I was just wondering....

Just a question for you many Christians on this board.

You believe that god created the world and all of man kind - Does this mean you deny all of the factual evolution theory, or what are your views on it?

Just asking because I am really interested

Mglaffas

Um, I'm not really sure what you mean by factual evolution theory...because there is none.

To answer your question though, I think most Christians believe that God created the universe. I have heard though that some believe that God enacted the evolution process in order to get things going so to speak, but this isnt reinforced by what the bible says.

What I meant was that the evolution theory is based on scientific fact, not just belief. I think it's fine that most Christians think god created the universe, I just can't see how you can deny the process of evolution.

It's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason - it's a theory.....

I believe God created the universe - how it worked, I dunno, I wasn't there. The two stories of creation in the book of Genesis seems to conflict with each other. Do I think it was created in 7 days? No. Could God create it in 7 days? Sure - I also think the Earth is older than 8 - 10k years old, that's been proven by science. The ultimate question is where did it all come from?

This is a pretty heavy topic which you may get multiple view points, depending on the person's person beliefs or religious affiliation i.e. protestant and all it's sub genres (baptist, reformed, the many flavors of evangelical), catholic, orthodox, etc....

Everything on earth evolves; its called adaptation.

sam wrote:

Everything on earth evolves; its called adaptation.

Yes it does, but not at the scale that Evolutionists claim.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

What I meant was that the evolution theory is based on scientific fact, not just belief. I think it's fine that most Christians think god created the universe, I just can't see how you can deny the process of evolution.

If you looked into it, you will find that there is scientific fact that backs up the creationist theory as well...

Stender wrote:

Um, I'm not really sure what you mean by factual evolution theory...because there is none.

Uh...yes there is.

What is it?

There's a difference between microevolution as represented by natural selection and macroevolution where one species evolves into another.

Where's the transitional form in the fossil record? Where is the fish-amphibian or the amphibi-mammal?

Eyesore wrote:

Stender wrote:

Um, I'm not really sure what you mean by factual evolution theory...because there is none.

Uh...yes there is.

Can you explain yourself instead of writing condescending one sentence posts please?

There is NO proof of evolution from nothing.

Stender wrote:

Can you explain yourself instead of writing condescending one sentence posts please?

There is NO proof of evolution from nothing.

There's no proof, but there is a crapload of evidence.

What's that I hear?

Why, I think it's the sound of a large can of worms being opened.

Buh-bye.

Ahh, but what will that that large can of worms eventually evolve into ?

That's the real question.

Fat Freddy wrote:

What's that I hear?

Why, I think it's the sound of a large can of worms being opened.

Buh-bye.

this is going to get nasty, time to pop some popcorn!

Stender wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Stender wrote:

Um, I'm not really sure what you mean by factual evolution theory...because there is none.

Uh...yes there is.

Can you explain yourself instead of writing condescending one sentence posts please?

There is NO proof of evolution from nothing.

Ah, here we go. Looks like the Limp Bizkit thread gave a few others a chance to be brave and start insulting me. Sweet.

If you think that comment was condescending, your brain needs to evolve. (And yes, that is a condescending comment.)

tohostudios wrote:

What is it?

There's a difference between microevolution as represented by natural selection and macroevolution where one species evolves into another.

Where's the transitional form in the fossil record? Where is the fish-amphibian or the amphibi-mammal?

Good point. Microevolution is fact (look at the dog species) but macroevoltion is just a theory put forth so we can have science class with scientific point of view. It's never bothered me. I studied enough to get decent grades, but am not convinced of the theory because if macroevoltion takes place, how come we don't see any creatures transitioning now? Has it stopped? Can dna mutation take place in species with them surving it? It's hard for me to get my head around that concept. That's what has always bothered me about the theory. It always seemed to me to be smoke and mirrors, a secular religion to study and pass class.

Eyesore wrote:

Stender wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Stender wrote:

Um, I'm not really sure what you mean by factual evolution theory...because there is none.

Uh...yes there is.

Can you explain yourself instead of writing condescending one sentence posts please?

There is NO proof of evolution from nothing.

Ah, here we go. Looks like the Limp Bizkit thread gave a few others a chance to be brave and start insulting me. Sweet.

If you think that comment was condescending, your brain needs to evolve. (And yes, that is a condescending comment.)

Look man, all I am asking is for you to state the factual evidence that you so confidently said exists....I don't just start an argument with stupid twats for no reason, but I'm not going to take shite from one either.

Eyesore wrote:

Stender wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Stender wrote:

Um, I'm not really sure what you mean by factual evolution theory...because there is none.

Uh...yes there is.

Can you explain yourself instead of writing condescending one sentence posts please?

There is NO proof of evolution from nothing.

Ah, here we go. Looks like the Limp Bizkit thread gave a few others a chance to be brave and start insulting me. Sweet.

If you think that comment was condescending, your brain needs to evolve. (And yes, that is a condescending comment.)

Sometimes you just beg for crap Ken.


Without getting overly involved in what could really spin out of control on some "Christian Metal" boards, I will just offer this scientific piece of evidence/fact.

When NASA sent astronauts to the moon, they equipped the landing module with inflatable "wings". Why? Because by their "scientific" calculation, judged on the fact that the Earth is millions of years old, there was suppose to be over six feet of collected moondust on the surface. When they got up there, there was less than 2 inches. By their "scientific" calculations, that would make the moon, and thusly the Earth, around 6000 years old. Now the FACT of 2 inches of moondust can mean three things. The Earth is only 6000 years old, as taught by creationists, science made another major blunder in thier calculations, as taught by skeptics such as myself, or the moon landing was a hoax [which is a theory held by many]. No matter how ya slice it, it is a pretty interesting topic no one talks about anymore.

Stender wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Stender wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Stender wrote:

Um, I'm not really sure what you mean by factual evolution theory...because there is none.

Uh...yes there is.

Can you explain yourself instead of writing condescending one sentence posts please?

There is NO proof of evolution from nothing.

Ah, here we go. Looks like the Limp Bizkit thread gave a few others a chance to be brave and start insulting me. Sweet.

If you think that comment was condescending, your brain needs to evolve. (And yes, that is a condescending comment.)

Look man, all I am asking is for you to state the factual evidence that you so confidently said exists....I don't just start an argument with stupid twats for no reason, but I'm not going to take shite from one either.

You picked the fight here, so kindly shove the insults where your poop gets pounded. I don't need to give facts to one who will shoot everything down no matter what, which is exactly what you want to do.

Quote :

factual evolution theory

A contradiction.

Quote :

how come we don't see any creatures transitioning now?

Exactly!

Adaptation within one species is not eveolution either...

Too bad i'm going to be out of town for a couple days... I guess i'll see how this turned out when i return.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

Just a question for you many Christians on this board.

You believe that god created the world and all of man kind - Does this mean you deny all of the factual evolution theory, or what are your views on it?

Just asking because I am really interested

Mglaffas

And you've been here long enough to KNOW what this would bring...

GrandNational wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

What is it?

There's a difference between microevolution as represented by natural selection and macroevolution where one species evolves into another.

Where's the transitional form in the fossil record? Where is the fish-amphibian or the amphibi-mammal?

Good point. Microevolution is fact (look at the dog species) but macroevoltion is just a theory put forth so we can have science class with scientific point of view. It's never bothered me. I studied enough to get decent grades, but am not convinced of the theory because if macroevoltion takes place, how come we don't see any creatures transitioning now? Has it stopped? Can dna mutation take place in species with them surving it? It's hard for me to get my head around that concept. That's what has always bothered me about the theory. It always seemed to me to be smoke and mirrors, a secular religion to study and pass class.

You could say you don't see transitioning now from one species to another because you don't know of the future species.......but the fact that subspecies and different genetic populations exist furthers the point that evolution is still happening, just that it takes a long long time.

The best living example for evolution i think is Queensland Lungfish which has virtually remained unchanged for 100 million years but also dates back to 380 million in the fossil record. The Lungfish shares common characteristics with both fish and amphibians, it gulps air out of water as well as breathing through gills, egg and embroyo devolopment is like that of amphibians, muscle devolopment is an intermediate between amphibians and fish and it can exist on land but all told it is still a fish. It's not usually accepted that these Lungfish are a missing link between fish and amphibians and held as an evolutionary "dead end" by scientists but it is likely that amphibians and Lungfish shared a common ancestor that shared traits of both.

I'm evolving as we speak. The lump on the back of my neck is growing bigger every day. I think it will eventually develop into a set of really cool bat-wings.

rattpoison wrote:

You could say you don't see transitioning now from one species to another because you don't know of the future species.......but the fact that subspecies and different genetic populations exist furthers the point that evolution is still happening, just that it takes a long long time.

Listen Nostradamus, show me real and tangible species right now that are transforming and mutating as we speak into other species and them maybe we can talk.