On Evolution...

Once again Roby, you are incorrect.
The entire concept of a "missing link" is a misnomer. In reality, there is NOT "a missing link" but in fact MANY "links", (and they are NOT missing). The paleontology Dept's at Berkeley, The American Museum of Natural History, and the Smithsonian National Museum of the United states have more links than you could count.. and they are NOT missing.
We have over a dozen transitional fossils species in just the hominid line alone spanning millions of years.
The entire concept of a "missing link" may be what you were taught back as a sophmore, but as i said earlier, we've found out a great deal since you were in school.

 

Those so called primates are mis aged greatly, are reconstructed using flimsy material amounts, basically, just reconstruct to fit evolution itself! Take the bones and facts and fit them so will work per evolution...

 

This above is nonsense.
There is NOTHING "anti god" about evolution. If evolution is anti god, then so is every other science on the planet since NO field of science anywhere invokes deities as causes for observed phenomena.
If you bother to go look at the research being done at places like Brigham Young, Notre Dame, The Pontifical Academy of Science at the Vatican, etc, you'll see them all accepting the fact of evolution and NONE of them are "anti god"
Hell, This is a Baptist message board, and Baylor University which is likely the most prestigious Baptist University in the world not only accepts but TEACHES evolution (and ONLY evolution)
Here, directly from Baylor U
<quote>

Statement of Evolution
Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.

Now, i could put a Catholic, an Evangelical. a Mormon and a Baptist together in a room, and you'd be hard pressed to get any of them to agree on a common Interpretation of Biblical Scripture, and yet All these CHRISTIAN Universities and Science Organizations agree with each other & ACCEPT and even TEACH evolution...
and NONE of them are "anti-god".

 

The thing about science is that no one cares what you "say".. Only what you can DEMONSTRATE.
If you are going to make the claim that all those fossils are "mis aged" or "flimsy", then you'll have to present the TESTS you've conducted to prove it..
Now, you have any of those tests handy..?

 

This above is a common tactic by creationists to conflate multiple branches of science into one, in an attempt to raise doubts about evolution. However such attempts are futile.
The formation of the universe is currently understood to be the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago based on various lines of cosmological evidence.
The formation of life however is currently represented by abiogenesis, which has its roots in the science of organic chemistry.
Now, while all those above are highly important fields of study, neither of them matter to evolution (the decent with modification of life over geologic time)
It doesn't matter to evolution if life arose naturally by abiogenesis, or if Jesus himself floated down on a cloud of vanilla pudding and placed the first life forms here.
The EVIDENCE shows that life has been on earth for billions of years and that the life forms that are here today are the evolved modified descendants of those first initial organisms.

 

Well now you've really kicked the hornets nest.

 

I believe it was Astrophysicist Neil DeGrass Tyson who famously said, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

 

"Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them."

https://www.icr.org/article/whats-missing-link

 

Prestigious is doubtful In fact you are the first I have ever seen make such a wild claim. Doing so gives the impression that you are making that wild claim to prop up your view. However, even if it were true (and its not) that is making an appeal from authority and it is a logical fallacy.

As far as it being Baptist, well it certainly started out that way but is questionable nowadays.

 

Actually evolution is losing ground more and more everyday. Yes there are some staunch holders out but there are also people who believe in the mythical man made global warming.

 

...or you simply don’t understand and are misinterpreting what he said.

Rob

 

Such a statement is a tactic by evolutionists to try and prove their own flawed ideas.Who cares what he said? Science is man made and as such cannot be in and of itself perfect without flaws. Even if it were (and its not) those who use science would have to, themselves, be perfect without flaws for his statement to be true. Science is not automatically true, it is an absurd claim. What ever flawed science man devises will automatically be flawed itself.

 

Actually no, that is NOT what the DNA tests show.
DNA tests are based on rigorously tested scientific principles. The most famous being Mendel's work on Genetic Inheritance.
There is only one scientifically verified way for an organism like a human or a chimpanzee to obtain its DNA, and that mechanism is inheritance.
Because of this, we can now conduct what could be loosely defined as "evolutionary paternity tests".
Just as we can take DNA from a father and child, and prove in court that they are related, we can also take DNA from different species, and also show if they too are related.. by common ancestry.
For example, If humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry as evolution states, then humans should not only share the same functional DNA, but they should also share the same mutations in their DNA. Also, they should share the same viral genetic invasions that occur over the natural course of fertilization and reproduction.
Now we've mapped the entire genomes of both humans and chimps. Those maps show exactly what evolution predicted over a century ago. Humans and chimps DO share not only the same genes, but we also share the same copy errors in the same locations on the same genes as well.. For example: you ever wonder why humans have to eat citrus fruit or we get scurvy, but other mammals like dogs and cats dont..? Its because the gene that metabolizes vitamin C in mammals like us is mutated and broken. It doesn't function, so we have to regularly eat fruits with vitamin C or we get sick.
Well chimps too share that same break in that same gene. (which there is no reason for, other than common ancestry)
Also, we share the same viral markers that have parasitically inserted themselves into the genome over geologic time.
These very distinct and observable markers made of virus proteins are a "slam dunk" for our shared common ancestry, since the ONLY mechanism that could put them in both species is inheritance. Both species HAD to inherit those markers through the sharing of a common evolutionary ancestor

 

Well Religion is man made too.. So by using your flawed logic, we shouldn't trust that either.
Regardless, Science is itself a self correcting process. The reason we use science is because IT WORKS. It gets results.
Science is never "automatically true".. Its TESTED to confirm its validity.
The reason we accept evolution isn't because "some guy said so". Its because almost 2 centuries of tests and observations DEMONSTRATE that its true.

 

"Secular scientists claimed in the 1970s that chimp genomes are 98% similar to humans, and it was apparently verified by more modern techniques. But that estimate actually used isolated segments of DNA that we already share with chimps—not the whole genomes. The latest comparison that included all of the two species' DNA revealed a huge difference from the percentage scientists have been claiming for years."

Chimp DNA | The Institute for Creation Research

 

No no, the Bible is true all of it. It also has been verified and continues to be verified.

 

Young Earth creationists simply live in their own safe environment, isolating themselves from other views and refusing to critically examine evidences contrary to what they believe.

There are plenty of Christians who don’t believe the world was created 6000, or even 6m years ago,... and they believe the Bible is truly God’s word to the world.

I posted this a while back, it works in this thread as well.

A recent article in “Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith” magazine titled ‘Nuclear Chemistry and Medicine: why “Young-Earthers” Cannot Have It Both Ways’ vol. 71, number 4. (Here)​

“We argue that the best explanation for the success of these medical applications is that our current framework of nuclear chemistry is, in the main, correct. We further argue that this framework also entails the prevailing models of radiometric dating, according to which the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. We thus conclude that “young-Earthers” (those who think the earth is ten thousand years old or less) cannot have it both ways. That is, they need to either provide an alternative explanation for the success of nuclear medicine or accept a much older earth.” p. 203

I work in the field of nuclear medicine, so this article strikes close.
​

Rob

 

You know, your posts are usually reasonable. This one seems out of character for you. It certainly is trash.

 

I always get amused when i see a creationist linking religious websites like ICR while having a discussion about science.
You do realize that ICR is NOT a science organization.?
They are in fact a fundamentalist religious web page.

Here's a helpful hint for you.. When attempting to discuss SCIENCE, it would serve you well to actually use a SCIENTIFIC resource.
This leads us to a very simple question...?
"Why are you using fundamentalist religious websites on scientific matters"..?
Could it be that no actual science organization will give you the answers that you want to hear..?

 

And here again, more drivel from ICR..

Dr Francis Collins ran the human genome project for the US Government and he is also a DEVOUT Evangelical Christian.
He runs a website specifically designed for ill informed creationists like yourself who routinely go to unethical cites like ICR.
If you wish to cling to fundamentalism and simply look for confirmation bias, then i suggest you stay with ICR (just dont expect to learn anything) .
But if you are serious about learning what actual science shows, then you might try Collin's "biologos" website.
It will at least give you real data while still maintaining a Christian perspective.