Discussion about Jesus’s death which now encompasses creationism and the second coming. Thread 2

[ZoggyStirdust]

Continues from here if anyone wants to

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5318577-to-not-understand-why-christians-think-jesus-died-for-our-sins?page=40&reply=143772264

I’m still fascinated to know how anyone in the modern era can be a creationist.

the links posted by a pp were fascinating, but contained a myriad of errors, untruths, and misinformation/misunderstandings.

Can you point out what the errors and untruths in the links were please? I have provided evidence for my beliefs but you have not yet been able to provide any for yours.

There are literally dozens in every point made. Hang on and I’ll have a look but they weren’t evidence of any description they were just nonsense.

as for proof of evolution, it’s everywhere. There are literally thousands of articles and papers. I could google and link to the first dozen of you really need me to

Show me proof of an intermediate stage of evolution. There are fossils and current evidence of thousands of individual species, but no evidence of any creature going through evolution.
Again, what specific things in the articles do you think are untrue and unevidenced?

Let's take the second sentence of the second paragraph in the link in the previous thread: "If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring"

And then lets see how that stands up agains verifiable evolution that has taken place in our lifetime, which includes the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pesticide-resistant insects.

How does one, credibly, sustain the view that evolution is not real?

@ZoggyStirdust

I'm as theist as they come (pagan polytheist who believes in the existence of all deities) and I am 100% on board with evolution - at this stage, it's just a basic fact.

Every single one of those 6 reasons you posted is wrong. Either factually wrong, or based on bad maths, or just made up. None of them are correct.

as a pp says, we can literally see evolution taking place in bacteria and viruses. And it’s currently happening for the vast majority of species still, just very slowly.

one of your 6 points states that a mutation can only ever be destructive and negative, never positive. This is factually and demonstrably untrue.

@KeepHopeful I don’t know whether you will be on this new thread but you say Jesus one day will return. What form will he take?

And I have a lot of time for believers who can sensibly discuss what they feel gods role is, in the framework of what is known.

I mean, they’re still wrong but at least they’re accepting facts 😉 (lighthearted comment there just to be clear)

But those examples are examples of evolution within a species, which I absolutely agree happens. But there is no proof of the evolution of one species to another

Of course evolution takes place in bacteria and viruses. Micro evolution is something I believe in as there is evidence for it. There is no evidence of one species evolving to a completely different species

I think there's been some misunderstanding of my belief on evolution. I fully accept that evolution happens within species- there is plenty of evidence for that. What I don't believe in, and have seen no evidence for, is that one species can evolve into a completely different species.

Yes there absolutely is. Micro evolution over a long period of time causes species to change, and become other species

proven by fossil records.

if the earth is young, are fossils real ?

Firstly, reframing the definition of evolution to suit the answer you want isn't the most scientific apporach to life. But, not withstanding that there is plenty of evidence of the evolution of one species into another, in the form of fossils.

But, it takes thousands of years (which I realise is inconvenient for those that believe the earth was only created a few thousand years ago).

Lets look at the fossil record of the transition from fish to tetrapods for example, which includes the fossil Tiktaalik which has features of both fish and early amphibians. Now, this was around 400 million years ago, which I am sure you will have issue with...

Yes, fossils are real but they didn't take millions of years to form. One species cannot change into another

So the only evidence for evolution between species is a creature that has characteristics of fish and amphibians? That's not enough to convince me

answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/tiktaalik-and-the-fishy-story-of-walking-fish/

All fossils are of "intermediate" stages. All of them. Because evolution is continuous.

If you don't understand that you really ought to get your information about evolution from people who know about it rather than from people who lie about it because science doesn't agree with their favourite book.

It’s one example of many. I’m not here to go over the syllabus of what is basic education for GCSE science students to those who chose to ignore it at the time.

I’m happy for you to not believe in evolution, if it fits with your religious beliefs. But please don’t present your extreme minority view as a credible science based statement of fact.

Then why do we have fossils of creatures which still exist? There are massive gaps in the fossil record if evolution is real. There aren't any creatures that are starting to evolve certain features, they either have them or they don't.

You can choose to interpret findings a different way if you choose. But there is plenty of scientific evidence to back up the Biblical position. I studied the theory of evolution at GCSE and A level and it is a theory used to explanation certain scientific discoveries. The same discoveries can be explained by having a creator God. It's not a valid argument to say that if someone disagrees with the theory of evolution they are not scientific. I know a Cambridge professor who believes in young earth and a six day creation, and a science professor at Leeds university who believes the same. These are educated men, it's unfair to portray creationists as people who are a bit thick and don't understand science

Actually there are people who have become Christians as a result of studying science because they realise the evidence points to the existence of God and is the most credible explanation for our whole existence

But science shows that many have take millions of years to form. Radiometric dating proves that to be the case. Do you believe that scientists who honed the technique of radiometric dating have got it that wrong?

Those are nonsensical questions based on a massively flawed understanding of evolution. It's like a flat-earther saying that the earth couldn't be round because then people in Australia would fall off.

If you want me to recommend some good books about evolution just ask.

Radiometric dating isn't accurate
answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/