That’s pretty funny, and Maggie just had a streak of good luck, shutting God out. I claim her ‘lottery wins’ as fact just like I do evolution. I’m sorry you aren’t grasping God’s providence willingly.
What a compelling counterargument! Wow! 
Only in the wonderful world of evolution science can consensus turn a theory into a fact. Fascinating.
1 Like
What does Tiktaalik prove?
Speaking of old chestnuts, that was vapid before the first one.
I’m not fascinated by your fascination, but it also happens in physics.
Good point, Richard. The danger is that the theory of evolution can be interpreted as “Life did not need a Creator since it’s the result of an understood natural process.” I’ve encountered several former Christians online who lost their faith precisely due to that interpretation.
I also recall a Catholic nun back in the 1970s telling us, “They lied to us. They said we were created, but we evolved” … a few years later she left her Order.
It’s interesting that the vast majority of evolutionary scientists are atheists … who want all of us to accept their theory as fact.
The late William B. Provine stated, “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”
I’m fascinated that you’re not fascinated by my fascination.
No matter how desperately you want to believe it, it’s impossible for ToE to become a fact.
I agree … I will never be as intelligent and sensible as RichardG.
1 Like
The problem is that some Christians who are scientists do not see it. They have managed to combine their faith into evolution. They then assume that all Christians do the same.
I have seen evolution wreck faith. In many ways YEC is less dangerous. The problem with YEC is that science works against it. Fortunately most YECs can mentally dismiss this.
I have argued against YEC but it can damage an otherwise strong faith.
I have more problems with scientists who claim a Christian viewpoint. They look at my criticisms of evolution as a personal affront to their scientific work.
And, of course, some make it their mission to discredit me (mentioning no names)
Richard
I know what you mean.
“Your problem, Richard, is that you don’t understand how evolution works”, for example?
1 Like
Sigh,
Yes
Better not go there.
Richard
1 Like
What you need to do, Richard, is read a good evolution textbook, then all your doubts will disappear and you’ll become a true (Darwinian) believer. I mean, just look how well that works for all those biology graduates. LOL.
1 Like
It seems that I don’t know how evolution works. How did evolution produce the hollow fangs of a venomous snake? How did evolution produce the poison gland of a venomous snake? How did evolution connect said poison gland to said hollow fangs?
Yeah, my College qualifications are 40 years out of date.
Science has adapted to the criticisms and evolved a stronger response to them
Richard
1 Like
The same way that we can’t describe how trees grow? Or the sun emits light? Or measure the spectrum of a galaxy?
Also, that is insulting to those who work with non-laboratory science, whether astronomy, most of geology that isn’t geochemistry, biology of anything large, etc., etc. It seems patently obvious to me at least that the entire world can be considered a laboratory of sorts, just one that’s difficult to control all the variables in.
The exact mechanisms of evolution are a theory: a scientific descriptor of a part of how the world works, from which specific hypotheses can be derived and tested. That some level of evolution occurs is a fact, as it can be directly observed in bacteria within a lifetime, and from historical records of traits of well-documented species (crops, livestock, people, etc.).
3 Likes
The same way that gravity can be?
1 Like
So, since a sheep dog evolved from a wolf, a mammal can evolve from a fish? I may be stupid, but not stupid enuf to swallow a theory based on that sort of logic.
1 Like
Gravity is not biological evolution. You’re veering off-topic.
And what has gravity got to do with the price of fish?
It’s a scientific theory?
There is absolutely nothing in common between the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity. For a start one can be observed (in full) and one cannot.
Where do you get off on taking offencee? It’s nt as if anyone is questioning all science.
Can’t you see the difference between something that is fullyobservable and evolution? You cannot see the evolution of a fish to anything, let alone a mammal!
Despite watching literally millions of reproducing microbes there has yet to be a new actual creature of any type bred. They are still microbes. They may show changes in resistance to certain environments or stimuli but they are still microbes.
There is no actual proof that an amoeba can ever mutate into anything other than an amoeba, or a fish into anytig other than a fish.
The theory of a single ancestor to all life is fantasy, not fact.
Richard