Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I’m not sure what your point is here . I am simply pointing out that if one has to choose between science one can see works and is therefore true, vs having to have faith in religious myths that reject science, I tell people will almost always choose science , because they can see whiter needing faith that it works .
My point is that there is no virtue in the "choice" these people are allegedly making.
Humility recognizes that my vision may be flawed, my perception may be skewed, and other people who went before me are much holier and wiser than I.
"Science" is not the arbiter of truth or the measure by which we judge things. "Science" is (or ought to be) nothing but an acceptable method of inquiry; an imperfect tool that can either be used or misused, used impartially or weaponized. "Science", like all things human, is flawed and prone to error.
Intelligent design and creation is far more widely accepted and supported than 'human evolution,' which is widely rejected as 'junk science' across the scientific community. The real question of human evolution is no longer, "When will real, non-refuted, fossil (or other) evidence of evolution finally be discovered (ie; 'ape-man'). Meanwhile, no statement in Scripture, creation or otherwise' has ever been discredited or exposed as a hoax. (Note: the young-earth theory is an entirely different subject, as to some extent is Intelligent design)
A few, random statements by scientists and scholars, renouncing Darwinian evolution:
“The fossil record has no intermediate or transitional forms. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it exists in all species. The missing link problem is getting worse, not better, with the discovery of more fossils. The missing links are not being discovered, which proves they never existed. Darwin assumed transitional forms would be discovered in the fossil record over time, but that has not been the case. The fossil record, or lack thereof, is a major embarrassment to evolutionists. The fossil record is a serious rebuke of the Theory of Evolution. New species literally explode onto the scene out of nowhere. New fossil discoveries continue to prove evolution to be wrong.” -- Denton, Michael-Phd, Senior Fellow in molecular biology; Author: 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.’
….. “A dog has only 22 chromosomes, whereas a monkey has 54 and cats have 38. Half of the total number of chromosomes are contained in the female reproductive cells and half are contained in the male, so the exact total number is brought together in the offspring.”
“Humans have 46 chromosomes. This chromosome count is a steady factor. … called the "fixity of species" because the chromosome count doesn't vary. People always give birth to people. Dogs always give birth to dogs, etc. The genes can produce variety within the species but cannot result in a different species. Genes allow for people to be short, tall, fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc., but they are still all human beings. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier. This certainly would hinder any evolution. Dogs cannot breed with cats. This fact stops evolution dead in its tracks.” [#41]…Rieske, Kent. R. B.SC; Kent R. Rieske, Developed hypothesis of the "missing inferior evolutionary branches" in 2008 [#41]. Author:
"The missing link problem is getting worse, not better, with the discovery of more fossils.” --- “The missing links are not being discovered, which proves they never existed. Darwin assumed transitional forms would be discovered in the fossil record over time, but that has not been the case. The fossil record, or lack thereof, is a major embarrassment to evolutionists” .... Professor Steve Jay Gould -- Harvard Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
“Darwin's strongest critics were scientists, and the theologians who criticized him objected mainly to his philosophical insistence on natural causes and his denial of design--which Princeton's Charles Hodge regarded as ‘tantamount to atheism.’ Even today, many critics of Darwinism are not religious fundamentalists, and a growing number of critics are credentialed scientists” --- Jonathan wells - The Problem of Evidence' - Forbes, Feb. 5, 2009 -- Molecular biologist, author and advocate of intelligent design
“The idea of slow evolution by infinitesimally small inherited variations’ etc. has been falsified by the findings of paleontology … as well [as] genetic. Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against neo-Darwinism” Scientists continue to to support evolution, despite the evidence that actually falsified evolution, because ‘without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against the intelligent origin of the world and species. --- Wolf-Ekkehard Lonning, Geneticist and Biologist (Retired) from Max-Planck Institute, Quoted in 2014 interview with ‘The Diplomacy Post’ – Multi-book author; (non-Christian)
“The fossil record is a serious rebuke of the Theory of Evolution. New species explode onto the scene out of nowhere. New fossil discoveries continue to prove evolution to be wrong. “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logical coherent evidence, but because the only other alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. If a world view is created where the possibility of God is ruled out, then He becomes incredible. When people so blind their minds to the fact that they will not conceivably accept the fact of God, then any theory of evolution will do” - Professor James D. Watson, Molecular biologist, Harvard, Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA
“It’s no wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen! Evolution cannot forever be ‘going on somewhere else.” Niles Eldrege – American Paleontologist and Biologist. Author of: ‘Darwin: Discovering the Tree’, 2005, ‘Reinventing Darwin’, 1995, and ‘Eternal Ephemera: (2015 adaptation)
“... It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end -- no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. ... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside super-intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back” - Cohen. I. L.- Mathematician and researcher; Officer of Archaeological Institute of America; Author: ‘Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities,’ 1984, pp. 214, 215).
“The doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is, in essence, a metaphysical claim. ... Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb.” Wolfgang Smith–Mathematics Scientist at Bell Laboratories; Mathematics Professor at MIT, UCLA and Oregon State
“The fossil record is a serious rebuke of the Theory of Evolution. New species explode onto the scene out of nowhere. New fossil discoveries continue to prove evolution to be wrong. “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logical coherent evidence, but because the only other alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. If a world view is created where the possibility of God is ruled out, then He becomes incredible. When people so blind their minds to the fact that they will not conceivably accept the fact of God, then any theory of evolution will do.” - Professor D. M. S. Watson, Zoologist, Harvard Professor
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge. The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." Dr. Albert Fleischmann, Zoologist, Professor
“The proof in favor of an intelligent God as the author of creation stood as infinity to one against any other hypothesis of ultimate causation; that it was infinitely more probable that a set of writing implements thrown promiscuously against parchment would produce a composition of Homer’s Iliad, than that creation was originated by any other cause than God. Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace (1749– 1827); French scholar mathematician, statististician and astronomer. His work led to advanced geometry, calculus and astronomy.
"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Carles Darwin, “Origin Of The Species”:
“The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.” - Charles Darwin, Descent of Man
The fact that almost ALL of the reported "missing links" have been completely refuted, is covered in Scientific Journals and other, with far less fanfare then their original publicized finding:
‘NEANDERTHAL MAN’ was first discovered in 1856 and promoted by early evolutionists. It was reclassified as 100-percent human and dropped from “ape-man” consideration in the 1960’s and 1970’s. [#37]…. ---
HOMO ERECTUS (JAVA MAN, PEKIN MAN) was first proposed in 1891 and promoted by Eugene Dubois, Tilhard de Chardin, and Franz Weidenraich. Its ancestral status was rendered highly questionable by the discovery of a skull 1470 in 1972. [#37]….
PILTDOWN MAN was proposed in 1912 by Arthur Keith and accepted by most evolutionists, but, exposed as a complete hoax in 1953. [#37]….
HESPEROPITHECUS: - Hesperopithecus’ proposed in 1922 by Harold Cook, was found to be an extinct pig in 1927. [#37]….
‘AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFRICANUS’ was discovered in 1924 by Raymond Dart, Robert Ardrey and Maitland Edey and was disqualified by the discovery of skull 1470 in 1972.
‘ZINJANTHROPUS: discovered by Doctor Leakey in 1959, was sold in educational circles. Zinjanthropus was evicted from the human family tree by Leakeys discovery of Homo habilis in 1960’s. [#37]….
AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS “LUCY” was discovered in 1974 and first proposed in 1979 by Donald Johanson, Timothy While and Maitland Edey. From the onset, it has faced problems and mounting controversy through the 1980’s [#37)
Rather than continue on here, suffice it to say there is also a huge number of Nobel prize winners, among other Scientists, who strongly support Intelligent Design.
I edited my post and stated that I surfed through the article.
You are showing me words and theories. I want to see some kind of man/animal hybrid that is in the process of evolving towards humanity. If the excuse is that the process lasts longer than our lifespans, then there should be some beings in the middle of the evolution process that can be observed, right? Is that too much to ask from a scientific perspective?
What is observable today is humans being conceived thru sexual activity and being born through the birth canal. There's plenty of science there. It happens on a daily basis. It is not debatable.
Yes, I have shown you words. Words which state the fact that evolution has been and is observable.
Your assertion that you want to see ''some kind of man/animal hybrid that is in the process of evolving towards humanity'' is silly for two reasons. First is that evolution on that scale takes place over many thousands and millions of years and therefore is not observable first hand, unlike evolution that is observable with regard to plants and animals that have short enough generations to allow for observations of evolutionary changes. Secondly, the evolution of man from a common ancestor has already taken place and is not now happening.
DRob, the fact that you keep bringing up human beings being conceived through sexual activity and coming through the birth canal and trying to relate that to evolution shows that you don't know anything about evolution. You're making uninformed arguments in an attempt to discredit evolution and your arguments fail. They simply fail.
Intelligent design and creation is far more widely accepted and supported than 'human evolution,' which is widely rejected as 'junk science' across the scientific community. The real question of human evolution is no longer, "When will real, non-refuted, fossil (or other) evidence of evolution finally be discovered (ie; 'ape-man'). It is, "When will the fact that no statement in Scripture, creation or otherwise' has ever been discredited or exposed as a hoax, be ignored?
A few, random statements by scientists and scholars, renouncing Darwinian evolution:
“The fossil record has no intermediate or transitional forms. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it exists in all species. The missing link problem is getting worse, not better, with the discovery of more fossils. The missing links are not being discovered, which proves they never existed. Darwin assumed transitional forms would be discovered in the fossil record over time, but that has not been the case. The fossil record, or lack thereof, is a major embarrassment to evolutionists. The fossil record is a serious rebuke of the Theory of Evolution. New species literally explode onto the scene out of nowhere. New fossil discoveries continue to prove evolution to be wrong.” -- Denton, Michael-Phd, Senior Fellow in molecular biology; Author: 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.’
….. “A dog has only 22 chromosomes, whereas a monkey has 54 and cats have 38. Half of the total number of chromosomes are contained in the female reproductive cells and half are contained in the male, so the exact total number is brought together in the offspring.”
“Humans have 46 chromosomes. This chromosome count is a steady factor. … called the "fixity of species" because the chromosome count doesn't vary. People always give birth to people. Dogs always give birth to dogs, etc. The genes can produce variety within the species but cannot result in a different species. Genes allow for people to be short, tall, fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc., but they are still all human beings. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier. This certainly would hinder any evolution. Dogs cannot breed with cats. This fact stops evolution dead in its tracks.” [#41]…Rieske, Kent. R. B.SC; Kent R. Rieske, Developed hypothesis of the "missing inferior evolutionary branches" in 2008 [#41]. Author:
"The missing link problem is getting worse, not better, with the discovery of more fossils.” --- “The missing links are not being discovered, which proves they never existed. Darwin assumed transitional forms would be discovered in the fossil record over time, but that has not been the case. The fossil record, or lack thereof, is a major embarrassment to evolutionists” .... Professor Steve Jay Gould -- Harvard Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
“Darwin's strongest critics were scientists, and the theologians who criticized him objected mainly to his philosophical insistence on natural causes and his denial of design--which Princeton's Charles Hodge regarded as ‘tantamount to atheism.’ Even today, many critics of Darwinism are not religious fundamentalists, and a growing number of critics are credentialed scientists” --- Jonathan wells - The Problem of Evidence' - Forbes, Feb. 5, 2009 -- Molecular biologist, author and advocate of intelligent design
“The idea of slow evolution by infinitesimally small inherited variations’ etc. has been falsified by the findings of paleontology … as well [as] genetic. Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against neo-Darwinism” Scientists continue to to support evolution, despite the evidence that actually falsified evolution, because ‘without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against the intelligent origin of the world and species. --- Wolf-Ekkehard Lonning, Geneticist and Biologist (Retired) from Max-Planck Institute, Quoted in 2014 interview with ‘The Diplomacy Post’ – Multi-book author; (non-Christian)
“The fossil record is a serious rebuke of the Theory of Evolution. New species explode onto the scene out of nowhere. New fossil discoveries continue to prove evolution to be wrong. “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logical coherent evidence, but because the only other alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. If a world view is created where the possibility of God is ruled out, then He becomes incredible. When people so blind their minds to the fact that they will not conceivably accept the fact of God, then any theory of evolution will do” - Professor James D. Watson, Molecular biologist, Harvard, Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA
“It’s no wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen! Evolution cannot forever be ‘going on somewhere else.” Niles Eldrege – American Paleontologist and Biologist. Author of: ‘Darwin: Discovering the Tree’, 2005, ‘Reinventing Darwin’, 1995, and ‘Eternal Ephemera: (2015 adaptation)
“... It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end -- no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. ... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside super-intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back” - Cohen. I. L.- Mathematician and researcher; Officer of Archaeological Institute of America; Author: ‘Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities,’ 1984, pp. 214, 215).
Actually, John, most scientists firmly accept the fact of evolution. According to a recent PEW Research report,
3 ''Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans evolved over time, and most Americans are aware that this is the case. Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time.''
It is a misconception that evolution is a theory in crisis.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it.
CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory is not in crisis; scientists accept evolution as the best explanation for life’s diversity because of the multiple lines of evidence supporting it, its broad power to explain biological phenomena, and its ability to make accurate predictions in a wide variety of situations. Scientists do not debate whether evolution took place, but they do debate many details of how evolution occurred and occurs in different circumstances. Antievolutionists may hear the debates about how evolution occurs and misinterpret them as debates about whether evolution occurs. Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide.
Actually, John, most scientists firmly accept the fact of evolution. According to a recent PEW Research report,
3 ''Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans evolved over time, and most Americans are aware that this is the case. Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time.''
It is a misconception that evolution is a theory in crisis.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it.
CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory is not in crisis; scientists accept evolution as the best explanation for life’s diversity because of the multiple lines of evidence supporting it, its broad power to explain biological phenomena, and its ability to make accurate predictions in a wide variety of situations. Scientists do not debate whether evolution took place, but they do debate many details of how evolution occurred and occurs in different circumstances. Antievolutionists may hear the debates about how evolution occurs and misinterpret them as debates about whether evolution occurs. Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide.
Sure, there are some scientists who disagree with evolutionary theory, but most scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution as fact.
You are dealing with people who think they are protecting their belief in God by denying evolution. It is a losing proposition because their belief in God is too important to them to ever consider anything that would invalidate it in their minds. This is because they equate belief in God with belief in the "precepts and doctrines of men" that they have been taught in their religion.
That has been the major misdirection that religions have taken from focusing on belief in God to belief in specific beliefs ABOUT God. It is symptomatic of our tribal nature to congregate around such distinctions instead of focusing on our common heritage as children of God.
The OP conflates what are in fact two distinct issues: (1) the age of the universe (and/or earth) and (2) the origin of life itself and the human species.
The age of the universe is a no-brainer. The universe isn't 6,000 years old or 10,000 years old or whatever Young Earth number you prefer. It's billions of years old. The earth is likewise billions of years old. This has been established to a scientific certainty.
The Young Earth position is purely a theological one, with only lunatic fringe "science" to bolster it. The science be damned, Young Earthers say, they believe the Bible. Alas, nothing in the Bible mandates a Young Earth any more than it mandates a flat one.
I've said on numerous forums that I don't think anyone, from Ken Ham ("Answers in Genesis") on down, sincerely believes the earth is 6,000 years old. It's just some strange pretense that's supposed to demonstrate faith: "I'm such a man of God that I don't care if I look like an idiot in the eyes of 99.999% of the world, including the vast majority of my fellow Christians."
A Young Earther is, of course, forced into a rejection of evolutionary theory since the evolutionary scenario can't be fit into 6,500 years or anything like it. Not to mention the fact that Genesis does explicitly posit the direct creation of humans. This isn't true of all Christians, however. Many ostensible Christians do accept so-called theistic evolution and regard the Genesis account as simply expressing the spiritual truth that humans are special to God.
The origin of life itself and of homo sapiens in particular are entirely - ENTIRELY - different matters from the age of the universe but are likewise entirely scientific questions. I care little about the Genesis creation account, apart from the fact that it provides an orderly, almost modern-sounding, explanation of creation that is in stark contrast to every other ancient creation story. In that sense, I believe it was divinely inspired.
In contrast to the age of the universe, the "scientific certainty" about the origin of life is pretty much zero. Science has NO good explanation for the origin of life. So-called "chemical evolution" has essentially no supporting evidence and is riddled with massive conceptual problems. Entirely secular scientists freely admit this. If you think otherwise, you're very badly informed.
(Pretty close to 100% of scientists have no particular reason to care about the origin of life, so the ignorance even among scientists is vast. Ditto for quantum mechanics - Newtonian physics works just fine for 99% of scientists, including most physicists, whose knowledge about the implications of QM is minimal. Ditto, for that matter, for evolutionary theory.)
The supposed "scientific certainty" about macroevolution (as opposed to mere adaptation) is little more than an advertising campaign. Across multiple scientific disciplines, entirely secular scientists recognize that neo-Darwinism or anything like it can't explain what it purports to explain and simply can't be true. Entirely secular conferences have been held on this topic. Current estimates are that one-third of biologists have serious reservations about neo-Darwinism. If you doubt this, you're very badly informed and need to do your homework.
I am as unconvinced about the supposed evolution of homo sapiens as I am convinced about the age of the universe. If so-called theistic evolution were proved to a level of scientific certainty, it wouldn't bother me any more than the age of the universe bothers me now. But I see the evidence and the momentum increasingly pointing in the other direction, and I'm as well-informed as a layman can reasonably be. I don't insist in direction creation by God; I merely say there has to be a better explanation than neo-Darwinism.
In short, it's misleading to paint with the same brush Young Earth Creationists and other Christians who have serious reservations about evolutionary theory. The age of the universe and the origin of life and the human species are entirely different issues, with vastly different quanta of scientific evidence supporting them.
You are dealing with people who think they are protecting their belief in God by denying evolution. It is a losing proposition because their belief in God is too important to them to ever consider anything that would invalidate it in their minds. This is because they equate belief in God with belief in the "precepts and doctrines of men" that they have been taught in their religion.
That has been the major misdirection that religions have taken from focusing on belief in God to belief in specific beliefs ABOUT God. It is symptomatic of our tribal nature to congregate around such distinctions instead of focusing on our common heritage as children of God.
Yes, this is true. It is an overly wooden and narrow understanding of the biblical creation accounts. In my view, the fact that God used evolutionary processes to bring about man reveals him to be far greater than if he had simply poofed everything into existence in six literal days.
We don't need videos or commentators to proof or dispute matters of Christianity. We need an active familiarity of the Gospels and an active / meditating / praying open-line of communication with God. Nothing can top one-on-on communication with the creator and source, along with help from the spirit.
The OP conflates what are in fact two distinct issues: (1) the age of the universe (and/or earth) and (2) the origin of life itself and the human species.
The OP is dealing with the claims made by young earth creationist Dave Bisbee who is the Vice President of Genesis Apologetics and how his claims are refuted by atheist AronRa.
Quote:
The age of the universe is a no-brainer. The universe isn't 6,000 years old or 10,000 years old or whatever Young Earth number you prefer. It's billions of years old. The earth is likewise billions of years old. This has been established to a scientific certainty.
The Young Earth position is purely a theological one, with only lunatic fringe "science" to bolster it. The science be damned, Young Earthers say, they believe the Bible. Alas, nothing in the Bible mandates a Young Earth any more than it mandates a flat one.
I've said on numerous forums that I don't think anyone, from Ken Ham ("Answers in Genesis") on down, sincerely believes the earth is 6,000 years old. It's just some strange pretense that's supposed to demonstrate faith: "I'm such a man of God that I don't care if I look like an idiot in the eyes of 99.999% of the world, including the vast majority of my fellow Christians."
A Young Earther is, of course, forced into a rejection of evolutionary theory since the evolutionary scenario can't be fit into 6,500 years or anything like it. Not to mention the fact that Genesis does explicitly posit the direct creation of humans. This isn't true of all Christians, however. Many ostensible Christians do accept so-called theistic evolution and regard the Genesis account as simply expressing the spiritual truth that humans are special to God.
The origin of life itself and of homo sapiens in particular are entirely - ENTIRELY - different matters from the age of the universe but are likewise entirely scientific questions. I care little about the Genesis creation account, apart from the fact that it provides an orderly, almost modern-sounding, explanation of creation that is in stark contrast to every other ancient creation story. In that sense, I believe it was divinely inspired.
In contrast to the age of the universe, the "scientific certainty" about the origin of life is pretty much zero. Science has NO good explanation for the origin of life. So-called "chemical evolution" has essentially no supporting evidence and is riddled with massive conceptual problems. Entirely secular scientists freely admit this. If you think otherwise, you're very badly informed.
(Pretty close to 100% of scientists have no particular reason to care about the origin of life, so the ignorance even among scientists is vast. Ditto for quantum mechanics - Newtonian physics works just fine for 99% of scientists, including most physicists, whose knowledge about the implications of QM is minimal. Ditto, for that matter, for evolutionary theory.)
The supposed "scientific certainty" about macroevolution (as opposed to mere adaptation) is little more than an advertising campaign. Across multiple scientific disciplines, entirely secular scientists recognize that neo-Darwinism or anything like it can't explain what it purports to explain and simply can't be true. Entirely secular conferences have been held on this topic. Current estimates are that one-third of biologists have serious reservations about neo-Darwinism. If you doubt this, you're very badly informed and need to do your homework.
I am as unconvinced about the supposed evolution of homo sapiens as I am convinced about the age of the universe. If so-called theistic evolution were proved to a level of scientific certainty, it wouldn't bother me any more than the age of the universe bothers me now. But I see the evidence and the momentum increasingly pointing in the other direction, and I'm as well-informed as a layman can reasonably be. I don't insist in direction creation by God; I merely say there has to be a better explanation than neo-Darwinism.
In short, it's misleading to paint with the same brush Young Earth Creationists and other Christians who have serious reservations about evolutionary theory. The age of the universe and the origin of life and the human species are entirely different issues, with vastly different quanta of scientific evidence supporting them.
While Neo-Darwinism evolution succeeded Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism is not the only model of evolution today. There are other views such as ' evo-devo' for instance. Evolution is not in doubt among the vast majority of scientists. Only how evolution operates.
MISCONCEPTION: Most biologists have rejected ‘Darwinism’ and no longer agree with the ideas put forth by Darwin and Wallace.
CORRECTION: It is true that we have learned a lot about evolution since Darwin’s time. Today, we understand the genetic basis for the inheritance of traits, we can date many events in the fossil record to within a few hundred thousand years, and we can study how evolution has shaped development at a molecular level. These advances — ones that Darwin likely could not have imagined — have expanded evolutionary theory and made it much more powerful; however, they have not overturned the basic principles of evolution by natural selection and common ancestry that Darwin and Wallace laid out, but have simply added to them. It’s important to keep in mind that elaboration, modification, and expansion of scientific theories is a normal part of the process of science. For more on how evolutionary theory changes, see our misconception on this topic above.
We don't need videos or commentators to proof or dispute matters of Christianity. We need an active familiarity of the Gospels and an active / meditating / praying open-line of communication with God. Nothing can top one-on-on communication with the creator and source, along with help from the spirit.
No, we need science to explain the natural world which God created. The Bible doesn't do science. It does theology.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are dealing with people who think they are protecting their belief in God by denying evolution. It is a losing proposition because their belief in God is too important to them to ever consider anything that would invalidate it in their minds. This is because they equate belief in God with belief in the "precepts and doctrines of men" that they have been taught in their religion. 
