 

I just use liquid nails for everything. My hand eye coordination hasn't evolved to hammer use capability yet:lol:

Here is the problem with articles like this. I would bet that it wasn't written by a scientist. The founder of the (non)scientific idea of intelligent design was created by a non-scientist.

 

 

 

Have you ever seen a picture of the human embryo at 8 weeks old? At 12 weeks? If you had, you would know that a human embryo and a tadpole look very similar. Secondly understand the bolded. You are correct. Evolutionists do not belive that humans evolved from monkeys, apes, sheep, whatever. People that subscribe to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, feel we all have common ancestors, and that species that share common ancestors will have similar characteristics. We have a spine. Chimps have a spine. We share common ancestors and the spine is an obvious similar characteristic we share.

 

 

 

Bolded- I disagree. Faith is used for something we cannot see. Reason is for something we can see. There is empirical and quantifiable evidence in place for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. I have God-given reason to use. If I fail to use my brain, I belive that it is a sin.

 

 

And yes, I am a born-agian Christian.

 

 

To imply that I am not using my brain is, frankly, an insult. I certainly give you freedom to have faith in whatever you wish. I have used my brain but faith is something that is personal. You have faith in man's explanation of beginnings I will simply (without understanding it all,) except God's explanation as laid out in the book of Genesis. I agree that there is micro evolution (small changes within the same species) but macro evolution is simply humanists way of explaning away an Almighty God. We will have to agree to disagree. You can be wrong if you want to.

To imply that I am not using my brain is, frankly, an insult. I certainly give you freedom to have faith in whatever you wish. I have used my brain but faith is something that is personal. You have faith in man's explanation of beginnings I will simply (without understanding it all,) except God's explanation as laid out in the book of Genesis. I agree that there is micro evolution (small changes within the same species) but macro evolution is simply humanists way of explaning away an Almighty God. We will have to agree to disagree. You can be wrong if you want to.

 

If you picked up anything insulting from my post, I do apologize. I don't want to make it seem as though people of faith don't use thier brains. My stance is I have faith in God, but use Reason for what is Science, and that these two aren't in conflict. My big problem is when people try to use negative arguments and things that aren't science(Such as Intelligent design) to try to discredit scientific theory. If people use faith to believe, then thats fine.

 

We'll agree to disagree, wrong one day may be right the next.:thumb:

If you picked up anything insulting from my post, I do apologize. I don't want to make it seem as though people of faith don't use thier brains. My stance is I have faith in God, but use Reason for what is Science, and that these two aren't in conflict. My big problem is when people try to use negative arguments and things that aren't science(Such as Intelligent design) to try to discredit scientific theory. If people use faith to believe, then thats fine.

 

We'll agree to disagree, wrong one day may be right the next.:thumb:

 

:thumb:

To imply that I am not using my brain is, frankly, an insult. I certainly give you freedom to have faith in whatever you wish. I have used my brain but faith is something that is personal. You have faith in man's explanation of beginnings I will simply (without understanding it all,) except God's explanation as laid out in the book of Genesis. I agree that there is micro evolution (small changes within the same species) but macro evolution is simply humanists way of explaning away an Almighty God. We will have to agree to disagree. You can be wrong if you want to.

 

I will have to disagree with you wholeheartedly on that. I believe in "macro" evolution b/c there is a whole lot of evidence for it. It does in no way try to remove God from the picture. I find that by studying how nature works makes me appreciate just how great God is. I think the issue is where science has yet to find answers to certain things and many creationists say "Ah HA! You don't know so God had to have done it." You can't test that therefore it's not science. I never once claim that God could not do something, I just find it very hard to believe that God created the universe with all this evidence pointing one way only to have it turn out completely the opposite.

I will have to disagree with you wholeheartedly on that. I believe in "macro" evolution b/c there is a whole lot of evidence for it. It does in no way try to remove God from the picture. I find that by studying how nature works makes me appreciate just how great God is. I think the issue is where science has yet to find answers to certain things and many creationists say "Ah HA! You don't know so God had to have done it." You can't test that therefore it's not science. I never once claim that God could not do something, I just find it very hard to believe that God created the universe with all this evidence pointing one way only to have it turn out completely the opposite.

From my secular science readings, macro evolution's only "evidence" is similarities in genetic codes or DNA strands. This would seem to be a more a result of a limited number of nucleotides and peptides for building DNA. Some scientists want to look at these similarities and find a pattern of emersive evolution from other species. However, this is not only unlikely, but improbable, based upon the odds of a species mutating to the point of creating a new species, and not just a variation. Further when you look at the primordial soup theory, it really struggles with probability. The odd of even an RNA strand being created from base elements are astronomical.

There is evidence in the form of transitional fossils, DNA evidence, and vestigial (remnant) organs and other physical characteristics.