[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[Barbarian]

Barbarian I want to address your major issue, you have been studying this for a long time and following him but how is it you do not understand Genesis and evolution do not mix.

For one God created the day and describes it.
Genesis 4&5
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Okay but lets say you don't believe that which you don't,

I do. I agree with the early Christians who realized it wasn't a literal history, but a description of the categories of creation. The fact that the text speaks of a morning and an evening with no Sun to have them establishes that it's not a literal history.

You believe whales evolved from land animals, same with seals, this is what evolution teaches. But God says in Genesis he created the whales and sea life before the land animals.

And if it was a literal history, then reality and Genesis would be at odds. But that isn't a problem.

So your excuse will be not only can you not take the days seriously but the order in what he created.
Genesis Theistic Evolution
Ocean before land Land before Ocean
Earth before stars Stars before earth
There are many more fatal contradiction between the two.
How can you not see that?

As St. Augustine pointed out, the literal meaning of Genesis is what God intended it to be, not a literal history.

And you say the YE creation is the one that don't believe it all and add stuff to it.

Yep. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is in direct contradiction to God's word in Genesis.

YE was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists at the beginning of the last century. It's well-documented. Some Christians thought the world was young in ancient times before the evidence was in, but later, evangelicals were quite comfortable with the evidence. Charles Spurgeon freely admitted millions of years, and the creationism at the Scopes trial was old Earth (being before the Adventists had spread their doctrine to other Chistians)

Then you keep saying God created us as apes.

According to Genesis, we were brought forth from the Earth like other animal, but God gave us a soul directly, making us an entirely different sort of being. Even if our bodies were the result of evolution.

Come on now your contradictions are all over the place.

Don't see how. It's all logically consistent.

And like Jesus says if you can't believe Moses how can you believe him.

I can't think of anything Jesus said that contradicts science.

Galatians, Barbarian whatever you have been at this same thing for what like 12 years and still claim your beliefs fit Genesis. Too many contradictions.

It's still true that there are no contradictions in this view.

Back on topic can you show me a animal changing from its own kind, say a land animal turning into a whale or sea life or something of that nature?

Sure. The evolutionary history of whales is well-documented. Pakicetus is basically an ungulate with the head of a whale, and a few other whale features. Ambulocetus retains many ungulate features, but is partially aquatic, and the skull is more whale-like than Pakicetus. The line is pretty much continuous. The gradual movement of nostrils from the front of the skull to the top is well-documented. Want to see that?

Cause that is what evolution teaches. And not what the Bible teaches.

The Bible doesn't talk about evolution. Doesn't talk about genetics, either. Lots of things are true, that aren't in the Bible.

Natural selection is survival of the fittest, so it kills off the weaker animals not create new body parts and etc...

Actually, it does. It's so efficient at that, that engineers are now copying evolution to solve problems that are too complex for design. God, as usual, knew best.

Natural selection of artificial breading may remove a trait that is already present but never create new information in the DNA and new genes.

Every new mutation adds information. Would you like me to show you the numbers?

It will not add fur flippers and etc...

Flippers are easy. Evolution of a repressor that stops the apoptotic process in hands and feet will do that.

Mutations only change one code, of DNA out of billions and to think mutations of thousands of codes in perfect order is how we got here is not logical.

They aren't in perfect order. It's a mess. We have old, inactivated genes, bits of viruses that were inserted and broken, and stuff that started as one thing and is now another.

We see changes in a kind but never between a kind.

Do you think humans and apes are different "kinds?" I'm asking this because there's a couple of imporant facts we need to look at. It's not a trap, but it does matter.

All I have received so far is nothing evolves now because the niche is filled.

Sometimes. But we also see that when a pioneer population gets into an environment with many unfilled niches, an explosion of speciation occurs. This happened in the "Cambrian explosion", after the dinosaurs died off, when insects finally managed to get established in Hawaii, and when birds arrived in New Zealand.

you might want to get your contradictions in Genesis straight

No contradictions.

if you cant't believe Genesis how can you believe the rest of the Bible as literal.

Some of the Bible is literal, some of it isn't. Jesus is not looking forward to sorting livestock at the Judgement.

 

[Barbarian]

This kind of threw me off guard. As you know, I'm a YE Creationist, so you'll have to show me how I interpret the text to deny God's work in Genesis.

The YE doctrine of life ex nihilo (life from nothing) is contradicted in Gen 1:23.

That would be a most interesting discussion. We could even make a new thread just for that topic next week when I return.

About the evidence found by scientists. That's not entirely true either as there are many scientists who support a YE Creationist view.

Comparing creationist lists with Project Steve, about 0.3% of biologists deny evolutionary theory. And many of them, like Kurt Wise, Harold Coffin, Philip Johnson, and others, admit that there is evidence for evolution.

From that perspective, we do not deny any evidence whatsoever. No Barbarian, we simply interpret the facts a little differently. No Scientist, weather they look at a rock through a YE or an OE lense can deny any of the facts.

If that were true, there would be no evolutionary theory, since even Darwin began by assuming creationism.

I suspect that you simply don't accept all of the new doctrines of YE creationism.

 

[Stan53]

The YE doctrine of life ex nihilo (life from nothing) is contradicted in Gen 1:23.

I think you might want to read Gen 1:23 again, all it does is conclude day 5. However these verses to address that issue of what was made and of what.
1 John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has
been made.
Colossians 1:16
For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The YE doctrine of life ex nihilo (life from nothing) is contradicted in Gen 1:24.

I think you might want to read Gen 1:23 again, all it does is conclude day 5. However these verses to address that issue of what was made and of what.
1 John 1:3

Typo. I fixed it for you:
1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind.

As you see, God's word is completely incompatible with life ex nihilo. He says life was brought forth from the earth.

Life was created from existing creation. As Augustine wrote.

 

[reba]

2.14: Please do not use the message board to air your grievances against other fellow members. If you have observed a violation of the Terms of Service please let a Moderator or Administrator know. (This includes violations or allegations of inappropriate actions by the moderators and administration.) If the grievance is with a staff member please contact them privately. If you deem it necessary to go beyond that then take it to the next level of Leadership authority.


The moderators of this thread will review and decide if they wish to reverse my action. Knock off the personal attacks... Personal attacks diminish the value of thoughts.

 

[Milk-Drops]

They are stating that people use examples of natural selection and state it is evolution.

They also make several other statements about evolution that are outright false.

They show examples of national geographic doing this

The National Geographic is not an authoritative peer reviewed journal. Its a magazine that is susceptible to marketing.

To test the theory, the researchers transferred guppies from a river in Trinidad in which they were chased by a fish, the cichlid, that gobbled up large mature adults to a tributary in which the only guppy predator was the killifish, which nibbled on their young.
In explaining the significance of the new finding, Dr. Futuyama said, ''There is an enormous literature at this point on the evolution of life histories and on observations that seem to fit into the theory.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/26/u...es-change-behavior.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

They are talking about something that is going on, next time take your time and really listen to the whole thing.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the study. I learned in detail about it in college. So, I don't have to hear these guys tell me about a subject I already studied, mainly because they don't understand the subject. By they I mean the presenters.

They use what is stated by Dr Endler because he admits what they are talking about and explains it. So if he admits it but you call them a liar 2

Technically I can call you a liar because you are claiming I'm outright calling these presenters liars when I have repeatedly said they could also be ignorant of what they are talking about. How about you honestly represent what I say.

Their arguments are legit, Dr. Endler an evolutionist quoted by dawkins admit to it. I just showed you an example.

No, you showed me a part of a paper the presenters choose to use to back up their claims. The problem is their claims lay on a foundation of extreme misinformation of what the theory of Evolution is. That is the big point. These guys can go on and on about accepting natural selection, but the problem is if they accept Natural Selection without accepting that Evolution exists, then they have no ground to stand on. Its like accepting that Current is the division of voltage by Resistance but Ohm's law dosen't exist.

False False False

you should really watch it again. They do not claim nothing about having to show where mutations come from. They do state evolution needs to explain how a lizard/dinosaur turned into a bird.

Are you aware you just contradicted yourself? Asking about the lineage of dinosaur to bird is asking for the mutations. Guess what, the theory of evolution does not need to explain this. Want to know why? There is this theory called Inherited genetics. Also there is this field called Phylogeny. These areas of study answer the very question of how birds sprouted off from dinosaurs. Technically, birds are still dinosaurs.

Yes evolution needs to explain this.

No it dosen't because there are already fields of study that already do this.

Take your peanut butter example. If I said peanut butter turned into a fruit, would I not need to explain how this happened for me to be taken serious?

Of course

Can I just say slowly over a long period of time. Evolution claims mutations ( a copying mistake) and NS. What we see of the 2 not a real feasible way to get from microbes to man.

I have repeatedly told you that there are these areas of study called Inherited Genetics and Phylogeny. What is so hard about this? Why are you repeatedly jumping on evolution for something that has nothing to do with the theory?

Yes the one you posted go back and take a look, insulting to me (even cartoon about those dumb Christians) but I watched it, yet don't look like you even watched the part of the video I asked you to.

Sorry, I guess I just have really thick skin. I also explained why I didn't continue with the video. Yet, you harp on me to watch this video yet won't post your education level on biology. So if you won't do what I ask, why should I do what you ask?

I do, I read a lot of things, and even what I read from creation.com I search in other resources about what they are saying to see if it's true. Maybe you should see both sides, open minded.

Yet you refuse to tell us what these "things" are. Repeatedly you have been asked by me to name what you have read. Yet, you never say.

Sorry for being a critical thinker and not jumping on the evolution bandwagon.

I have to bring this up. I taught Creationism to people for a long time. I listened and was part of a church that preach it and gave references. I believed in it for years. Argued with people about how evolution was so wrong. You want to know what changed me mind? Picking up a real text book on the matter. Taking both a critical thinking class and philosophy my first semester of college. I then took 2 semesters of advanced biology and met many Theists, agnostics, Atheists, etc. who helped me learn what the theory of Evolution actually is.

By the way, you are using the Bandwagon fallacy wrong. The Bndwagon Fallacy is when a person claims a popular idea is right because its currently popular. Considering I changed my mind after years of study. It not Bandwagon fallacy.

How many scientist did it take to prove the rest wrong out scum on top of a pond being spontaneous generation? 1

Hope that helps

Spontaneous Generation? You mean the Antique Theory that multicellular lifeforms were created by decaying matter or by the contact of other matter? Yeah its shown to be wrong. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with spontaneous generation, or life forms spontaneously coming into existence from thin air.

 

[Stan53]

This congruence between the full range of paleontological and developmental data strongly supports the hypothesis
This gives the impression that the first SSF animals, from the late Ediacaran, were basal members of later clades, with the phyla subsequently appearing in a "rapid, but nevertheless resolvable and orderly" fashion, rather than as a "sudden jumble",and thus reveals the true pace of the Cambrian explosion.
Yep. That's what the evidence shows.

So what evidence exactly supports the HYPOTHESIS;(which means)

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.
​

and if it is a hypothesis as defined above, how can there be evidence to support an assumption or a guess? This would be awfully convenient for the guesser.
It is kind of like a self fulling prophecy about one's self.

That's how scientists arrive at their conclusions. The facts are what support the conclusions.

This may be how evolutionists arrive at their conclusions, but as their conclusions are based on assumption and guesses, they can't really be called facts.

In science, it comes down to evidence. But yes, it is as factual as Genesis 1:1. Just different ways of getting to the same thing.

In science I agree, but I see no evidence in the foregoing, just conjecture.

YE creationists deny God's word in Genesis, and the evidence found by scientists.

Then what exactly do YE creationists believe, if NOT God or scientists?

Not understanding science does put you at a disadvantage, yes.

I don't have to understand how snake oil is made to KNOW it's not very substantive.

 

[Stan53]

Barbarian observes:
The YE doctrine of life ex nihilo (life from nothing) is contradicted in Gen 1:24.



Typo. I fixed it for you:
1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind.

As you see, God's word is completely incompatible with life ex nihilo. He says life was brought forth from the earth.

Life was created from existing creation. As Augustine wrote.

Well I already gave you three verses that shows that isn't so, but you take one verse and misuse it to suit your need. Verse 24 is used in the same reference as verses 11, 12, 21 and 25. According to their kinds, is God's predetermination of what was to be what. Last time I looked, a horse or a whale cannot breed to produce a "whorse"! You will notice in verse 1 the Word says GOD CREATED. According to your reasoning, God made everything out of something, when that is NOT what the Bible on a whole teaches.
Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

 

[Barbarian]

This congruence between the full range of paleontological and developmental data strongly supports the hypothesis
This gives the impression that the first SSF animals, from the late Ediacaran, were basal members of later clades, with the phyla subsequently appearing in a "rapid, but nevertheless resolvable and orderly" fashion, rather than as a "sudden jumble",and thus reveals the true pace of the Cambrian explosion.

Yep. That's what the evidence shows.

So what evidence exactly supports the HYPOTHESIS

1. Discovery of a varied and complex assemblage of organisms before the Cambrian, some of which are of phyla which were formerly thought to have appeared in the Cambrian.

2. The evidence that hard body parts didn't pop into existence at the Cambrian, but were slowly developing into full body coverings before the Cambrian.

Barbarian observes:
That's how scientists arrive at their conclusions. The facts are what support the conclusions.

This may be how evolutionists arrive at their conclusions,

All scientists. That's how it works. Inferences from evidence.

but as their conclusions are based on assumption and guesses

See above. You've been badly misled about that.

Barbarian observes:
In science, it comes down to evidence. But yes, it is as factual as Genesis 1:1. Just different ways of getting to the same thing.

In science I agree, but I see no evidence in the foregoing, just conjecture.

No point in denying the evidence. That's what you have to explain.

Barbarian observes:
YE creationists deny God's word in Genesis, and the evidence found by scientists.

Then what exactly do YE creationists believe, if NOT God or scientists?

The "flood geology" promoted by the Seventh-Day Adventists. YE is about the "ex nihilo" creation of life. But God says He didn't do it that way. And that's good enough for me.

Barbarian observes:
Not understanding science does put you at a disadvantage, yes.

I don't have to understand how snake oil is made to KNOW it's not very substantive.

Your choice but you'd be a lot more effective in resisting science, if you knew more about it.

 

[Barbarian]

1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind.

Barbarian observes:
As you see, God's word is completely incompatible with life ex nihilo. He says life was brought forth from the earth.

Life was created from existing creation. As Augustine wrote.

Well I already gave you three verses that shows that isn't so,

God says it's so. Very plainly. Life was not created from nothing, but was made from previously-created things. "Life ex nihilo" denies God's word.

But you take one verse and misuse it to suit your need. Verse 24 is used in the same reference as verses 11, 12, 21 and 25.

Nothing you offered says God created life from nothing. That is a modern doctrine that denies God's word.

According to their kinds, is God's predetermination of what was to be what. Last time I looked, a horse or a whale cannot breed to produce a "whorse"!

If it did, evolutionary theory would be in serious trouble.

You will notice in verse 1 the Word says GOD CREATED.

Yep. The only difference is, I am willing to let Him do it His way.

According to your reasoning, God made everything out of something,

Nope. That's a really extreme misrepresentation of what I said. God didn't say that he made everything out of something. He said that he made living things out of other things. Which YE creationists deny.

Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained.

In fact, every new mutation adds information to a population. Would you like to see the numbers?

BTW, did you know that creationist "baraminologists" have put some apes with humans into the same "kind?" Is that what you think?

"Answers in Genesis" announces:
Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin

Australopithecus, as you might know, is a genus of human-like apes. And AIG's baraminologists put them together with humans. I don't think they realized the consequences of that admission.

A. sediba, BTW, is clearly more like other australopithecines than it is like humans, even if it does have many human features. That's what makes it transitional.

 

[Asyncritus]

I don't follow this, Barbarian.

If God created the birds etc from the earth, then where did the earth come from?

And if you push that line of questioning right back, you do arrive at the ex nihilo point.

Which, I imagine, but don't know since I'm not a YE person, is what the YE people are saying. I can't fault that easily.

 

[spartakis]

They also make several other statements about evolution that are outright false. The National Geographic is not an authoritative peer reviewed journal. Its a magazine that is susceptible to marketing.

Please list them. They also give examples of scientist that do this. Like I said a evolutionist Dr.John Endler agree with them that it an issue. Dawkins quotes endler often.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the study. I learned in detail about it in college. So, I don't have to hear these guys tell me about a subject I already studied, mainly because they don't understand the subject. By they I mean the presenters.

The article I posted is what I posted they did not use that example. They understand it and you just don't agree, that means they don't know what they are talking about

Technically I can call you a liar because you are claiming I'm outright calling these presenters liars when I have repeatedly said they could also be ignorant of what they are talking about. How about you honestly represent what I say.

You said they are liars or ignorant true, but they are not ignorant, many people including the one I asked you to listen to agree. So since they are not ignorant about the facts, which is brought up by leading evolutionist scientist are they then liars?

No, you showed me a part of a paper the presenters choose to use to back up their claims. The problem is their claims lay on a foundation of extreme misinformation of what the theory of Evolution is. That is the big point. These guys can go on and on about accepting natural selection, but the problem is if they accept Natural Selection without accepting that Evolution exists, then they have no ground to stand on. Its like accepting that Current is the division of voltage by Resistance but Ohm's law dosen't exist.

No I chose to use the paper they did not use that as a resource. It would help if you watched the video. No ground to stand on? Don't think so, creation science was aware of NS before darwins ideal. If you watched the video you would understand this. And Dr. John Endler states NS is not evolution which is what you seem to have mixed up and are getting upset about it. We are talking the hypothesis that man came from microbes. This video goes over the terms and the confusion in between them.

Are you aware you just contradicted yourself? Asking about the lineage of dinosaur to bird is asking for the mutations. Guess what, the theory of evolution does not need to explain this. Want to know why? There is this theory called Inherited genetics. Also there is this field called Phylogeny. These areas of study answer the very question of how birds sprouted off from dinosaurs. Technically, birds are still dinosaurs. No it dosen't because there are already fields of study that already do this. Of course I have repeatedly told you that there are these areas of study called Inherited Genetics and Phylogeny. What is so hard about this? Why are you repeatedly jumping on evolution for something that has nothing to do with the theory?

There is a difference in what they said and what you stated they said. The hypothesis of microbes to man needs to be explained within the theory, don't care what kind of study they use to do it.

Sorry, I guess I just have really thick skin. I also explained why I didn't continue with the video. Yet, you harp on me to watch this video yet won't post your education level on biology. So if you won't do what I ask, why should I do what you ask?

Thick skin, you couldn't watch the video I asked you to because it did't agree with your thoughts on the matter. I have posted my education level on biology maybe you should go back in read it. Watching half of videos and reading only half of post lead to confusion. You asked me to watch a video which had misconception of Christians that believe the Bible in it and I did. I asked you to watch a video and you watched half of it and not even the part I asked you to. All this is a waste of time because we are discussing something that you have not even watched fully.

Yet you refuse to tell us what these "things" are. Repeatedly you have been asked by me to name what you have read. Yet, you never say.
I have to bring this up. I taught Creationism to people for a long time. I listened and was part of a church that preach it and gave references. I believed in it for years. Argued with people about how evolution was so wrong. You want to know what changed me mind? Picking up a real text book on the matter. Taking both a critical thinking class and philosophy my first semester of college. I then took 2 semesters of advanced biology and met many Theists, agnostics, Atheists, etc. who helped me learn what the theory of Evolution actually is.

To ask me to go through and list my library and papers I have read is absurd. I have better things to do. It shouldn't matter anyway. If the argument holds up and is presented with facts is all that matters. Sounds like they got you with the bait and switch. I have seen and read text books. They show natural selection call it evolution and you say I agree with that then they say you agree with evolution. Then they show you this big tree with a lot of twigs but no common ancestors and say this is the tree of life and common decent.

By the way, you are using the Bandwagon fallacy wrong. The Bndwagon Fallacy is when a person claims a popular idea is right because its currently popular. Considering I changed my mind after years of study. It not Bandwagon fallacy.

It is in general evolution is a bandwagon, I don't know what you studied or done before and will not ask.

Spontaneous Generation? You mean the Antique Theory that multicellular lifeforms were created by decaying matter or by the contact of other matter? Yeah its shown to be wrong. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with spontaneous generation, or life forms spontaneously coming into existence from thin air

I used that as an example of how 1 scientist is all it takes to bust a bandwagon.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Please list them.

I already did. Go back and reread my posts on this video.

They also give examples of scientist that do this.

What is "this" you mean believe what they say is evolution? No they didn't, from what I saw they took small exerts from papers and museums and didn't give any context or mention what papers.

Like I said a evolutionist Dr.John Endler agree with them that it an issue. Dawkins quotes endler often.

Yeah, you keep saying this. Yet, the presenters are still wrong. You can throw out Endler's and Dawkin's names all day long. That dose not change that the presenters don't know what they are talking about. Period.

The article I posted is what I posted they did not use that example. They understand it and you just don't agree, that means they don't know what they are talking about

So they didn't use the article, yet claim they don't agree with the article? So What am I supposed to get from that? Nothing, if didn't reference it then we'll move on.

You said they are liars or ignorant true, but they are not ignorant, many people including the one I asked you to listen to agree.

No, the presenters don't understand the diverence between the Theory of Evolution, Genetics, Phylogeny, or Abiogenesis. So, no your presenters are still ignorant on the topic. You have been focusing on Natural selection, yet you don't seem to grasp that they are are wrong about everything else. Period.

So since they are not ignorant about the facts, which is brought up by leading evolutionist scientist are they then liars?

You are lieing again. I keep saying the presenters and explaining why they are wrong, yet now you want me to say Endler is wrong when I have said no such thing. Dude, learn how to honestly ask questions and not play fallacy games.

No I chose to use the paper they did not use that as a resource. It would help if you watched the video.

I am aware of your refrence, but I'm pretty sure you haven't read the entire thing.

No ground to stand on? Don't think so, creation science was aware of NS before darwins ideal.

You mean Blythe? Yeah I have already covered this.

If you watched the video you would understand this. And Dr. John Endler states NS is not evolution which is what you seem to have mixed up and are getting upset about it.

No, I'm not even upset. Just frustrated that you keep trying to bulldoze forward when the presenters don't understand the difference between Phylogeny, evolution, etc. That has been what I've been going on about for the last few posts. I don't care if they reference natural selection as a mechanic of evolution. I'm just pointing out that they then just changed the name of evolution claiming that Natural selection is a mechanic of Micro Evolution. In short, they believe in evolution but made up a different name for it. This is still no excuse for every thing else they are wrong about.

We are talking the hypothesis that man came from microbes. This video goes over the terms and the confusion in between them.

No we aren't. You might, but I'm not. You better learn that if you want to argue with someone, you better make sure you are on the same page as them first.

There is a difference in what they said and what you stated they said. The hypothesis of microbes to man needs to be explained within the theory, don't care what kind of study they use to do it.

You don't understand. The theory of Evolution just explains how populations adapt. That is it. The theory that explains why things evolve is called Inherited genetics that deals with mutations. The theory of how the lineage of Modern man from its ancestors is within the theory of Phylogeny.

What is this so hard to understand?

Thick skin, you couldn't watch the video I asked you to because it didn't agree with your thoughts on the matter.

No, I stopped watching the video because they confused several different theories together then started talking about Evolutionists. I don't videos that waste my time. Especially since this group is practically just repeating verbatim what has already been said by multiple people. Like Ken Ham. Their argument is almost identical.

I have posted my education level on biology maybe you should go back in read it.

Your level is that you have read things. I've read things to. It dosen't tell us anything does it?

Watching half of videos and reading only half of post lead to confusion. You asked me to watch a video which had misconception of Christians that believe the Bible in it and I did. I asked you to watch a video and you watched half of it and not even the part I asked you to. All this is a waste of time because we are discussing something that you have not even watched fully.

I also think this is a waste of time because I can't seem to get you to understand that Evolution is only one of several theories that Biology uses to explain the diversity of life and how it has changed, and why its changed.

To ask me to go through and list my library and papers I have read is absurd. I have better things to do. It shouldn't matter anyway. If the argument holds up and is presented with facts is all that matters. Sounds like they got you with the bait and switch. I have seen and read text books.

You claim you have read these things, yet can't reference them properly. That is why I don't believe you. Raising such a fuss over some thing that is routine in a college setting.
If you can't explain where you got your information from, then why should anyone care about your opinions?

They show natural selection call it evolution and you say I agree with that then they say you agree with evolution.

Liar, I never said this at all. I have explained that I read several text and took several classes on the subject matter. Far from your lie.

Then they show you this big tree with a lot of twigs but no common ancestors and say this is the tree of life and common decent.

Lie again. I have taken classes on genetics and anatomy. I have been in labs where we have done several experiments on breeding. I have studied several lineages. So You are now ignorant.

It is in general evolution is a bandwagon, I don't know what you studied or done before and will not ask.

Then I'll keep this post as a reference that you don't care about the truth and how no one should waste their time with you because you ultimately don't care.

I used that as an example of how 1 scientist is all it takes to bust a bandwagon.

To bad you referenced a quote mine . Good day.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian again explains how information is determined)

I don't follow this, Barbarian.

Libraries are free.

If God created the birds etc from the earth, then where did the earth come from?

Sorry, He says He created them from the Earth. Not from nothing. That is where YE creationism disagrees with God. He says He created life from pre-existing creation.

And if you push that line of questioning right back, you do arrive at the ex nihilo point.

But, of course, He didn't create life from nothing. He says that the earth brought forth living things. That is why YE creationism is opposed to God's word.

 

[Stan53]

1. Discovery of a varied and complex assemblage of organisms before the Cambrian, some of which are of phyla which were formerly thought to have appeared in the Cambrian.
2. The evidence that hard body parts didn't pop into existence at the Cambrian, but were slowly developing into full body coverings before the Cambrian.
Barbarian observes:
That's how scientists arrive at their conclusions. The facts are what support the conclusions.

As I asked, EXACTLY what is the evidence. Facts have to be established first then conclusions made. I haven't seen ANY facts yet.

All scientists. That's how it works. Inferences from evidence.

NOT all scientists. I can see how facts can come from evidence by not why people would have to infer if they actually had facts. Inference comes when facts actually DON'T speak to an issue.

See above. You've been badly misled about that.
Barbarian observes:
In science, it comes down to evidence. But yes, it is as factual as Genesis 1:1. Just different ways of getting to the same thing.

You didn't answer it above either, and no evidence has been supplied.

No point in denying the evidence. That's what you have to explain.
Barbarian observes:
YE creationists deny God's word in Genesis, and the evidence found by scientists.

No evidence to deny. I don't have to explain something that is NOT there. With all this so called conclusive evidence, why is it so hard for you to provide it?

The "flood geology" promoted by the Seventh-Day Adventists. YE is about the "ex nihilo" creation of life. But God says He didn't do it that way. And that's good enough for me.

I'm NOT SDA, and don't subscribe to most of what they believe. You can make this ex-nihilo statement all you like but it isn't a fact, a fact which I provided you already in post #643.

Your choice but you'd be a lot more effective in resisting science, if you knew more about it.

So far you haven't supplied anything to resist.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian discusses evidence for evolution rather than a magical creation at the Cambrian:
1. Discovery of a varied and complex assemblage of organisms before the Cambrian, some of which are of phyla which were formerly thought to have appeared in the Cambrian.
2. The evidence that hard body parts didn't pop into existence at the Cambrian, but were slowly developing into full body coverings before the Cambrian.

Barbarian observes:
That's how scientists arrive at their conclusions. The facts are what support the conclusions.

As I asked, EXACTLY what is the evidence.

See above. Since you don't know about it, let's see if we can help...

Diversity and complexity of Precambrian organisms:
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/ediacara.html

Evidence for gradual evolution of full-body exoskeletons:
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/SmaSheFau.html

Facts have to be established first then conclusions made. I haven't seen ANY facts yet.

What you don't know, is not a defense. As you see, there's a lot to learn.

Barbarian observes:
All scientists. That's how it works. Inferences from evidence.

NOT all scientists.

Yep. All of them. You can't get away from it. It's the only way to understand in science.

I can see how facts can come from evidence by not why people would have to infer if they actually had facts.

You can't make inferences without facts. That's how it works. See above.

Inference comes when facts actually DON'T speak to an issue.

Wrong. All conclusions in science are inferences based on facts.

Barbarian observes:
In science, it comes down to evidence. But yes, it is as factual as Genesis 1:1. Just different ways of getting to the same thing.

You didn't answer it above either, and no evidence has been supplied.

Denial won't help you. Get some facts and see if you can put a cogent argument together.

Barbarian observes:
YE creationists deny God's word in Genesis, and the evidence found by scientists.

No evidence to deny.

See above. There's a lot of things they didn't tell you about.

Barbarian observes:
The "flood geology" promoted by the Seventh-Day Adventists. YE is about the "ex nihilo" creation of life. But God says He didn't do it that way. And that's good enough for me.

I'm NOT SDA

But you advocate their new doctrine of YE creationism.

You can make this ex-nihilo statement all you like but it isn't a fact

God says that life did not arise as YE creationism claims. That's good enough for me. It should be good enough for you.

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, I should point out that I consider SDAs to be Christians, and my personal and business dealings with them have convinced me that most of them live the sort of life that God intended for us.

I have the highest respect for the way that most of them live their lives. They clearly love God and seek to serve Him.

But they are wrong about the doctrine they have planted among many other Christians.

 

[Stan53]

God says it's so. Very plainly. Life was not created from nothing, but was made from previously-created things. "Life ex nihilo" denies God's word.
Nothing you offered says God created life from nothing. That is a modern doctrine that denies God's word.

From my post 643;
1 John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has
been made.
Colossians 1:16
For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Ignoring these scriptures won't make them go away.

If it did, evolutionary theory would be in serious trouble.

Oh, I see... Darwin took God's principles and humanized them. LOL... quite the plagiarist.

Yep. The only difference is, I am willing to let Him do it His way.

I was going to say something here, but I think I'll just let your words speak for themselves.

Nope. That's a really extreme misrepresentation of what I said. God didn't say that he made everything out of something. He said that he made living things out of other things. Which YE creationists deny.

Well you mis-used one verse so far. What about the verse earlier in Gen 1 that I provided you. By your reasoning He made everything in the seas out of water?
What did He make the birds out of then, AIR? What did He make the vegetation out of, fertilizer?

In fact, every new mutation adds information to a population. Would you like to see the numbers?

Well thanks for deleting have of that statement. Do you know what the word 'mutation' means?

a. a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.
b. an individual, species, or the like, resulting from such a departure.
​

and I wrote;

Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

​

It would appear that evolutionists learn early on, how to distort facts and truth.

BTW, did you know that creationist "baraminologists" have put some apes with humans into the same "kind?" Is that what you think?
"Answers in Genesis" announces:
Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin
Australopithecus, as you might know, is a genus of human-like apes. And AIG's baraminologists put them together with humans. I don't think they realized the consequences of that admission.
A. sediba, BTW, is clearly more like other australopithecines than it is like humans, even if it does have many human features. That's what makes it transitional.

I think AIG knows very well what they are saying, as I quote them below. You have implied something completely different and mis-leading above.

It is only in the fossil record where there has been an effort (mostly on the part of evolutionists) to distinguish several different species of Homo. Some Homo specimens like Homo neanderthalensis, are numerous, well-preserved, and clearly human, while others like Homo habilis are fragmentary fossils of questionable relationship to man.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/b...he-“ape-like”-fossil-australopithecus-sediba/


​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
God says it's so. Very plainly. Life was not created from nothing, but was made from previously-created things.

Genesis 1:24: And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

"Life ex nihilo" denies God's word. That is a modern doctrine that denies God's word.
From my post 643;

1 John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has
been made.

Doesn't say that He made life from nothing. Try again...

Colossians 1:16
For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Doesn't say that He made life from nothing. Try again...

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

And that one doesn't say that He made life from nothing. Kind of a revelation, isn't it?

Ignoring these scriptures won't make them go away.

According to their kinds, is God's predetermination of what was to be what. Last time I looked, a horse or a whale cannot breed to produce a "whorse"!

Barbarian observes:
If it did, evolutionary theory would be in serious trouble.

Oh, I see...

I have no idea where you get such things. It remains true that people are down on things they aren't up on.

Barbarian acknowledges God's creation:
Yep. The only difference is, I am willing to let Him do it His way.

I was going to say something here, but I think I'll just let your words speak for themselves.

Wise move, I thnk.

Barbarian chuckles:
Nope. That's a really extreme misrepresentation of what I said. God didn't say that he made everything out of something. He said that he made living things out of other things. Which YE creationists deny.

Well you mis-used one verse so far.

No, you simply aren't willing to listen to what He's telling you. He didn't create life from nothing. He says He created it from previously created things.

What about the verse earlier in Gen 1 that I provided you. By your reasoning He made everything in the seas out of water?

That's not what He says, is it? If you have to alter God's word to make a point, that should tell you something important.

Barbarian observes:
In fact, every new mutation adds information to a population. Would you like to see the numbers?

Well thanks for deleting have of that statement. Do you know what the word 'mutation' means?

The people who awarded me my degrees in biology thought so.

Instead of an informal dictionary, here's what it actually means:

Definition: Any transmissible change in the genetic material of an organism, which can result from radiation, viral infection, transposition, treatment with mutagenic chemicals and errors during DNA replication or meiosis. As many of the simpler alterations to DNA may be repaired, such changes are only heritable once the change is fixed in the DNA by the process of replication. Mutations may be associated with genetic diversity or with pathologies including cancer.

NCI-GLOSS Definition: Any change in the DNA of a cell. Mutations may be caused by mistakes during cell division, or they may be caused by exposure to DNA-damaging agents in the environment. Mutations can be harmful, beneficial, or have no effect. If they occur in cells that make eggs or sperm, they can be inherited; if mutations occur in other types of cells, they are not inherited. Certain mutations may lead to cancer or other diseases.
http://ncit.nci.nih.gov/ncitbrowser/ConceptReport.jsp?dictionary=NCI Thesaurus&code=C16885

Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained.

You've been misinformed on that. If you actually calculate the information, you'll find that every new mutation increases the information in a population.

It would appear that evolutionists learn early on, how to distort facts and truth.

It's one thing to get frustrated when an argument doesn't go well for you. lt's quite another to lose one's composure and make foolish accusations. You can do better.

Barbarian observes:
BTW, did you know that creationist "baraminologists" have put some apes with humans into the same "kind?" Is that what you think?
"Answers in Genesis" announces:
Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin
Australopithecus, as you might know, is a genus of human-like apes. And AIG's baraminologists put them together with humans. I don't think they realized the consequences of that admission.

A. sediba, BTW, is clearly more like other australopithecines than it is like humans, even if it does have many human features. That's what makes it transitional.

I think AIG knows very well what they are saying, as I quote them below.

(nothing about AIG's claim that humans and some apes are in the same "kind>")

So do you agree that we and A. sediba are in the same kind? If so, how do you justify relating humans and apes?

 

[Stan53]

Genesis 1:24: And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
"Life ex nihilo" denies God's word. That is a modern doctrine that denies God's word.

The modern doctrine is yours Barbarian. You are denying what God's word actually says.
Gen 1:25 says in part; God made
Gen 1:1 says God created.
Gen 1:2 says after that; the earth was formless and empty.
Up to this point, God has created the earth out of NOTHING.
Gen 1:3-5, God created days. Still no life.
Gen 1:6-10, God made the sky by putting it between 2 bodies of water, and He moved the water and land around to create the continents and oceans. Still no life.
Gen 1:11-13, God made vegetation, where there was NO LIFE. So this is the first sign of life, the vegetation.
Gen 1:14-19, God created the sun, moon and stars.
Gen 1:20-23, God created God created the creatures in the water and the birds. He didn't create them out of vegetation, as He made that from cellulose and it lives by photosynthesis.
Gen 1:24-25; God creates land based animals. Wild animals and Livestock. So there is vegetation, and birds, and creatures in the water, but no life on the land.
So God makes these wild animals and livestock from NOTHING. Now it may be possible to extrapolate from Gen 2:7, to show the method God made the animals with, but that would only be pure speculation, which I know is something you would not want to do.
So where exactly did this so-called life from the land come from? Obviously God created it, out of NOTHING, the same way He created everything else up to that point, out of NOTHING.
Gen 1:26-28, God creates man and woman, and gives them ultimate dominion over ALL life on earth. As I mentioned above, Gen 2:7 shows HOW God created man, and Gen 2:22 shows how He created woman. When I meet Him, I will have to ask why He did it this way, but for now, my FAITH affirms that this is His way.

1 John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.
Doesn't say that He made life from nothing. Try again...

Really? If He MADE all things and WITHOUT Him NOTHING was made then the congruence between the full range of paleontological and developmental data strongly supports the hypothesis of "Life ex nihilo"

Colossians 1:16
For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Doesn't say that He made life from nothing. Try again...

Well if He created ALL things, VISIBLE and INVISIBLE, and THROUGH Him and FOR Him, then the "congruence between the full range of paleontological and developmental data strongly supports the hypothesis of "Life ex nihilo"

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
And that one doesn't say that He made life from nothing. Kind of a revelation, isn't it?

So you are trying to tell us that God made life out of the INVISIBLE? Well that could be acceptable seeing as Colossians 1:16 says He made the invisible things as well. Bottom line still would be God made life from NOTHING.
It's not a revelation to me or to Christians who believe in what Genesis actually says. It can be a revelation I guess, for those who desperately try to make God's word say what they want it to say. Again this practise is called "eisegesis" and NOT the proper way to apply Biblical Hermenuetics.

If it did, evolutionary theory would be in serious trouble.

It is already in serious trouble Barbarian.... you just refuse to acknowledge that.

Nope. That's a really extreme misrepresentation of what I said. God didn't say that he made everything out of something. He said that he made living things out of other things. Which YE creationists deny.

Well God didn't say that either, nor does His Word, so I guess YEC's are correct in their understanding.

No, you simply aren't willing to listen to what He's telling you. He didn't create life from nothing. He says He created it from previously created things.

No, sorry I have shown above that is NOT a true statement or interpretation of what God's word say in Gen 1:24-25. This last sentence are your words, NOT God's words in Genesis.

That's not what He says, is it? If you have to alter God's word to make a point, that should tell you something important.

According to you, but I have properly exegeted those verses for you above and prior to this post. You have been properly instructed. Continuing to repeat your misunderstandings, will not make it go away like a bad dream if you get upset enough.

The people who awarded me my degrees in biology thought so.
Instead of an informal dictionary, here's what it actually means:
Definition: Any transmissible change in the genetic material of an organism, which can result from radiation, viral infection, transposition, treatment with mutagenic chemicals and errors during DNA replication or meiosis. As many of the simpler alterations to DNA may be repaired, such changes are only heritable once the change is fixed in the DNA by the process of replication. Mutations may be associated with genetic diversity or with pathologies including cancer.
NCI-GLOSS Definition: Any change in the DNA of a cell. Mutations may be caused by mistakes during cell division, or they may be caused by exposure to DNA-damaging agents in the environment. Mutations can be harmful, beneficial, or have no effect. If they occur in cells that make eggs or sperm, they can be inherited; if mutations occur in other types of cells, they are not inherited. Certain mutations may lead to cancer or other diseases.
http://ncit.nci.nih.gov/ncitbrowser/ConceptReport.jsp?dictionary=NCI%20Thesaurus&code=C16885

Well I don't know how many years it took for you to get your degrees in biology, but you obviously are very vested in the time and effort it took you, so I see it would be a waste of any more investment on my part to try to convince you against your own indoctrination. Sorry, I though you were just a plain old barbarian like me, not an educated one.

Stan exists stage left: