[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[KV-44-v1]

Of course God directly gives each baby an immortal soul directly, meaning He only uses nature to create our bodies

Verse(s)?
Explain babies who are miscarried/deformed?

I realize you want to believe that. But I notice you still can't name even one process required for evolution that is ruled out by thermodynamics.

You still keep assuming I should rule out a PROCESS and not the evo itself. Apparently it's you who want to believe bioevo.

It doesn't indicate protons or DNA once. So that's hardly an issue. C'mon.

They were instantly, intelligently created. Not clumsily cobbled, like you believe. Also, bioevo CONTRADICTS. The Bible uses creation language - NOT language indicating bioevo.

He never said that. You just added that to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

Nonsense. I never said that He said that.
Your logic sucks. You believe nonsense like "creation revision!1!!" "literal Gen =revision!!1!" (but you take "bring forth" literally, so hypocrisy.) "God is a cobbler!!" (not explicitly, but thats EXACTLY what evolution implies), etc. And you have NEVER proven that I added ANYTHING to Scripture.

Also, you didn't address the fact that Evolution is being preached in the public school systems in the West. To CHILDREN. MINORS. EVOLUTION is childish, Creation is smart.

Your logic flounders because you jam evo into Scripture.
God CREATED light. Did He cobble light together? NO.
God CREATED the earth. Did He make a molten blob and wait millions years for it to cool?? NO.
God CREATED life. Did He clumsily, slowly, cobble pieces together and hope to get life? NO.

If creation is revision (its not), bioevo is revision 100x MORE. You cannot get past that.

Don't be so gullible.

Take your own advice. If I were gullible I would have swallowed the school's indoctrinations.

Well, the evidence indicates that God was right about abiogenesis. The earth did bring forth living things. I suppose you will admit that much, even if you don't approve of the way He did it.

So you admit that you were never offering Biblical "proof" of bioevo, right?

11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth produced vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, according to their kind; and God saw that it was good.

God INSTANTLY CREATED. "IT WAS SO". The earth PRODUCED. PAST TENSE. not "producing".

"and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, according to their kind" Where is the evolution??
You can see that "creation=revision!11!!" is a LIE.

It's revision when you add things, like Jesus supposedly saying that it's literal.

Nonsense. I never said that Jesus SAID that He took Genesis literally at any point in this thread. You know how to strawman me, that's for sure!!

You think it's literal, but you add things to change it to fit your desires.

Addressed.
"You think Jesus' death on the Cross was literal but you add!!!!" <---- this is what your awful logic amounts to. If you reject Creation may as well reject resurrection. If you really think God starts His Word off with confusing allegory, (but yet you think bring forth indicates abiogenesis) then how do you know if the rest is literal or not??

 

[KV-44-v1]

You mean like the silly creationist "dog giving birth to a cat" thing? Nope, we don't see that at all.

Silly creationist?? Which one?

I read them and they're mostly just far-right Christians complaining about culture war stuff, and in very, very childish ways.

Far right? How do you determine a "far" right? Most of the time "far right" is just democrat exaggeration of center right or just right..
Childish ways?? Quotes?

disagreeing with evolution = no fame or fortune

This isn't my argument. REDUCED f&f, not "NO".
And people like Ken Ham fall thru the cracks.

You honestly think there are only two Christians in all of the earth and life sciences?

No. But you only gave 2 people.

LOL...given the content of your posts, there's no way I would ever unquestioningly accept your empty say-so in matters of science.

Back at ya. Except the empty part. Both you and I have attempted to back up, so no empty.

Except I have studied creationism for decades, which means I can definitely speak about it.

from who/where?

LOL, are you serious? You're really going with the "you have to see it happen before you can draw any conclusions about it" route?

That is a big way how operational science works. Bioevo is one of the biggest post-hoc fallacies of our time.

So in your world, we must immediately release all prisoners who were convicted of crimes for which there were no eye witnesses, right? After all, did the judge or anyone on the jury see them commit the crime? No? Then how could they have convicted them?

The Genesis account is an Eyewitness account. And I said nothing about prisoners. And such non-eyewitness evidence of crimes does not contradict the Bible's historical account.

Barbarian is right, your ignorance is severely hampering your ability to discuss the subject intelligently. FYI, a population losing a feature and/or DNA over time is also evolution,

If the genetics of the population changes over time, the population has evolved. Try and learn at least that much.

So you mean that your def of evolution simply means "genetic change in population"? Ok.

just as a population gaining a feature and/or DNA is.

And where, besides the occasional Genetic Insertion, have we seen this?

So your argument is that when scientists want to conduct lab experiments to see how populations evolve, they can't use an "evolution approach" in doing so?

Congratulations bud, that's one of the dumbest things I've seen in quite some time.

What's next? You gonna tell me that volcanologists study volcanoes, they can't use a "volcanology approach" in their work?

I didn't say they "can't". It's just that they will be incorrect often. They can try it out and see what they get. But if they want accuracy they should also use a BiblicalCreation-based model. And then compare the results. Creationist models have actually been proven right multiple times. And bioevo predictions have a tendency to fail. I "wonder why".
creation.com/evolution-40-failed-predictions
Volcanology is not anathema to Biblical teaching.

How sad. You're so desperate to wave away all that work, information, and data that you (again out of ignorance of the subject) think that's a valid rebuttal to the thousands of cases of lab work where they watch populations evolve new characteristics?

What about when you waved away my multiple sources as "looking up links that agree with you"?? Hmmm...

I suppose it's just a coincidence that you missed the very first paper in the results, where they watched a population of yeast evolve multicellularity, right?

"Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production."

Why would they "evolve higher apoptosis"?? This is shooting themcellfs () in the foot. Seems like God's provision (no evo!) against mutations, because God's creation was good until adam and eve sinned and broke it.


" but the origin and the maintenance of multicellularity are two distinct evolutionary problems."
You will always have problems if you insist on your own ways instead of God's Genesis account. Cast out bioevo, accept Creation. Obviously life changes, pretty much all YEC know that, but it the change is either neutral or loss, too little gain for upwards-evolution.

" largely because the first steps in this process occurred in the deep past (>200 million years ago)" Deep time assumed.
Try dating a random piece of bark you find on a tree. If you have dating equipment, that is. And view the results.

"the first step in this transition was likely the evolution of genotypes that form simple cellular clusters
....
It is not known whether this occurs more readily through aggregation of genetically distinct cells, as in biofilms, or by mother–daughter cell adhesion after division."

Likely? Not known? Bioevo doesn't seem like something to stand on. I keep seeing evolution believers admit uncertainty a LOT. Creationists have MUCH more certainty in their conclusions. Reminds me of that verse about rejecting knowledge in Hosea.
And which genotypes?

"have shown that predation by a small-mouthed ciliate results in the evolution of eight-celled clusters of the previously single-celled algae Chlorella. "
What did they evolve?

"Evolution of clustering in snowflake-phenotype yeast." Really? Seems like the capability for snowflaking is already there - no evo needed.

I'm curious, did those cells differentiate to become cells of a lifeform such as a fish? Or did they stay as their original selves? It looked like the latter in the pictures.

 

[KV-44-v1]

See, this is why I could never be a creationist. You're forced to find some way to bend reality to make it fit your beliefs, no matter how ridiculous it makes you look. So when you're given thousands of examples of populations evolving new traits and characteristics, all you can do is desperately make up excuses to deny them and make them go away.

This describes bioevo more. "I don't want the Bible's account, I'll rely on fallible men to give me how life was made."

In my world, you take reality as it is and do your best to ensure your beliefs line up accordingly.

Then accepting Biblical History shouldn't be too hard.

Ugh, come on bud, at least try and make a decent argument here. If you honestly think the above is a solid, valid argument, I'm not even really sure what to say.

I'm just explaining a reason I think bioevo violates Occam's Razor.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Creation is real. The revisions of YE creationists are like the thinking of a child.

Internal contradictions found.

Set your pride aside, and just accept it God's way.

This is ironic.
"Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies." 1 Corinthians 8:1

If I've got 'pride', then it follows you have as much if not more.

If evolution was "God's method" then how do you account for the fact most athiests and many deists & agnostics believe evolution and not creation?? Impossible hurdle!!

 

[KV-44-v1]

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27(between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals,and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series— has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series,etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.


"YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms" Well then he isn't a creationist, is he now? He is in the Evolution Camp.
Also, this paper had "1995" on it. Seems like it would have more than enough time to be refuted/addressed.


Lycopods and barag. look too similar. There's barely a resemblance to rhynio's.

And on pikia28,
"The Cambrian chordates are an extinct group of animals belonging to the phylum Chordata"
They are fully chordates, no transitioning here.
Also, which echinoderms and which chordates?
Pikia28 reproduced after their own kind. They transistioned into nothing higher.


And on Purgatorious, it looks like a.... SHREW!! What a terrible "transition". If i put a moose in a tree, does that mean moose evolved from monkeys? Lol.

Also, on worthychristianforums.com/topic/295595-a-concern-for-applying-the-bible-to-the-natural-sciences/?page=54
you were shaking and wobbling, worldview-wise. You love to assert that Creation Christians are "adding" - but that's what you want to believe.

And on proconsul,
It's literally a monkey. May as well claim that ALL monkeys are transitions, with your logic.
When i looked up "homonoids", I got a bunch of fancy artwork. Artwork is awful evidence for evolution.

I'm glad he says "PRESUMED" ancestors.
You just want to believe bioevo and see transitionals.

 

[Uncle J]

Silly creationist?? Which one?

"Silly" is in reference to creationists thinking evolution is "a dog giving birth to a cat"

Far right? How do you determine a "far" right? Most of the time "far right" is just democrat exaggeration of center right or just right..
Childish ways?? Quotes?

The "Big science" article was just complaints that science has been reaching conclusions that are contrary to conservative positions, and grousing about "big media".

from who/where?

From interacting with many creationists, both online and IRL; from reading creationist books, websites, magazines, etc.

That is a big way how operational science works.

No it's not. If you honestly think scientists cannot draw any conclusions about events unless they personally see them occur, that's simply another example of your rather extreme ignorance of the subject.

The Genesis account is an Eyewitness account.

No it's not, it's written in the third person. Duh.

And I said nothing about prisoners. And such non-eyewitness evidence of crimes does not contradict the Bible's historical account.

What? You really don't get the point about how people being convicted of crimes even though no one witnessed them do it means we can indeed reach conclusions about events we didn't see?

Wow.

So you mean that your def of evolution simply means "genetic change in population"? Ok.

That's the definition used in science. Try and remember it.

And where, besides the occasional Genetic Insertion, have we seen this?

I just gave you tons of research papers that include examples of just that.

And to be clear, are you actually arguing that no genome has added nucleotides, ever?

I didn't say they "can't". It's just that they will be incorrect often.

FYI, not one scientist on the planet cares what you think about their work.

They can try it out and see what they get. But if they want accuracy they should also use a BiblicalCreation-based model. And then compare the results.

Why haven't creationists done that themselves? They have all sorts of money, time, and staff to build fake museums, amusement parks, travel the country speaking at churches, hire lawyers, file lawsuits, make movies, etc.

So what's stopping them from applying this "BiblicalCreation-based model" and showing everyone how superior it is?

Creationist models have actually been proven right multiple times.

Examples?

And bioevo predictions have a tendency to fail. I "wonder why".
creation.com/evolution-40-failed-predictions

Well right off the bat that article is just plain ridiculous and can only appeal to people who are fundamentally ignorant of science. It starts with "astronomy/cosmology", which isn't evolution, then "geology" which again isn't evolution, and the rest are just very, very old rehashed creationist talking points.

I mean, polystrate fossils? Those were explained well over 100 years ago! No transitional fossils? They exist by the hundreds of thousands. Vestigial = useless? That's just plain ignorance (vestigial does not = useless). No wheels? Doesn't even make sense. It was a prediction of evolution that convergent evolution couldn't happen? Doesn't even make sense.

Again, those sorts of things only appeal to the ignorant who are desperate for any excuse to deny reality.

Volcanology is not anathema to Biblical teaching.

Oh my goodness, this is hilarious. So it's okay for volcanologists to use volcanology principles in their work because volcanology doesn't conflict with how you read the Bible, but biologists can't use evolutionary principles in their work because evolution conflicts with how you read the Bible?

That's so ridiculous, it's hard to describe. And again, FYI not one scientist on the planet cares about your personal views on what they can or can't do in their work.

"Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production."

Why would they "evolve higher apoptosis"??

Because in multi-cellular organisms, old cells have to die to make room for new cells within the organism.

"the first step in this transition was likely the evolution of genotypes that form simple cellular clusters
....
It is not known whether this occurs more readily through aggregation of genetically distinct cells, as in biofilms, or by mother–daughter cell adhesion after division."

Likely? Not known? Bioevo doesn't seem like something to stand on.

Remember the reason I posted the link in the first place? You disputed that any organisms had ever evolved new characteristics, so I showed you where organisms doing that is observed reality. The example of yeast evolving multicellular characteristics is exactly that.

The above quotes are all about how it originally happened in the deep past, which is a different topic.

"have shown that predation by a small-mouthed ciliate results in the evolution of eight-celled clusters of the previously single-celled algae Chlorella. "
What did they evolve?

It's right there in the abstract...

"We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production."

I'm curious, did those cells differentiate to become cells of a lifeform such as a fish? Or did they stay as their original selves? It looked like the latter in the pictures.

Oh my.....now we've come full circle with you asking if they became fish, just like the silly "dog giving birth to a cat".

If you honestly think this sort of thing is going to draw young people to Christianity.....well, I don't know what else to say.

 

[Uncle J]

This describes bioevo more. "I don't want the Bible's account, I'll rely on fallible men to give me how life was made."

Except for the existence of millions of Christians who have no problem with evolution.

Then accepting Biblical History shouldn't be too hard.

The version of Biblical History you're espousing doesn't line up with reality, as this thread shows.

I'm just explaining a reason I think bioevo violates Occam's Razor.

If what you think were true, then scientists would just publish papers saying "it happened on its own" and nothing more. After all, that's far more simple than even saying a god did it, right?

 

[KV-44-v1]

It allows the bacteria that have them, to live and thrive where others die. That seems like an improvement, doesn't it?

Yes. But insisting that creatures evolve new features, rather than lose PRE EXISTING CREATED ONES, is an incorrect insistence.

Your creationist source probably doesn't realize that fitness only counts in terms of environment. You've been fooled by someone who knows no more than you do.

crev.info/2014/06/archive-classic-fitness-for-dummies/
You like to think that "creation dumb evo smart" so this link should be particularly juicy to you.

They really messed up on that one. To begin with, Sir Alexander Flemming, the discoverer of penicillin, accurately predicted that overuse of antibiotics would lead to the evolution of antibiotic resistance.

Downward "evolution".

And today's antibiotic protocols use evolutionary theory to use antibiotics in ways that delay or prevent the evolution of resistance:

https://crev.info/2023/10/evolutionary-medicine/
https://crev.info/2021/09/science-needs-evolution-like-it-needs-terrorism/
Expect the bad bioevo tree to make a bunch of bad bioevo fruit.

Nature 27 May 2020

Evolutionary causes and consequences of bacterial antibiotic persistence​

Abstract​

Antibiotic treatment failure is of growing concern. Genetically encoded resistance is key in driving this process. However, there is increasing evidence that bacterial antibiotic persistence, a non-genetically encoded and reversible loss of antibiotic susceptibility, contributes to treatment failure and emergence of resistant strains as well. In this Review, we discuss the evolutionary forces that may drive the selection for antibiotic persistence. We review how some aspects of antibiotic persistence have been directly selected for whereas others result from indirect selection in disparate ecological contexts. We then discuss the consequences of antibiotic persistence on pathogen evolution. Persisters can facilitate the evolution of antibiotic resistance and virulence. Finally, we propose practical means to prevent persister formation and how this may help to slow down the evolution of virulence and resistance in pathogens.

Still loss, no gain.
Increase in OUTCOME - but no Darwin-style increase in DNA.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Except for the existence of millions of Christians who have no problem with evolution.

They still have rejected the Genesis account and accept fallen man's attacks on Genesis.

The version of Biblical History you're espousing doesn't line up with reality, as this thread shows.

It shows that Barbarian has no idea what Creationism is. He said something about God creating "one by one" when actually thats what the evolution god would do. One kind into a different kind one at a time.
But in reality, God created ALL land animals *and* Adam in 1 single DAY, not millions of yr. And ALL sea creatures in ONE DAY.
His idiotic view of Creationism is one addition (the 2nd is bioevo). He is guilty of the thing he accuses me of - and I'm not.

If what you think were true, then scientists would just publish papers saying "it happened on its own" and nothing more. After all, that's far more simple than even saying a god did it, right?

No. They seem equally simple.

 

[follower]

This is very good explanation of Noah's Flood and the resulting evidence across the world basically refuting Evolution.

Go back to the Bible, in line with all the Bible.
The Bible clearly explains the utter wickedness on earth
and the Creator wiping out mankind , except for eight saved in the Ark,
without ever mentioning evilution at all.
No need to mention it,
no truth in it,
no need to refute it.
vanity of vanity, all is vanity.

Expect the bad bioevo tree to make a bunch of bad bioevo fruit.

A few years ago men/mankind rejoiced against God
as men started profiting from building starting ON quicksand/ with bad fruit/ false knowledge.

Don't go there. Doesn't help anyone, ever.

 

[KV-44-v1]

The "Big science" article was just complaints that science has been reaching conclusions that are contrary to conservative positions, and grousing about "big media".

What an oversimplification and reduction.

From interacting with many creationists, both online and IRL; from reading creationist books, websites, magazines, etc.

Specifics?

No it's not. If you honestly think scientists cannot draw any conclusions about events unless they personally see them occur, that's simply another example of your rather extreme ignorance of the subject.

I said "a big way" not 'the' big. And bioevo is not just "events", it is something that tries to replace Creation with cobbling.

No it's not, it's written in the third person. Duh.

So what? God still witnessed what He did.

What? You really don't get the point about how people being convicted of crimes even though no one witnessed them do it means we can indeed reach conclusions about events we didn't see?

Ok.

I just gave you tons of research papers that include examples of just that.

I just addressed some. It'll be hard to refute the bioevo 'support' in-depth and one-by-one, but it's easy to refute them with God's plain, clear Word that doesn't need arbitrary, confusing allegorification.

And to be clear, are you actually arguing that no genome has added nucleotides, ever?

No. I'm arguing that organisms simply don't increase in DNA, Darwinism-style.
Insertions are too tiny for up-evolution to occur. And there are substitutions and deletions. Both of which typically harm or are simply silent. MABYE JUST MAYBE a good outcome could result. And they don't qualify for upwards-evolution.

FYI, not one scientist on the planet cares what you think about their work.

Argument from emotion (apathy).

Why haven't creationists done that themselves? They have all sorts of money, time, and staff to build fake museums, amusement parks, travel the country speaking at churches, hire lawyers, file lawsuits, make movies, etc.

Being fake is assumed. Not doing that is assumed.

So what's stopping them from applying this "BiblicalCreation-based model" and showing everyone how superior it is?

Themselves. One factor is that they have no or little knowledge of alternatives.

Examples? Here's one: christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

Well right off the bat that article is just plain ridiculous and can only appeal to people who are fundamentally ignorant of science. It starts with "astronomy/cosmology", which isn't evolution, then "geology" which again isn't evolution, and the rest are just very, very old rehashed creationist talking points.

Appeal to ridicule fallacy.
"very, very old rehashed creationist talking points." Examples? God's Word doesn't change, but evolutionary ideas do it ALL THE TIME. You'd rather believe a shapeshifter view on THE ORIGINS of life than a solid one!! Tells me plenty.
The origins of life is a history matter. Throwing evolutionary "science" at it is no better than trying to prove that WW2 (world war 2) didn't happen by using science.
Creation happened. WW2 happened. Bioevo didn't, and non-WW2 didn't either.

I mean, polystrate fossils? Those were explained well over 100 years ago! No transitional fossils? They exist by the hundreds of thousands. Vestigial = useless? That's just plain ignorance (vestigial does not = useless). No wheels? Doesn't even make sense. It was a prediction of evolution that convergent evolution couldn't happen? Doesn't even make sense.

Oooooohh, "hundred of thousands". Too bad Genesis sends those alleged "100s thousands" crashing down.

So you think vestigial organs, if they existed, have a use? Yeah they have a use, they aren't vestigial they were GOD'S PROVISION.

No wheels? Doesn't even make sense.

Tell that to evolutionary population geneticist, J.B.S. Haldane. I agree, bioevo makes no sense.

Again, those sorts of things only appeal to the ignorant who are desperate for any excuse to deny reality.

Denying the Genesis account qualifies.

Oh my goodness, this is hilarious. So it's okay for volcanologists to use volcanology principles in their work because volcanology doesn't conflict with how you read the Bible, but biologists can't use evolutionary principles in their work because evolution conflicts with how you read the Bible?

Everyone reads the Bible somehow. My way is called "exegesis" (look it up). What's yours?

May as well assume "GNA exists!!" (Grapevine nucleic acid) and try to use a GNA approach to genetics. There is no GNA, and there is no upwards bioevo.

Examples of "evidence" for GNA include: "Grapevines have DNA, so we can be sure of GNA!!" "DNA structure can look like grapevines when zoomed out enough, so thats more evidence for GNA!!"

That's so ridiculous, it's hard to describe. And again, FYI not one scientist on the planet cares about your personal views on what they can or can't do in their work.

These aren't "my personal views". Do you really think that bad trees (bad premises) will have a tendency to produce good fruit (good conclusions)?? Well, you belief in upwards-bioevo seems to allow you to believe such. As you say, "That's so ridiculous, it's hard to describe."

Because in multi-cellular organisms, old cells have to die to make room for new cells within the organism.

Preexisting multicellular organisms created by God! This is literally normal. Normal processes being labelled "evolution" is so funny. No wonder people have a hard time believing in upwards evolution.

Remember the reason I posted the link in the first place? You disputed that any organisms had ever evolved new characteristics, so I showed you where organisms doing that is observed reality. The example of yeast evolving multicellular characteristics is exactly that.

And I showed you why it's not exactly that. Please do try and rebut that.

It's right there in the abstract...

"We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production."

Ok then they were wrong. If you think they weren't, rebut above.

Oh my.....now we've come full circle with you asking if they became fish, just like the silly "dog giving birth to a cat".

Dodger.

If you honestly think this sort of thing is going to draw young people to Christianity.....well, I don't know what else to say.

My goal here is to rebut your evolutionary ideas. Not draw anyone.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Go back to the Bible, in line with all the Bible.
The Bible clearly explains the utter wickedness on earth
and the Creator wiping out mankind , except for eight saved in the Ark,
without ever mentioning evilution at all.
No need to mention it,
no truth in it,
no need to refute it.
vanity of vanity, all is vanity.

A few years ago men/mankind rejoiced against God
as men started profiting from building starting ON quicksand/ with bad fruit/ false knowledge.

Don't go there. Doesn't help anyone, ever.

Good observations that start with the Bible will stand. Bad ones that don't shake, wobble, and crumble under scrutiny, as is shown here.

 

[follower]

I just addressed some. It'll be hard to refute the bioevo 'support' in-depth and one-by-one, but it's easy to refute them with God's plain, clear Word that doesn't need arbitrary, confusing allegorification.

SImple. Good.
God is not wrong.
God Reveals The Truth to little children.
Why does God hide Truth from adults and/or educated ones ?

 

[Uncle J]

They still have rejected the Genesis account and accept fallen man's attacks on Genesis.

They've rejected your interpretation of Genesis.

It shows that Barbarian has no idea what Creationism is.

You're not making sense.

No. They seem equally simple.

Oh come on dude. This is getting ridiculous. If you truly think "the simplest explanation is always right" is some sort of binding rule in science, that's just further evidence of your profound ignorance.

 

[Barbarian]

If I've got 'pride', then it follows you have as much if not more.

I'm humble enough to take His word, His way. You insist on your revisions that make it acceptable to you. No point in denying it.

If evolution was "God's method" then how do you account for the fact most athiests and many deists & agnostics believe evolution and not creation?? \

First, one would expect atheists and agnostics to not believe in creation. However, every deist I know about believes in creation.

You might as well say "if gravity was God's method, then how do you account for the fact that most atheists and many deists and agnostics believe gravity and not creation?

You're not a very rigorous thinker. Maybe a bit of introspection and re-reading of your posts before hitting the "reply" button would be a good idea.

Impossible hurdle!!

No, it's not. When someone writes something that annoys me, I step away from the keyboard, get an iced tea, maybe play with the dog, and then come back and reply. Saves me a lot of embarrassment. It might work for you, too.

 

[Uncle J]

Specifics?

I've read creationist books like The Genesis Flood, Darwin's Black Box, Signature in the Cell, and a few others. I've read countless creationist articles at AiG, ICR, creation.com, etc. I've debated a local creationist pastor live. I've spent 20+ years debating creationists in forums like this one.

I said "a big way" not 'the' big. And bioevo is not just "events", it is something that tries to replace Creation with cobbling.

You're not making sense.

So what? God still witnessed what He did.

It means it's not an eye witness account. If I write "Steve made a chair", that's not an eye witness account, even if Steve told me he made a chair.

I just addressed some. It'll be hard to refute the bioevo 'support' in-depth and one-by-one, but it's easy to refute them with God's plain, clear Word that doesn't need arbitrary, confusing allegorification.

So you don't understand most of the science you're trying to argue against, and all you really know is "if it conflicts with my reading of the Bible, it's wrong".

No. I'm arguing that organisms simply don't increase in DNA, Darwinism-style.
Insertions are too tiny for up-evolution to occur. And there are substitutions and deletions. Both of which typically harm or are simply silent. MABYE JUST MAYBE a good outcome could result. And they don't qualify for upwards-evolution.

Nope sorry, I'm not about to take your "because I say so" declarations as true, especially given your profound ignorance of science.

Not doing that is assumed.

Then show where creationists have conducted science under their creationist framework and gotten superior results.

Examples? Here's one: christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

Well that was from ~30 years ago and unless I missed something, it hasn't gone anywhere or accomplished a single thing, probably because Humphreys never even bothered to present it to the scientific community and instead just put it in a creationist journal.

"very, very old rehashed creationist talking points." Examples?

I just gave you several, polystrate fossils, vestigial organs, and transitional fossils.

God's Word doesn't change

You can't be serious. There are at least 450 different versions of the English Bible alone!

Oooooohh, "hundred of thousands". Too bad Genesis sends those alleged "100s thousands" crashing down.

Where does Genesis say anything about fossils?

So you think vestigial organs, if they existed, have a use?

Yes, even in Darwin's day....

"Darwin also noted, in On the Origin of Species, that a vestigial structure could be useless for its primary function, but still retain secondary anatomical roles: "An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.... [A]n organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object.""

Tell that to evolutionary population geneticist, J.B.S. Haldane.

Again, you're not making sense at all.

Everyone reads the Bible somehow. My way is called "exegesis" (look it up). What's yours?

May as well assume "GNA exists!!" (Grapevine nucleic acid) and try to use a GNA approach to genetics. There is no GNA, and there is no upwards bioevo.

Examples of "evidence" for GNA include: "Grapevines have DNA, so we can be sure of GNA!!" "DNA structure can look like grapevines when zoomed out enough, so thats more evidence for GNA!!"

Again, none of that makes any sense whatsoever.

Preexisting multicellular organisms created by God! This is literally normal. Normal processes being labelled "evolution" is so funny. No wonder people have a hard time believing in upwards evolution.

And I showed you why it's not exactly that. Please do try and rebut that.

Ok then they were wrong. If you think they weren't, rebut above.

All you're doing is demonstrating that it's pointless to show science to you, because if you think it conflicts with your beliefs you just declare "Nuh uh, God made it that way" like a little kid.

My goal here is to rebut your evolutionary ideas. Not draw anyone.

My bet is, the approach you're engaging in here will push far more people away from Christianity than it draws in. Upon being told that being a Christian and believing the Bible means they must reject/deny almost all of the conclusions of the earth and life sciences, most rational, thinking people will head for the church exits.

 

[Barbarian]

Explain babies who are miscarried/deformed?

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

"Evil" here does not mean "wickedness", but "bad things." God is not fair as humans count fairness. We are all born equal in the sense of being loved by God and having equal rights. But not equal in the burdens He lays on us. Do not question His judgement in the way He creates us.

I realize you want to believe that thermodynamics rules out evolution. But I notice you still can't name even one process required for evolution that is ruled out by thermodynamics.

You still keep assuming I should rule out a PROCESS and not the evo itself.

You're at a disadvantage because you have no idea what the processes of evolution are. But if you can show us how thermodynamics rules out all of Darwin's points, feel free. Show your numbers. What do you have? Be honest here; you have no idea how to calculate thermodynamic data, do you?

You're in way over your head here.

(Bible doesn't specifically indicate evolution)

The Bible doesn't indicate protons or DNA once. So that's hardly an issue. C'mon.

They were instantly, intelligently created.

You just added that to scripture. Because you don't approve of the way God created things. Have a little humility and let God be God.

"God is a cobbler!!" (not explicitly, but thats EXACTLY what evolution implies)

Nope. Christians think that God created the world and the world brought forth living things as He created it to do. You won't accept His word on this, and instead rely on fallible men to tell you that they know better than God. God is much wiser and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.

Yes. But insisting that creatures evolve new features, rather than lose PRE EXISTING CREATED ONES, is an incorrect insistence.

Remember when I said ignorance was taking you down? Just did again...

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home​

April 18, 2008 Source: University Of Massachusetts, Amherst
Summary:
In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now researchers have shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.
...
Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.

A new digestive organ evolved in this population in just a few decades. That's remarkably fast, but there you are. They also evolved stronger jaws, behavior changes, and other traits.

 

[Barbarian]

Just for the record, "operational science" (there's really just "science) does indeed make findings about things that happened without them having been observed. If this was true, things like fire investigatin, forensics, geology, and so on, wouldn't even exist.

And and the people who deny this wonder why others laugh at them.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

"Evil" here does not mean "wickedness", but "bad things." God is not fair as humans count fairness. We are all born equal in the sense of being loved by God and having equal rights. But not equal in the burdens He lays on us. Do not question His judgement in the way He creates us.

I realize you want to believe that thermodynamics rules out evolution. But I notice you still can't name even one process required for evolution that is ruled out by thermodynamics.


You're at a disadvantage because you have no idea what the processes of evolution are. But if you can show us how thermodynamics rules out all of Darwin's points, feel free. Show your numbers. What do you have? Be honest here; you have no idea how to calculate thermodynamic data, do you?

You're in way over your head here.

(Bible doesn't specifically indicate evolution)

The Bible doesn't indicate protons or DNA once. So that's hardly an issue. C'mon.


You just added that to scripture. Because you don't approve of the way God created things. Have a little humility and let God be God.


Nope. Christians think that God created the world and the world brought forth living things as He created it to do. You won't accept His word on this, and instead rely on fallible men to tell you that they know better than God. God is much wiser and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.

Remember when I said ignorance was taking you down? Just did again...

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home​

April 18, 2008 Source: University Of Massachusetts, Amherst
Summary:
In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now researchers have shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.
...
Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.

A new digestive organ evolved in this population in just a few decades. That's remarkably fast, but there you are. They also evolved stronger jaws, behavior changes, and other traits.

One of the most powerful arguments against Evolution I ever heard, convinced me (then agnostic/atheist) that perhaps evolution was incorrect.

Its a simple argument, perhaps you can "refute it".

It springs off the idea of "survival of the fittest", that mutations beneficial to an organism aid survival and so become normal in all of the "community", and those that are not "die out".

The human eye has thousands of "parts". Every one of them must work for eyesight to benefit the organism. That is true for all life that can see. The eye doesn't exist alone, it has many parts, optic nerve and brain capable of interpreting the electro-chemical signals it produces.

But how could such a complex system evolve? To illustrate, an eye socket without the eye would allow bugs to crawl in and eat the brain. An eye without the lens is useless, or optic nerve. An eye that doesn't immediately confer a benefit to survival, works against survival as it is subject to damage and a weak point in any organism.


So how, rationally speaking, could eyesight that benefited the survival....evolve.

It is logical eyesight must be the result of fiat creation.

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, KV-44-v1 is into an intensive Gish Gallop now, tossing out all sorts of things, hoping something might stick. If I've missed any of those, anyone feel free to point them out; I'll be happy to debunk them for him.

Uncle J, do I know you from some other websites?