Flat Earth Christians

edit: "Translation: You stated the belief of those that agree with you.
Kelly"

You translation is wrong, KJ.
I obviously stated that the whole process that bucks up the theory of the evolution (sciences evolved, evidence from a whole complex of scientific fields, finds accepted in full by a whole complex of sciences, constant cross-checks from scientists who are well recognized by the scintific community) is by far more consistent and has by far more possibilities to be true than the theoty of the evolution. In fact the theory of evolution is so concrete that is accepted by important religious figures and reknowned Christian evolutionists. And I asked you to prove that all this process is false, that all these sciences are mising the point and that all those scientists who worked on this issue are frauds. So here I am, waiting for your answer.

I also posted the following:
"On the other hand I have to respond to another issue that you posed when you claimed that I made you sick; I had a slightly clear image of yours due to other comments you posted elsewhere, and reading them I assumed that you are a good Christian (although I don't know which dogma you follow, but this is meaningless to me). Therefore I mentioned that your opinion regarding the theory of the evolution reflects your Christian faith, but maybe I 'm wrong. Maybe you are not a creationist afterall. Many evolutionary biologists and important religious figures like Pope John Paul II agree that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of "god". They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Well, if you are a creationist, you shouldn't feel sick just because I mentioned the truth; and if you are an evolutionist who believes that through this way "god" governs the process of life on our planet, then again my quote is accurate because your opinion derives allright from your Christian faith;"

I 'm eager for your reply, KJ;

edit: "What?
You are sure evoution has more possiblities to be true than creation,
why do you think that?"

KJ,

I am sure that evolution has by far more posibilities to be true than creationism because every scientific attempt aiming to prove that the theory is false untill this very moment has failed. If you disagree, bring up some scientific evidence that prove the opposite;

edit: "Truth is what it is, when we are speaking of a
single event either you describe it correctly or not, having more choices may give you more shots at getting it right, but it does not mean that any of your choices are right it only means you have more choices at being wrong. You only require one to be right.
Kelly"

The scientists from a very extended scientific spectrum gradually combine their finds and continue constantly their work, their experiments and their studies. Univercities and labs from all around the dial are a huge force that pushes hard in order to boost our knowlegde. Slowly but steadily all these scientits combine this huge puzzle and gradually they fill the missing points using by far more advanced ways, which even Lamarc and Darwin could not imagine. This is how the science evolves.
So the theory of the evolution is not just an abstract idea or a delusion written down at a nice island of my country, KJ;

And I will make a correction.
I posted above ":I stated before that I obviously stated that the whole process that bucks up the theory of the evolution (sciences evolved, evidence from a whole complex of scientific fields, finds accepted in full by a whole complex of sciences, constant cross-checks from scientists who are well recognized by the scintific community) is by far more consistent and has by far more possibilities to be true than the theoty of the evolution".

The last phrase is obviously "...is by far more consistent and has by far more possibilities to be true than the creationism"; sorry for this mistake.

Originally posted by black beetle
And I will make a correction.
I posted above ":I stated before that I obviously stated that the whole process that bucks up the theory of the evolution (sciences evolved, evidence from a whole complex of scientific fields, finds accepted in full by a whole complex of sciences, constant cross-checks from scientists who are well recognized by the scintif and has by far more possibilities to be true than the creationism"; sorry for this mistake.

edit: "Again, how it all began was simply the way it was done."

KJ,

Not at all. The reasons that caused the Life to appear is clearly another issue. The theory of the evolution has to do with the concept that every creature of our planet evolved from a common ancestor. When we finish this very discussion we may talk about "how all began" and who was the factor that "designed" that common ancestor;

Originally posted by black beetle
edit: "Again, how it all began was simply the way it was done."

KJ,

Not at all. The reasons that caused the Life to appear is clearly another issue. The theory of the evolution has to do with the concept that every creature of our planet evolved from a common ancestor. When we finish this very discussion we may talk about "how all began" and who was the factor that "designed" that common ancestor;

Originally posted by KellyJay
You seem to mix apples and oranges a lot when speaking about
subjects. I agree the reasons that could cause life are quite apart from
the reasons that an eye would form. I still do not see any reason to
why one would, I understand you claim early eyes were simpler that
predate some today, but that only shows that some simpler eyes
predate the modern on ...[text shortened]... fe form with a different set of eyes, not one that is not
an ancestor to the human race.
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
You clearly avoid to state clearly your thesis regarding the fact -I will post it to you for another time in case you missed it- that many evolutionary biologists and important religious figures like Pope John Paul II agree that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of "god". They acknowledge that evolution is the description
So KJ, here we are. When you bring up some evidence we may keep up our conversation.-

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm in complete agreement, evolution does not do add to or take
away from creation, the age of the earth also does not add to or
take away from creation. Specific views about creation may be in
direct conflict with specific views about evolution or the age of the
earth, but over all I have always maintained that as true.

Having said that, my complain ...[text shortened]... .

Now please note, nothing about what I have brought up has religion attached to it.
Kelly

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Hi Kj just putting my tuppence worth in...


I still feel you are trying to move too fast in this arena, however strongly you feel about evolution.

The main reason I think you have your face set against these concepts is the wording you use eg 'Reasons the eye could come from evolution'. You need to move carefully here. Nothing 'comes' from evol uge area of study and I still feel you need to allow time for the concept to take hold.

Originally posted by KellyJay
An earlier discussion centered only on the eye, I'm trying to stay on
topic. I'm not against the concept of evolution, I actually believe it
occurs depending on how you define it, but I cannot accept some
notions that are put forward with evolution getting the credit, and the
eye is one of the bigger ones when it comes to how it began, and
over time ch ...[text shortened]... gs the same way before we can move forward, or we will continue
to talk each other.
Kellyy

edit: “ I'm in complete agreement, evolution does not do add to or take away from creation, the age of the earth also does not add to or
take away from creation. Specific views about creation may be in
direct conflict with specific views about evolution or the age of the
earth, but over all I have always maintained that as true.”

Not exactly KJ! I noted that even the Pope etc. accept that the theory of the evolution does not refute the presence of “god”. But the evolution is clearly against the theory of the creation because its core is that every kind/ form of Life derived from a unique and common Ancestor (the theists that accept the theory of the evolution claim that the common Ancestor was created by “god&rdquo😉. The scientists are seeking constantly to find the missing links, and if in the future they find a mere single fact against the theory they will conclude that the evolutionism is false and therefore they will start again their process based on the new fact. I simply say that nobody can bring today a fact against evolution, and so started our conversation about the evolution of the eye.

Now, it is unreasonable to accept partly the theory of the evolution, ie to claim that we humans don’t have a common Ancestor, due to the fact that till now there is not any scientific evidence against it -instead, every evidence shows the opposite; the string is not “egg-chicken-egg” but “Ancestor-all species”, and one of these species is the human race as we know it today.

Furthermore, the claim that the eye is an organ that does not cope with the theory of the evolution is wrong, for reasons which are already posted previously by me , and the acknowledged scientific thesis is that the camera-like vertebrate eye already existed in the last common ancestor between jawless and jawed vertebrates, about 500 million years ago. The molecular components of vertebrate photoreceptors were modified from those found in invertebrate photoreceptors, and thus there is already a multistep sequence of events that result in the formation of the vertebrate eye in the way that occurs due to the theory of the evolution and not due to the theory of the creation. In the future more experiments will help refine the certainty and precision of our nowdays understanding of the evolution of the eye, but the evolution of the eye itself is well understood at the anatomical, physiological and molecular levels no matter if a non scientist is unable to grasp it. If you doubt it, it is you who must bring evidence; your mere “opinion” or my mere “opinion” have nothing to do with the fact that evolutionism is a theory that until this very moment stands perfectly.

Originally posted by KellyJay
An earlier discussion centered only on the eye, I'm trying to stay on
topic. I'm not against the concept of evolution, I actually believe it
occurs depending on how you define it, but I cannot accept some
notions that are put forward with evolution getting the credit, and the
eye is one of the bigger ones when it comes to how it began, and
over time ch gs the same way before we can move forward, or we will continue
to talk each other.
Kellyy

Originally posted by timebombted
KJ - if you had bothered to look you would realise the volume of information on the evolution of the eye is quiet overwhelming. I know you aren't truely interested in the evidence for this; so I won't waste any time on you other than this:

On the internet, access www.google.com and then find the link for google scholar. Enter the search string "evolut ...[text shortened]... you could imagine. They've even found a common gene (please tell me you beleive in genes).