CoolUsername:


Obviously someone doesn't know that varieties split of from a common ancestor and is butthurt about it.

That doesn't prove man came from ape ancestors of reptiles from fishes or other such fanciful notions. They are without evidence. Some level of variation of occurs but it is limited in its scope and furthermore is based off conserved genes.

Kay17:


You could be correct that they are wrong. But acknowledge the conflict between this scientific community and Christianity.

But this is not true. The available evidence points strongly to creation. Christianity is not science although christians have had major impacts on science.

Science is a way of observing and discovering the realities of Nature. Christianity is the internalization of more permanent values.
Atheist need not cling to science in a bid to combat religion. Both are different fields. You may want to read more books on the Christian history and effects on democracy and world peace and stability.

winner01:
But this is not true. The available evidence points strongly to creation. Christianity is not science although christians have had major impacts on science.

Science is a way of observing and discovering the realities of Nature. Christianity is the internalization of more permanent values.
Atheist need not cling to science in a bid to combat religion. Both are different fields. You may want to read more books on the Christian history and effects on democracy and world peace and stability.

So you mean to say that Christianity expresses true science while the scientific community are dabbling with false theories?

Kay17:


So you mean to say that Christianity expresses true science while the scientific community are dabbling with false theories?

No. I'm saying that Christianity teaches value while Science explores nature.

Plus, you sound as if the scientific community is exclusively for atheists.

UyiIredia:


That doesn't prove man came from ape ancestors of reptiles from fishes or other such fanciful notions. They are without evidence. Some level of variation of occurs but it is limited in its scope and furthermore is based off conserved genes.

But genetic sampling along with the fossil record shows progression. There are no rabbits in Devonian rock or modern birds in Triassic rock.

There also happen to be animals with 'incomplete' features from different classes. Take the platypus for example, which is an example of something that fits into the transitional species fallacy, it lays eggs, produces venom but suckles its young. It doesn't have developed n*pples so milk just leaks into its hair and the young ones lick it up. Clearly showing that it is very possible for such transitions to take place.

winner01:
No. I'm saying that Christianity teaches value while Science explores nature.

Plus, you sound as if the scientific community is exclusively for atheists.

But you would agree with me that Christianity is not limited to value creation. That it says a lot about nature and the truths of human existence ?

Kay17:


But you would agree with me that Christianity is not limited to value creation. That it says a lot about nature and the truths of human existence ?

Of course Christianity touches parts of nature and human existence. However its major focus is the salvation plan for humanity. This is not science. There is no honest reason why science shoukd be compared to this.

winner01:
Of course Christianity touches parts of nature and human existence. However its major focus is the salvation plan for humanity. This is not science. There is no honest reason why science shoukd be compared to this.

Now does the part of nature Christianity explains conflict with theories such as the big bang, evolution and inorganic origination of life?

Kay17:


Now does the part of nature Christianity explains conflict with theories such as the big bang, evolution and inorganic origination of life?

It does.
The Big bang smacks of divine intervention.
Darwinian evolution is demonstrably false. Fruit flies, over series of generations have evolved into nothing more than fruit flies.
Life has never been OBSERVED to arise from inorganic matter.
Although, an amino acid is the closest random occurence, it still has not been able to produce life.

winner01:
But this is not true. The available evidence points strongly to creation. Christianity is not science although christians have had major impacts on science.

Science is a way of observing and discovering the realities of Nature. Christianity is the internalization of more permanent values.
Atheist need not cling to science in a bid to combat religion. Both are different fields. You may want to read more books on the Christian history and effects on democracy and world peace and stability.

this would have been true...
If the religions didnt have ''holy-books''...
Which were supposedly handed down(dictated) to them,,,by the creator(s) of this universe...
But religions claim this...
So it becomes distinct from science;since the stuffs mentioned in those books are wrong frm what we know....
Btw the available evidence points to evolution

winner01:
It does.
The Big bang smacks of divine intervention.
Darwinian evolution is demonstrably false. Fruit flies, over series of generations have evolved into nothing more than fruit flies.
Life has never been OBSERVED to arise from inorganic matter.
Although, an amino acid is the closest random occurence, it still has not been able to produce life.

Now we agree there is a conflict between Christianity and those theories.

But you don't think those theories are scientific right?

Kay17:


Now we agree there is a conflict between Christianity and those theories.

But you don't think those theories are scientific right?

No I dont think they are accurate. I thought I gave you other scientific theories which have been proven wrong. Some of those theories are pseudoscientific. Darwinian evolution, life from dead matter are examples.

winner01:
No I dont think they are accurate. I thought I gave you other scientific theories which have been proven wrong. Some of those theories are pseudoscientific. Darwinian evolution, life from dead matter are examples.

Are these scientific theories?