onceforgivennowfree

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I have learned here but I do not believe things without evidence especially when man says this is true.There is no evidence to prove life like dinosaurs can evolve into birds which is why I'm a skeptic.Bacteria does not prove it like I said above.

Seriously how old are you?

 

[DutchLiam84]

I have learned here but I do not believe things without evidence especially when man says this is true.There is no evidence to prove life like dinosaurs can evolve into birds which is why I'm a skeptic.Bacteria does not prove it like I said above.

You are not a skeptic, you are a denier!

Do you concede that you don't know what adapt or evolve means and that they are actually synonymous?
And again, who's "they"?

 

[Rumraket]

False, we expect shared derived similarities to fall into nesting hierarchies to an overwhelming statistical degree. We expect this both from an entirely theoretical understanding of the process and from direct, concrete empirical observations from laboratory experiments

Yes, I forgot to consider the mysterious statistical model that nobody has been able to show in this fórum

I have linked that model to you several times, here it is again for the 3rd time:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

Here is the part about the statistics of incongruent phylogenies:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/incongruent.html

As you can see, therefore the evolutionary process manifestly produces such patterns. So those are the patterns we would always expect the genetic and morphological data to overwhelmingly support.

Yes, I agree these are the patterns that we would expect to see if evolution where true, the problem is that we don´t see such patterns

False, we absolutely see such patterns, to an overwhelming statistical degree well within the limits described in the above link.

Some examples:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20463738
A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry.
Theobald DL.

Abstract
Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory. As first suggested by Darwin, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to 'local' common ancestry-for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life-and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous. Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.

This one is particularly interesting, because they actually test for an evolutionary tree only with bacterial and archaeal genomes. In other words, this is the case where we would expect the most amount of HGT to "fuck up" the picture of a tree-like statistical trend. And yet, they still find a central tree-like trend supported by the statistics.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/11/46
Seeing the Tree of Life behind the phylogenetic forest
Pere Puigbò, Yuri I Wolf and Eugene V Koonin*

Anniversary Update
In the article entitled 'Search for a Tree of Life in the thicket of the phylogenetic forest', published in 2009 in Journal of Biology [1] (see also the accompanying comment [2]), we presented evidence that the traditional Tree of Life (TOL) can and should be replaced with a statistical central trend in the genome-wide compendium of phylogenetic trees that reflects the coherence between the evolutionary histories of different genes and was later denoted the Statistical Tree Of Life (STOL) [3]. Since Darwin's day, the TOL is the dominant icon of evolutionary biology [4,5], the basis of taxonomy and an essential framework for evolutionary reconstructions. In the late 1970s, ribosomal (r)RNA was introduced as a universal phylogenetic marker, primarily through the work of Carl Woese and colleagues [6,7], and the rRNA tree, complemented with trees for other universal genes such as the large RNA polymerase subunits, became the standard model for TOL study.

Technical difficulties notwithstanding, progress in genome sequencing combined with advances in phylogenetic analysis seemed to put a well-resolved TOL within reach [8,9]. However, as soon as a reasonable number of complete genome sequences of bacteria and archaea became available, phylogenomics - genome-wide phylogenetic analysis of individual gene trees - hopelessly marred this neat picture by showing that the trees of different genes generally had different topologies. The topological inconsistencies between gene trees were far too extensive to be dismissed as phylogenetic artifacts, leading to the realization that no single gene tree, including those for universal genes such as rRNA, could represent the evolution of genomes in its entirety. Hence the concepts of horizontal genomics or a 'net of life' were brought about to replace the simple notion of the TOL [10,11]. In the extreme, several influential studies proposed to dispense with 'tree thinking' altogether as an artificial construct having little to do with actual evolution, at least as far as bacteria and archaea are concerned [12-15].

The concept of 'horizontal genomics' involves an internal contradiction because the notion of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) inherently implies the existence of a standard of vertical, tree-like evolution, and most of the existing methods for HGT detection are based on the comparison of gene trees to a standard 'species tree', in practice often the rRNA tree [16,17]. If the vertical standard does not exist, the concept of HGT becomes effectively meaningless, so all we can talk about is a network of life, with nodes corresponding to genomes and edges reflecting gene exchange [18]. The stakes here are high because replacement of the TOL with a network graph would change our entire perception of the process of evolution and invalidate all evolutionary reconstruction based on a species tree. However, the tree representation is by no means superfluous to the description of evolution because the very process of the replication of genetic information implies a bifurcating graph - in other words, a tree [19]. Thus, the key question is [1,20]: in the genome-wide compendium of phylogenetic trees, that we denoted the Forest Of Life (FOL), can we detect any order, any preferred tree topology (branching order) that would reflect a consensus of the topologies of other trees?

We set out to address the above question as objectively as possible, first of all dispensing with any pre-selected standard of tree-like evolution. The analyzed FOL consisted of 6,901 maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees that were built for clusters of orthologous genes from a representative set of 100 diverse bacterial and archaeal genomes [1]. The complete matrix of topological distances between these trees was analyzed using the Inconsistency Score, a measure that we defined specifically for this purpose that reflects the average topological (in)consistency of a given tree with the rest of the trees in the FOL (for the details of the methods employed in this analysis, see [21]). Although the FOL includes very few trees with exactly identical topologies, we found that the topologies of the trees were far more congruent than expected by chance. The 102 Nearly Universal Trees (NUTs; that is, the trees for genes that are represented in all or nearly all archaea and bacteria), which include primarily genes for key protein components of the translation and transcription systems, showed particularly high topological similarity to the other trees in the FOL. Although the topologies of the NUTs are not identical, apparently reflecting multiple HGT events, these transfers appeared to be distributed randomly. In other words, there seem to be no prominent 'highways' of HGT that would preferentially connect particular groups of archaea and bacteria. Thus, although the NUTs cannot represent the FOL completely, they appear to reflect a significant central trend, an attractor in the tree space that could be equated with the STOL (Figure 1).

Obviously if we look at large multicellular eukaryotes, the picture would even more strongly support an expected evolutionary pattern to a much larger extend still.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0069924
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences
W. Timothy J. White, Bojian Zhong, David Penny

Abstract

We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast, nuclear and mitochondrial sequences, as well as for sequences that diverged at different time depths. Even on our conservative test, the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence for just one of the eight datasets of 51 proteins is ≈1×10−19 and combined over 8 datasets is ≈1×10−132. By comparison, there are about 1080 protons in the universe, hence the probability that the sequences could have been produced by a process involving unrelated ancestral sequences is about 1050 lower than picking, among all protons, the same proton at random twice in a row. A non-evolutionary control model shows no convergence, and only a small number of parameters are required to account for the observations. It is time that that researchers insisted that doubters put up testable alternatives to evolution.

you have to invoke things like convergent evolution or horizontal gene transfer to explain the inconsistencies in the phylogenetic tree.

And both horizontal gene transfer and convergent evolution is rare enough that it does not upset the statistical certainties attained, which matches expectations, because we expect that horizontal gene transfer would be rare in varying degress depending on the type or organisms we see transfer between. So they come with their own set of predictions. HGT would be expected to happen the most between organisms that have methods for taking up and incorporating foreign DNA. That would mostly be single celled organisms like bacteria and archaea. Also we would expect more HGT in the same groups because they're single celled, so any potential viral vector transfer would by definition infect the germ line. In contrast, for large multicellular eukaryotes, the odds that a potential viral vector transfer would infect the germline instead of some random somatic cell, is much much rarer, so you can see how we would expect much less HGT between large multicellular eukaryotes. All these predictions have been confirmed.

Also, horizontal gene transfer and convergent evolution are observed processes. It's not like they're being pulled out of a hat. I've already written about what we would mostly expect from cases of convergence, this also fits.

And again I must emphasize, the overwhelming pattern is one that matches a branching nesting phylogeny, exactly as we expect from evolution. Even with HGT and convergence included, the degree to which the trees derived from shared similarities support evolution is overwhelmingly statistically significant.

Why did you post that article, what is your point?

That convergent evolution makes it own set of predictions that can be used to test and falsify the inference. So that's another layer of possibility of falsification.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

You evolutionists teach dinosaurs evolved into birds and have no evidence that demonstrates that it can happen and then get angry when I point it out,instead of looking for the evidence yourself and presenting it.You fail to see that you believe dinosaurs evolved into birds and yet have no evidence you can provide to confirm this can happen.Why do you deny it and still keep on believing it?

How can it be that bacteria and viruses prove to you that life evolves?I mean I look at the same evidence you do and yet I notice that they remain bacteria,same thing with viruses they always remain viruses.So why do you accept this as evidence?Are you intellectually honest?

Because I am intellectually honest when I tell you bacteria does not confirm or prove that life evolves and neither do viruses.Yet you look at the fossils from an evolution point of view.Why? Everything in science is looked from an evolution point of view and yet there is NO evidence to show or demonstrate that one kind of life can evolve into a different kind of life.

I am not a liar.

 

[Rumraket]

You evolutionists teach dinosaurs evolved into birds and have no evidence that demonstrates that it can happen and then get angry when I point it out,instead of looking for the evidence yourself and presenting it.You fail to see that you believe dinosaurs evolved into birds and yet have no evidence you can provide to confirm this can happen.Why do you deny it and still keep on believing it?

How can it be that bacteria and viruses prove to you that life evolves?I mean I look at the same evidence you do and yet I notice that they remain bacteria,same thing with viruses they always remain viruses.So why do you accept this as evidence?Are you intellectually honest?

Because I am intellectually honest when I tell you bacteria does not confirm or prove that life evolves and neither do viruses.Yet you look at the fossils from an evolution point of view.Why? Everything in science is looked from an evolution point of view and yet there is NO evidence to show or demonstrate that one kind of life can evolve into a different kind of life.

I am not a liar.

Bla bla bla, you're a waste of time. You're obviously not here to have an open and honest discussion of the evidence, you're only here to show how well you can deny and reject everything we say to you.

Dude, there's no reason to care about having a discussion with you then. All reasonable people who come to this thread and read your interactions with the other members here can see you're not worth spending time on.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Hear, hear!

 

[Dave B.]

ok, so apart form similarities...what other evidence supports the idea that chikens evovled from Dinosaurs?

I guess you didn't read the paper...

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

ok, so apart form similarities...what other evidence supports the idea that chikens evovled from Dinosaurs?

I guess you didn't read the paper...

dandan's answer puts me in mind of John Cleese as the rebel leader in The Life Of Brian when he asks, "What have the Romans ever done for us?" - after various people give him a plethora of examples, he then asks, "Apart from .... what have the Romans ever done for us?":



Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

You evolutionists teach dinosaurs evolved into birds and have no evidence that demonstrates that it can happen and then get angry when I point it out,instead of looking for the evidence yourself and presenting it.You fail to see that you believe dinosaurs evolved into birds and yet have no evidence you can provide to confirm this can happen.Why do you deny it and still keep on believing it?

How can it be that bacteria and viruses prove to you that life evolves?I mean I look at the same evidence you do and yet I notice that they remain bacteria,same thing with viruses they always remain viruses.So why do you accept this as evidence?Are you intellectually honest?

Because I am intellectually honest when I tell you bacteria does not confirm or prove that life evolves and neither do viruses.Yet you look at the fossils from an evolution point of view.Why? Everything in science is looked from an evolution point of view and yet there is NO evidence to show or demonstrate that one kind of life can evolve into a different kind of life.

I am not a liar.

Bla bla bla, you're a waste of time. You're obviously not here to have an open and honest discussion of the evidence, you're only here to show how well you can deny and reject everything we say to you.

Dude, there's no reason to care about having a discussion with you then. All reasonable people who come to this thread and read your interactions with the other members here can see you're not worth spending time on.

Yes I am and if you read above in your post above you'll see I was right about it being assumed. Right here - Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life.

 

[DutchLiam84]

And they conclude this (in the abstract): "... the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html%3Flang%3Den
pdf here: http://theobald.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Theobald_2010_Nature_all.pdf

Now, is it still an assumption?

Please put quotes in quotation marks and link to where you found it.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

And they conclude this (in the abstract): "... the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html%3Flang%3Den
pdf here: http://theobald.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Theobald_2010_Nature_all.pdf

Now, is it still an assumption?

Please put quotes in quotation marks and link to where you found it.

Well I am just glad there are scientists admitting it is assumed .But the problem with the evidence you are giving is it has to do with horizontal gene transfer,which I have not argued and the evidence addresses this,not what I said.Here is what I'm talking about above.

Abstract
Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory. As first suggested by Darwin, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to 'local' common ancestry-for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life-and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous. Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.

 

[scalyblue]

And they conclude this (in the abstract): "... the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html%3Flang%3Den
pdf here: http://theobald.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Theobald_2010_Nature_all.pdf

Now, is it still an assumption?

Please put quotes in quotation marks and link to where you found it.

Well I am just glad there are scientists admitting it is assumed .But the problem with the evidence you are giving is it has to do with horizontal gene transfer,which I have not argued and the evidence addresses this,not what I said.Here is what I'm talking about above.

Abstract
Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory. As first suggested by Darwin, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to 'local' common ancestry-for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life-and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory.Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous. Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.

FTFY

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Well I am just glad there are scientists admitting it is assumed .But the problem with the evidence you are giving is it has to do with horizontal gene transfer,which I have not argued and the evidence addresses this,not what I said.Here is what I'm talking about above.

Abstract
Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory. As first suggested by Darwin, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to 'local' common ancestry-for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life-and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory.Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous. Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.[/quote]

FTFY[/quote]



OK but check this out.There is still much to learn and discuss as science moves forward.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7326/full/nature09482.html

 

[Rumraket]

OK but check this out.There is still much to learn and discuss as science moves forward.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7326/full/nature09482.html

Theobald has responded by showing there's a flaw in their model which, when properly accounted for leads to the correct conclusion.

http://theobald.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Theobald_2010_Nature_reply.pdf
Theobald reply
REPLYING TO T. Yonezawa & M. HasegawaNature468,doi:10.1038/nautre09482 (2010)

Yonezawa and Hasegawa1 provide an example from two apparentlyunrelated families of nucleic acid coding sequences for which an Akaike information criterion (AIC) model selection test, similar to mine2, chooses a common origin hypothesis. Although this may seem surprising, the coding sequences in this example were aligned in the same reading frame. The constraints of the genetic code are expected to induce correlations between these sequences (and among all coding sequences) that are not due to common ancestry. For instance, owing to codon bias and the structure of the genetic code, in these sequences the second codon position is biased towards T (about twofold over average), whereas the third position is usually an A (,50%) and rarely a G (,4%). One can account for these correlations explicitly by using codon models (as implemented in PAML3, codonFreq52 or 3) or standard amino acid models (as in PhyML4). With these more realistic models, independent ancestry is the strongly preferred hypothesis. Furthermore, the raw likelihoods and AIC scores increase significantly (by hundreds to thousands of logs), indicating that codon and amino acid models are greatly superior to the naive nucleotide models.

Sorry, common ancestry is still the best supported model.

 

[Inferno]

OK but check this out.There is still much to learn and discuss as science moves forward.

Well of course science moves forward and there's still much to learn and discuss. If science knew everything, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale most appeals to you.

Yes, there is debate. Yes, there are questions. But the fact that evolution happens is NOT one of these points of debate. Evolution happens, perhaps there was one or maybe a few origins of life, but special creation is definitely false.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

OK but check this out.There is still much to learn and discuss as science moves forward.

Well of course science moves forward and there's still much to learn and discuss. If science knew everything, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale most appeals to you.

Yes, there is debate. Yes, there are questions. But the fact that evolution happens is NOT one of these points of debate. Evolution happens, perhaps there was one or maybe a few origins of life, but special creation is definitely false.

Contrary to what you may think I am not anti-science.I do not think scientists are evil,etc I just value evidence.There are things that science can answer and things God can answer,there are things that science cannot answer and things God can.Evidence is something that is most persuasive to me.I do not care how many people think something is true,it does not matter to me at all.Evidence is what is going to convince me no matter how sincere you believe something because I know contrary to what atheists believe Christianity is founded on evidence but so is a lot of science,but not all of it is.

And despite what atheists think there is way more evidence for Christianity and the bible than for evolution and this sticks out to me big time but I am an old earth Gap theory creationist and so what I believe about the bible is backed up by secular science believe it or not.I am not a young earth creationist eventhough they are brothers in Christ and I know they mean well I disagree with a lot of what they teach.I believe it is possible that somebody could win a Nobel prize if they understood the Gap theory the bible reveals and could examine the scientific evidence and presented it however evolution might have to be done away with unless it is ever actually confirmed by science.At the very least the Gap theory could be worse to evolution than both young earth creationism and Intelligent design and regular old earth creationism too.

I beleve if understood properly the Gap theory could bridge the gap between science and Christianity.There is a barrier that needs to be broken down.I think you need both the bible and the science to interpret what science is telling us,but also what the bible told us about a former world that existed on this earth full of life that perished until this world was created. I mean I know there are layers and layers and layers of evidence for evolution but you must strip all of it away and get right down to the heart of the matter when it comes to evidence and be intellectually honest to see what I see.

For some reason alot of atheists seem to not be able to do this.But so much of science coming out is confirming the bible true,new things are being revealed to us that the bible had told us that science is confirming and yet everybody is blind to it and Satan wants this even if you don't believe in him,he is a liar and a deceiver,this does not mean scientists are evil.

 

[Rumraket]

Contrary to what you may think I am not anti-science.I do not think scientists are evil,etc I just value evidence.There are things that science can answer and things God can answer,there are things that science cannot answer and things God can.Evidence is something that is most persuasive to me.I do not care how many people think something is true,it does not matter to me at all.Evidence is what is going to convince me no matter how sincere you believe something because I know contrary to what atheists believe Christianity is founded on evidence but so is a lot of science,but not all of it is.

And despite what atheists think there is way more evidence for Christianity and the bible than for evolution and this sticks out to me big time but I am an old earth Gap theory creationist and so what I believe about the bible is backed up by secular science believe it or not.I am not a young earth creationist eventhough they are brothers in Christ and I know they mean well I disagree with a lot of what they teach.

I beleve if understood properly the Gap theory could bridge the gap between science and Christianity.There is a barrier that needs to be broken down.I think you need both the bible and the science to interpret what science is telling us,but also what the bible told us about a former world that existed on this earth full of life that perished until this world was created. I mean I know there are layers and layers and layers of evidence for evolution but you must strip all of it away and get right down to the heart of the matter when it comes to evidence and be intellectually honest to see what I see.

For some reason alot of atheists seem to not be able to do this.But so much of science coming out is confirming the bible true,new things are being revealed to us that the bible had told us that science is confirming and yet everybody is blind to it and Satan wants this even if you don't believe in him,he is a liar and a deceiver,this does not mean scientists are evil.

Thank you for this bunch of unsubstantiated faith-statements. :lol:

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Contrary to what you may think I am not anti-science.I do not think scientists are evil,etc I just value evidence.There are things that science can answer and things God can answer,there are things that science cannot answer and things God can.Evidence is something that is most persuasive to me.I do not care how many people think something is true,it does not matter to me at all.Evidence is what is going to convince me no matter how sincere you believe something because I know contrary to what atheists believe Christianity is founded on evidence but so is a lot of science,but not all of it is.

And despite what atheists think there is way more evidence for Christianity and the bible than for evolution and this sticks out to me big time but I am an old earth Gap theory creationist and so what I believe about the bible is backed up by secular science believe it or not.I am not a young earth creationist eventhough they are brothers in Christ and I know they mean well I disagree with a lot of what they teach.

I beleve if understood properly the Gap theory could bridge the gap between science and Christianity.There is a barrier that needs to be broken down.I think you need both the bible and the science to interpret what science is telling us,but also what the bible told us about a former world that existed on this earth full of life that perished until this world was created. I mean I know there are layers and layers and layers of evidence for evolution but you must strip all of it away and get right down to the heart of the matter when it comes to evidence and be intellectually honest to see what I see.

For some reason alot of atheists seem to not be able to do this.But so much of science coming out is confirming the bible true,new things are being revealed to us that the bible had told us that science is confirming and yet everybody is blind to it and Satan wants this even if you don't believe in him,he is a liar and a deceiver,this does not mean scientists are evil.

Thank you for this bunch of unsubstantiated faith-statements. :lol:

I believe it might even be possible to win a Nobel prize if somebody could understand the Gap theory and examine the scientific evidence.I believe it could be worse for evolution than young earth creationism,Intelligent design and regular old earth creationism.At the very least you could really put a lot more pressure on evolution unless they ever confirm truthfully that life truly evolves like they believe.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Contrary to what you may think I am not anti-science.I do not think scientists are evil,etc I just value evidence.There are things that science can answer and things God can answer,there are things that science cannot answer and things God can.Evidence is something that is most persuasive to me.I do not care how many people think something is true,it does not matter to me at all.Evidence is what is going to convince me no matter how sincere you believe something because I know contrary to what atheists believe Christianity is founded on evidence but so is a lot of science,but not all of it is.

And despite what atheists think there is way more evidence for Christianity and the bible than for evolution and this sticks out to me big time but I am an old earth Gap theory creationist and so what I believe about the bible is backed up by secular science believe it or not.I am not a young earth creationist eventhough they are brothers in Christ and I know they mean well I disagree with a lot of what they teach.

I beleve if understood properly the Gap theory could bridge the gap between science and Christianity.There is a barrier that needs to be broken down.I think you need both the bible and the science to interpret what science is telling us,but also what the bible told us about a former world that existed on this earth full of life that perished until this world was created. I mean I know there are layers and layers and layers of evidence for evolution but you must strip all of it away and get right down to the heart of the matter when it comes to evidence and be intellectually honest to see what I see.

For some reason alot of atheists seem to not be able to do this.But so much of science coming out is confirming the bible true,new things are being revealed to us that the bible had told us that science is confirming and yet everybody is blind to it and Satan wants this even if you don't believe in him,he is a liar and a deceiver,this does not mean scientists are evil.

I believe it might even be possible to win a Nobel prize if somebody could understand the Gap theory and examine the scientific evidence.I believe it could be worse for evolution than young earth creationism,Intelligent design and regular old earth creationism.At the very least you could really put a lot more pressure on evolution unless they ever confirm truthfully that life truly evolves like they believe.

One of the main evidences against a "Good" creator-entity is "The Problem of Evil".

The British philosopher, Stephen Law, has put forward an alternative view: a "Evil" creator-entity, for whom there is "The Problem of Good".

In effect, any "good" is a falsehood to dupe us into believing that "God" is good.

All religious texts that speak of "heaven", "paradise", etc, thus, can be seen as lies to dupe people into believing that everything will be alright in the end: whereas, the truth being that, we'll all suffer in eternal torment: regardless of whether we believe this or that religious text or not.

In fact, this is a far better explanation of reality than a "good" creator, since the latter appears either unable and/or unwilling to prevent harm befalling "his creation".

Nothing you can say shows that a creator-entity - if one exists - is "good", rather than "evil".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

Thank you for this bunch of unsubstantiated faith-statements. :lol:

I believe it might even be possible to win a Nobel prize if somebody could understand the Gap theory and examine the scientific evidence.I believe it could be worse for evolution than young earth creationism,Intelligent design and regular old earth creationism.At the very least you could really put a lot more pressure on evolution unless they ever confirm truthfully that life truly evolves like they believe.

Thank you for telling us even more about what you believe. :roll: