[__ Science __ ] Evolution Is a Scientific Law?

[Barbarian]

Don't insist that God is limited to things humans can understand.

Then the YEC view is true.

It would seem the opposite is true. YEC is based on man's understanding, rather than God's wisdom.

You may not understand how God packed enough info for every animal into the original ancestors to diversify

What you don't get is that He didn't have to "pack" anything. You see, nucleic acids are intrinsically capable of producing all the variation we see in living things. The information wasn't there, the potential to generate new information was.

Genes change so therefore the animal's genes could ultimately change by themselves into something totally different over a span of time!" Well for that you'll need LOTS of DNA and probably also RNA insertions and subsitutions to do such.

That's what the data show. Would you like some examples?

And you need ALL or ALMOST ALL THE RIGHT ONES.

No, that's observably wrong. Natural selection takes care of that. It was Darwin's great discovery. Would you like to see an example of that?

How many of these types would you think are needed for a dino populous to give rise to some birds?

Remember birds are dinosaurs, so you'd have to draw us a line showing where birdlike dinosaurs end and true birds begin. Let's see your criteria, and how you know. The first step is to find some character found in birds that is not found in non-avian dinosaurs. What do you have?

And you can't understand why calculating from the Biblical records gives ~6K years of physical realm's existence.

YE creationists vary quite a bit in their speculations, but none of them are correct. The reason they vary so much is that they depend on a great number of untestable assumptions to support their beliefs.

How much?

A great deal. Would you like some examples?

 

[KV-44-v1]

Don't insist that God is limited to things humans can understand.

You are the one doing it, because you take the words of nonChristians (Most 21st century evolution 'scientists' are not Christians.) over the Bible and your ideas evolve accordingly.
You cant understand that Genesis is literal.

so which one is better? When one certainly relies on claims of fallible scientists who are wrong more often than not, or someone supposedly relying on fallible sda's who were wrong more often than not????
Reject one, you have to reject the other, too.
Meanwhile, I believe the timeless Yec truth over fallible man. Isn't it better to not worry, if your beliefs about origins are wrong, all the time?

Do you believe i am implying God can't do the things you are asserting God did? If so, no. God COULD have used K2KE. But He didn't. Birds stay birds not dinoes for example. If they can go forward (dino2bird) why not back (bird2dino), too?

You believe monkeys are "too evolved" to give rise to humans. You, by your logic, must be limiting God then. :/
What makes something "too evolved"? Seems like an arbitrary thing.

It would seem the opposite is true. YEC is based on man's understanding, rather than God's wisdom.

How ironic, coming from the one who changes his beliefs about what animal turned into what based on what "the science" says. Here the next, gone tomorrow. Btw, there are LOTS of problems unaddressed in K2KE guesses about ancestry, for example. One reason you believe in K2KE because you don't see the scary implications and logical/technical problems.

What you don't get is that He didn't have to "pack" anything.

I agree. He could choose whether to do it or not. He chose to do. God doesn't "have" to be All Wise, either, but God values wisdom. He wants wisdom, He wants us to be wise.

You see, nucleic acids are intrinsically capable of producing all the variation we see in living things.

Yes. And its just that, variation with kinds. Minor differences, not major differences. Unless theres a functional part lost.

Which alleles of dinoes changed into birds? We should know exactly what alleles changed.

The information wasn't there,

Why? From what we see, it was. Do you believe something can come from nothing?

That's what the data show. Would you like some examples?

The data show that it would take that. Oh and there is the issue of overcoming the rate of Deletion mutations. There is no gurantee of what mutations will occur on what location of what gene/genome, anything could happen.

No, that's observably wrong. Natural selection takes care of that. It was Darwin's great discovery. Would you like to see an example of that?

By "ones" in "all or almost all of the right ones" i meant those substitutions and insertions. are we talking about the same thing?

Remember birds are dinosaurs,

so you'd have to draw us a line showing where birdlike dinosaurs end and true birds begin.

They began when God created the original instances instantly.
Similarities are not proof of ancestry but of God creating lifeforms with similar features.

Wouldn't you expect an All Wise God to use similar creations in the things He creates???? No need for superfluous ancestry evolution stuff?

Let's see your criteria, and how you know. The first step is to find some character found in birds that is not found in non-avian dinosaurs. What do you have?


YE creationists vary quite a bit in their speculations, but none of them are correct. The reason they vary so much is that they depend on a great number of untestable assumptions to support their beliefs.


A great deal. Would you like some examples?

 

[KV-44-v1]

Let's see your criteria, and how you know.

Because the Bible said "And it was so", not "it gradually became so".
Just look at em. We intiutively know what a bird looks like. And a dino. Birds do not have significant legs, not even the big ones like cassowary and ostrich. Elephants have "significant legs" for example.

I can say "A mug and a bottle are the same! What features do mugs have that bottles do not, and vice versa?? They can be drank out of! They can be held by hands! They can be set on surfaces! They contain liquids! With all this OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TM we conclude that they must be the same!"

The first step is to find some character found in birds that is not found in non-avian dinosaurs

First you have to prove how similarity is proof of ancestry instead of God using similar ""designs"". And dont try to cheat by saying He "used k2k evolution".

A car and a bus can both be yellow, but that does not mean that two balloons of yellow paint fell on both vehicles. Mabye the car was painted from the factory. Or mabye a material coating on the car turned yellow.

 

[Barbarian]

Because the Bible said "And it was so", not "it gradually became so".

In fact the Bible makes no comment at all on how long it took. You just added that for yourself.

Just look at em. We intiutively know what a bird looks like.

Pretty much like other Maniraptoran dinosaurs. Should I show you, again?

And a dino. Birds do not have significant legs, not even the big ones like cassowary and ostrich.

They look sorta like other Maniraptoran dinosaurs. Birds have shortened tails, and longer forelimbs. But even wishbones are found in some Maniraptorans.

Elephants have "significant legs" for example.

But shrews don't. Are you telling us that shrews aren't mammals? C'mon.

I can say "A mug and a bottle are the same! What features do mugs have that bottles do not, and vice versa?? They can be drank out of! They can be held by hands! They can be set on surfaces! They contain liquids! With all this OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TM we conclude that they must be the same!"

You're still confusing analogy with homology. Because birds are homologous to a certain group of dinosaurs, and because (as you've admitted) there are no characters in birds not found in other dinosaurs, the conclusion is obvious. Birds are the last surviving dinosaurs.

First you have to prove how similarity is proof of ancestry

Again, you're confusing analogy with homology. There's more than just the fact that birds have no characteristics not found in other dinosaurs. We know that biochemically birds are more like other dinosaurs than they are like other reptiles. Would you like to see that?

Genetically, birds are more similar to archosaurs (dinosaurs and their relatives). Darwin's associate, Huxley, predicted that birds were descended from dinosaurs because of similarities in structure between birds and crocodiles (also archosaurs). Subsequent evidence confirmed Huxley's prediction.

 

[Barbarian]

Don't insist that God is limited to things humans can understand.

You are the one doing it, because you take the words of nonChristians

Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. C'mon.

You cant understand that Genesis is literal.

In the same sense that I can't understand that the world is flat. For the same reason. The text itself says it's not literal days, for example.

so which one is better? When one certainly relies on claims of fallible scientists who are wrong more often than not

If you think so, you're not as smart as I think you are. In fact, nothing man can do works better than science for understanding the physical world.

or someone supposedly relying on fallible sda's who were wrong more often than not????

The fundamentalists who evangelized the SDA doctrine of YE to other denominations were convinced by George McCreedy Price, an SDA missionary.

Meanwhile, I believe the timeless Yec truth over fallible man.

You were sold the new doctrines of fallible man.

Isn't it better to not worry, if your beliefs about origins are wrong, all the time?

Fact is, God doesn't care if you're a YE creationist. Unless you make an idol of your new beliefs, you're no less Christian than any other.

Do you believe i am implying God can't do the things you are asserting God did?

That's the impression you're leaving, yes.

Birds stay birds not dinoes for example.

We tested that belief. You couldn't name one feature of birds not also true of dinosaurs. By your own failure to name any differences at all, birds are dinosaurs.

You believe monkeys are "too evolved" to give rise to humans.

Yep. They evolved in a different direction.

You, by your logic, must be limiting God then.

No, you simply don't think God is omnipotent and capable of using both necessity and contingency in His divine providence.

How ironic, coming from the one who changes his beliefs about what animal turned into what based on what "the science" says.

As St. Augustine observed, unless scripture is unamibigously clear, we should be willing to change our fallible opinions, if new evidence so indicates. That's the Christian position.

Btw, there are LOTS of problems unaddressed in K2KE guesses about ancestry, for example.

Your forget to mention the example. I think I know why.

One reason you believe in K2KE

Don't even know what it is. I guess I'm a little behind on YE buzzwords.

You see, nucleic acids are intrinsically capable of producing all the variation we see in living things.

Yes.

And it's a lot of variation. But there is no evidence at all for some barrier between "kinds." Indeed, YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise admits that the large number of fossil transitional forms between "kinds" is "very good evidence for macroevolutuionary theory."

Minor differences, not major differences. Unless theres a functional part lost.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, one group of dinosaurs evolved wings. There were flying dinosaurs long before there were birds. No, I don't mean pterosaurs. Feathered, flying maniraptor dinosaurs.

Which alleles of dinoes changed into birds?

First one that comes to mind...
EvoDevo
29 July 2014
Interestingly, a prevalent pleiotropic effect of mutations that cause fused caudal vertebral bodies (as in the pygostyles of birds) is tail truncation. We identified 23 mutations in this class, and these were primarily restricted to genes involved in axial extension. At least half of the mutations that cause short, fused tails lie in the Notch/Wnt pathway of somite boundary formation or differentiation, leading to changes in somite number or size. Several of the mutations also cause additional bone fusions in the trunk skeleton, reminiscent of those observed in primitive and modern birds. All of our findings were correlated to the fossil record.

The data show that it would take that. Oh and there is the issue of overcoming the rate of Deletion mutations. There is no gurantee of what mutations will occur on what location of what gene/genome, anything could happen.

That's why Darwin's discovery of natural selection was so important. He showed that it doesn't work by chance.

Similarities are not proof of ancestry but of God creating lifeforms with similar features.

No, you're falling into the "bats are birds" trap. It's not similarities but homologies that show descent. I showed you a few cases. Would you like to see some more?

Wouldn't you expect an All Wise God to use similar creations in the things He creates?

God is not compelled to comply with our expectations. As engineers have discovered, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for complex problems. As usual, God knows best.

YE creationists vary quite a bit in their speculations, but none of them are correct. The reason they vary so much is that they depend on a great number of untestable assumptions to support their beliefs.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Don't insist that God is limited to things humans can understand.

You are.

Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. C'mon.

I was not referring to Darwin. Cmon.

In the same sense that I can't understand that the world is flat. For the same reason. The text itself says it's not literal days, for example.

Do you actually think this below citation is correct?
Genesis 1:23 "The days recorded here are not literal days."
Really?

If you think so, you're not as smart as I think you are. In fact, nothing man can do works better than science for understanding the physical world.

AH. The PHYSICAL WORLD, not its origin. Not history. The physical world ITSELF! So you admit, then, trying to drudge up madeup history (mills of years) and what MAY have happened in the past, using operational science, is a NON-SEQUITUR. Why aren't we trying to find scientific evidence that Daniel really did enter the Lions' Den, hmm?

The fundamentalists who evangelized the SDA doctrine of YE to other denominations were convinced by George McCreedy Price, an SDA missionary.

This completely ignores those who believed YEC truth before SDA.

You were sold the new doctrines of fallible man.

Says the one who believes what the WORLD

has to say about the origins & distant history issue.

Fact is, God doesn't care if you're a YE creationist.

What does this mean?

Unless you make an idol of your new beliefs, you're no less Christian than any other.

Ditto.

That's the impression you're leaving, yes.

Whether God did or did not use K2K evolution involves the perfection of His character. Not a power issue.
K2K E is an attack on God's character. Only YEC can accurately, logically, coherently, preach His power and perfect moral goodness.

We tested that belief. You couldn't name one feature of birds not also true of dinosaurs. By your own failure to name any differences at all, birds are dinosaurs.

bird only: The ability to chirp.
dino only: Being giant sized. Having insanely long necks. Triceratops frills. Horns on tails. Horns on face.

Yep. They evolved in a different direction.

No, you simply don't think God is omnipotent and capable of using both necessity and contingency in His divine providence.

I don't think you are calling God weak, I think you can't believe that God created instantly instead of needing millions years.

Admit it, God is Omnipotent. He made instantly.

I think God isn't as mean as you think He is.
God can lie too. But does He?

As St. Augustine observed, unless scripture is unamibigously clear, we should be willing to change our fallible opinions, if new evidence so indicates. That's the Christian position.

Yes.

Your forget to mention the example. I think I know why.

Don't even know what it is. I guess I'm a little behind on YE buzzwords.

You see, nucleic acids are intrinsically capable of producing all the variation we see in living things.


And it's a lot of variation. But there is no evidence at all for some barrier between "kinds."

If they cannot breed (ie, a monkey and a cat) then they are not of the same kind. If they can breed (ie, horse and donkey), same kind.
Debunked.

Indeed, YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise admits that the large number of fossil transitional forms between "kinds" is "very good evidence for macroevolutuionary theory."

Does he mean CAFPT aka allelic change in pop's w time?

No, that's wrong, too. For example, one group of dinosaurs evolved wings. There were flying dinosaurs long before there were birds. No, I don't mean pterosaurs. Feathered, flying maniraptor dinosaurs.

What's the group?

First one that comes to mind...
EvoDevo
29 July 2014
Interestingly, a prevalent pleiotropic effect of mutations that cause fused caudal vertebral bodies (as in the pygostyles of birds) is tail truncation. We identified 23 mutations in this class, and these were primarily restricted to genes involved in axial extension. At least half of the mutations that cause short, fused tails lie in the Notch/Wnt pathway of somite boundary formation or differentiation, leading to changes in somite number or size. Several of the mutations also cause additional bone fusions in the trunk skeleton, reminiscent of those observed in primitive and modern birds. All of our findings were correlated to the fossil record.

This is just errors in the tail. Doesn't lend much support to transformation into totally new creatures. Looks like a disadvantageous trait.

That's why Darwin's discovery of natural selection was so important. He showed that it doesn't work by chance.

Not pure chance, no.

No, you're falling into the "bats are birds" trap.

The hebrew for 'birds' , ohf, refers to any flying object. Noah did NOT call bats birds.
Learning important Hebrew words is very useful.

It's not similarities but homologies that show descent.

Homologies beg the question of K2K evolution, so it's circular reasoning. No better than phylogenetics.

I showed you a few cases. Would you like to see some more?

God is not compelled to comply with our expectations.

I agree. That's why He does the miraculous like Genesis says rather than fiddle with naturalism. Natural tendency is to expect God used what we see TODAY and then extrapolate into the past.

2 Peter 3:4
and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.”

As engineers have discovered, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for complex problems. As usual, God knows best.

Yeah well God is Omniscient so He knows exactly what thing to use. He doesn't need silly evo algo's, man does. And God doesn't need design ""PROCESSES"" , either.
God does the impossible. Not merely 'efficient'.

Tell me, does God learn what thing to make from the evo algo? Or does God already have the knowledge beforehand? Hmmmm?

YE creationist [Christians] vary quite a bit in their speculations, but none of them are correct.

K2KE 'scienstists' vary way more and are wrong more often when 'finding out' K2KE related stuff.

The reason they vary so much is that they depend on a great number of untestable assumptions to support their beliefs.

No, they rely on the Bible instead of assuming physics was responsible for creation.

 

[KV-44-v1]

"The secular (which means anti-God as there is no neutrality) education systems of the entire world are, by and large, teaching generations of students that science has supposedly proved the universe and all life (including humans) arose by natural processes. Naturalism is atheism. Students are indoctrinated to believe that astronomical, biological, geological, and anthropological evolution are fact. As a result, increasing numbers in each generation believe the Bible is not a true book of history but is a book of mythology.The more people believe that there is no God and that they arose by natural processes, the more they will build a worldview consistent with this belief. The best way to summarize their worldview is to apply this verse of Scripture to their situation: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).In other words, when people reject the absolute authority of God’s Word, ultimately, anything goes regarding their worldview. Right and wrong are a matter of their subjective decision. As a result of such a worldview, we would expect to see moral relativism permeating the culture—which is exactly what we see. This is resulting in a massive spiritual climate change, particularly in the West, that has had a predominantly Christianized worldview built on the Judeo-Christian ethic found in the Bible."
x.com/aigkenham/status/1843591785454453082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1843591785454453082%7Ctwgr%5E7054c397a4e226cd55741a06b105f9f6638a1494%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fanswersingenesis.org%2F

also:
answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/what-technology-was-available-to-build-ark/

 

[Barbarian]

Because you accept man's revision of scripture, you've been convinced that the days of creation are literal 24 hour days. But the text itself says they are not. One can't have mornings and evenings without a sun. So the text itself makes it clear why Christians have always known that the creation week is figurative. Your insistence that God is limited to things humans can understand makes it harder for you to see what He actually did.

Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. C'mon.

I was not referring to Darwin.

It's Darwin's theory. You'll have to deal with what he said, not AIG's attempt to put words in his mouth.

If you think so, you're not as smart as I think you are. In fact, nothing man can do works better than science for understanding the physical world.

AH. The PHYSICAL WORLD, not its origin.

How the universe came to be, is not part of science. How the world formed is part of science. Would you like to learn how we know?

So you admit, then, trying to drudge up madeup history (mills of years) and what MAY have happened in the past, using operational science, is a NON-SEQUITUR.

If you understood how science works, it would help you understand how operational science shows us the way the world formed. The YE creationist notion that we can't know about anything we didn't actually see, is transparently foolish.

Why aren't we trying to find scientific evidence that Daniel really did enter the Lions' Den, hmm?

The idea, "if we can't know everything, we can't know anything", is another foolish YE notion.

The fundamentalists who evangelized the SDA doctrine of YE to other denominations were convinced by George McCreedy Price, an SDA missionary.

This completely ignores those who believed YEC truth before SDA.

For example, St. Augustine thought the world was a few thousand years old, not seeing evidence we have today. But he absolutely rejected the YE invention of literal 24 hour creation days. You were sold the new doctrines of fallible man.
No, that's wrong, too. For example, one group of dinosaurs evolved wings. There were flying dinosaurs long before there were birds. No, I don't mean pterosaurs. Feathered, flying maniraptor dinosaurs.

What's the group?

Maniraptors.

Which alleles of dinoes changed into birds?

First one that comes to mind...
EvoDevo
29 July 2014
Interestingly, a prevalent pleiotropic effect of mutations that cause fused caudal vertebral bodies (as in the pygostyles of birds) is tail truncation. We identified 23 mutations in this class, and these were primarily restricted to genes involved in axial extension. At least half of the mutations that cause short, fused tails lie in the Notch/Wnt pathway of somite boundary formation or differentiation, leading to changes in somite number or size. Several of the mutations also cause additional bone fusions in the trunk skeleton, reminiscent of those observed in primitive and modern birds. All of our findings were correlated to the fossil record.

This is just errors in the tail.

You think a bird's tail is an error? It works really well for them. A huge improvement from the long tails of other maniraptors. The alleles that changed to make this improvement are known. When it comes down to details, all creationists have is "well, God made an error."

Whether God did or did not use K2K evolution involves the perfection of His character. Not a power issue.
K2K E is an attack on God's character.

Which makes sense. K2KE (whatever that is) is an creationist invention.

But there is no evidence at all for some barrier between "kinds."

We tested that belief. You couldn't name one feature of birds not also true of dinosaurs. By your own failure to name any differences at all, birds are dinosaurs.

bird only: The ability to chirp.

Crested gekkos chirp lots of other examples. You see, there is evidence that the syrinx of birds evolved from simpler chirping structures in non-avian dinosaurs, but that evolution preceded maniraptoran dinosaurs:

nature
15 February 2023

An ankylosaur larynx provides insights for bird-like vocalization in non-avian dinosaurs​

Although bird-unique vocal source (syrinx) have never been reported in non-avian dinosaurs, Pinacosaurus could have employed bird-like vocalization with the bird-like large, kinetic larynx. This oldest laryngeal fossil from the Cretaceous dinosaur provides the first step for understanding the vocal evolution in non-avian dinosaurs toward birds.

But it's more interesting than even that...

Vocal Organ of Reptiles and Mammals Share a Genetic Blueprint​

Vocal Organ of Reptiles and Mammals Share a Genetic Blueprint

Recent research has revealed a common genetic link between the larynx – the vocal organ of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians – and the syrinx – the vocal organ of birds.

www.technologynetworks.com

So the common ancestor of mammals and dinosaurs had the genes for larynx/syrinx, and we and birds share those genes, albeit modified in different ways.

That's why Darwin's discovery of natural selection was so important. He showed that it doesn't work by chance.

Not pure chance, no.

That was his discovery. Random variation plus natural selection, is not a chance process. This goes back to your confusion of analogy (looks like) and homology (derived from the same structure). Wings of bats and dragonflies are analogous. Flippers of dolphins and wings of bats are homologous, evolved from the same structures. Homology indicates evolution; analogy does not. So the homology between the maniraptoran tail and the pygostle in birds indicates evolution. The fact that the genetic evidence confirms that evolution is just additional evidence. What you consider an "error" in genes changed the tail in typical dinosaurs to the shortened version in birds. In a similar way, such "errors" in genetic algorithms allow engineers to use evolutionary processes to (for example) refine the efficiency of diesel engines.

God knew best, after all.

Yeah well God is Omniscient so He knows exactly what thing to use. He doesn't need silly evo algo's, man does.

He is the Author of the original. Ours are just copies of His processes. He uses evolutionary processes, because they work better than bit-and-pieces design.

 

[Barbarian]

If they cannot breed (ie, a monkey and a cat) then they are not of the same kind.

But by AIG's criteria, "Kind" includes genus and sometimes family. Lots of things that fit in the same "kind" by AIG's definition, like humans and chimpanzees, can't interbreed. Zebras and horses can't interbreed, aside from a few sterile instances. Not all species of cat can interbreed. So one more way that we know the "biological kinds" doctrine is false.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Because you accept man's revision of scripture,

Nope. From a young age I assumed, by reading the Text, that God made the first creatures immediately, taking no time when He made them. On my own, BTW. So if it is "revision", how did i magically know how to revise from a young age??
Define "revise" in your context.

you've been convinced that the days of creation are literal 24 hour days.

That's what evidence and Scripture show, so far. Did you really think mere revision would be enough to be convincing?

But the text itself says they are not.

Which verse? (no answer)

One can't have mornings and evenings without a sun.

addressed this already somewhere else.

Why do you believe that that ONE LITTLE INSTANCE renders the WHOLE [Book of Genesis] allegory??
Interpret Scripture with Scripture.

God is Omnipotent. He does not need created things to tell evening and morning. How do you know that God didn't keep evenings and mornings by a different standard?
Or maybe God used His infinite knowledge, and knew that the time taken would amount to an evening and a morning.

And you already believe it is allegory. Under that assumption, "evening and morning" could mean LITERALLY ANYTHING. Cats and dogs, some tale about summer and winter, etc.

You don't need to compromise your beliefs with [the athiest triad].

So the text itself makes it clear why Christians have always known that the creation week is figurative.

A few individual Christians thinking it was figurative in ancient times does not mean the majority of Christians in ancient times (pre-1600's) did. Some also believed in Unitarianism, but Unitarianism is clearly false.
Always? That's a testable claim.

Your insistence that God is limited to things humans can understand makes it harder for you to see what He actually did.

Seems you read that into my posts. I did not insist such.

Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. C'mon.

It's Darwin's theory. You'll have to deal with what he said, not AIG's attempt to put words in his mouth.

What words are they saying he said? You are the word-sticker because you basically said i "insist God is limited".

Your insistence that God is limited to things humans can understand makes it harder for you to see what He actually did.

Where did i say or imply this? Accusation confession.

Yeah well God is Omniscient so He knows exactly what thing to use. He doesn't need silly evo algo's, man does. And God doesn't need design ""PROCESSES"" , either.
God does the impossible. Not merely 'efficient'.

Tell me, does God learn what thing to make from the evo algo? Or does God already have the knowledge beforehand? Hmmmm?

As you can see, not once have I "limited God". Its just you, whose beliefs consistently applied, imply that God must be slow and not able to make an excellent creation.

If you think so, you're not as smart as I think you are. In fact, nothing man can do works better than science for understanding the physical world.

Science involves man studying the world around us, yes? So then you are saying "What man can do is better than what man can do"?

How the universe came to be, is not part of science. How the world formed is part of science.

Neither are because both involve history. But how the world DOES form TODAY is, because its happening in the present.

If you understood how science works, it would help you understand how operational science shows us the way the world formed.

by default it becomes historical science.

The YE creationist notion that we can't know about anything we didn't actually see, is transparently foolish.

No, since YEC make frequent use of archeology. That is not a "Yec notion", that's what you believe to be a Yec notion.

Then the OEE notion that we can know everything about what we didn't see is clearly foolish.

The idea, "if we can't know everything, we can't know anything", is another foolish YE notion.

You made that up? Show us how you got that.

The fundamentalists who evangelized the SDA doctrine of YE to other denominations were convinced by George McCreedy Price, an SDA missionary.

Christian "Fundamentalists", if sticking to the denotation (dictionary def), are not the bad guys. Legalists are the worry.

Athiests evangelize evolution, big bang, and deep time to people of various beliefs, too. But yet you insist God created K2K evo.

For example, St. Augustine thought the world was a few thousand years old, not seeing evidence we have today. But he absolutely rejected the YE invention of literal 24 hour creation days.

Can't be invention if its from the Bible.
Sure Genesis does not contain the exact term "24 hour days". You may believe that Yec are saying it has those terms, but if you believe that, thats false.

You were sold the new doctrines of fallible man.

Heh. Which history is the worLd promoting? Yec truth (comes from the Bible) or K2K evo?
The worLd loves its own and dislikes Godliness.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, one group of dinosaurs evolved wings.

What part were the wings supposed to come from?

There were flying dinosaurs long before there were birds.

If there were, it's because God already endowed them with that. Flight is too complex to have come about by nature.

No, I don't mean pterosaurs. Feathered, flying maniraptor dinosaurs.

Maniraptors.

The feathers are made up drawn by artists. They were designed by men, not made over mills of years.

First one that comes to mind...
EvoDevo
29 July 2014
Interestingly, a prevalent pleiotropic effect of mutations that cause fused caudal vertebral bodies (as in the pygostyles of birds) is tail truncation. We identified 23 mutations in this class, and these were primarily restricted to genes involved in axial extension. At least half of the mutations that cause short, fused tails lie in the Notch/Wnt pathway of somite boundary formation or differentiation, leading to changes in somite number or size. Several of the mutations also cause additional bone fusions in the trunk skeleton, reminiscent of those observed in primitive and modern birds. All of our findings were correlated to the fossil record.

So how are these errors IN the tail supposed to improve it????

You think a bird's tail is an error?

Clear strawman. A strawman is a logical fallacy. i said errors IN the tail. Where did you get "a tail is an error"?

It works really well for them. A huge improvement from the long tails of other maniraptors. The alleles that changed to make this improvement are known.

When it comes down to details, all creationists have is "well, God made an error."

No, God made the original tails perfect for their pre-Fall pre-Flood environments with all the genes necessary for things.
Design (not in the human sense like you assume) that adapts to surroundings is what is true, not min to min evolution. (baramin!)

Which makes sense. K2KE (whatever that is) is an creationist invention.

Evolution is an OE creationist invention. Well actually no they borrowed it from pagans.

But there is no evidence at all for some barrier between "kinds."

Yes there is, the breedability test. Can it breed!

.

You couldn't name one feature of birds not also true of dinosaurs. By your own failure to name any differences at all, birds are dinosaurs.

bird only: The ability to chirp.
dino only: Being giant sized. Having insanely long necks. Triceratops frills. Horns on tails. Horns on face

If they cannot breed (ie, a monkey and a cat) then they are not of the same kind. If they can breed (ie, horse and donkey), same kind.
Debunked.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

That's not all that's wrong with the AIG article...

"For Christians, evolution almost always conjures images of protoplasm turning into people over billions of years."

Most Christians know better than this, if they were paying attention in biology class. Christians aren't more ignorant than other people.

"This is the definition that directly contradicts Scripture."

Actually, it doesn't. But it does contradict science; evolution isn't about the beginning of cellular life. It's always possible that the writer just doesn't know what "protoplasm" means. But still...

"Thankfully, the authors supplied and elaborated on their term evolution by natural selection. In short, in their minds, evolution by natural selection is the process by which organisms reproduce, pass on variable traits, and compete for resources.3 It’s very similar to the definition I learned for the “process of evolution” in my college Biology 102 course. It’s also readily observable."

Precisely, it's a change in allele frequencies in a population of living things. So yes, a fact that's directly observed.

"Uh oh. "

It's been a tough few decades for AIG. They do now admit the evolution of new species and genera, but that's not really going to help much.

" Wrong. Why? Because evolution means different things in different contexts."

What matters is what it means in science. What AIG dreams up and calls "evolution" is of no consequence outside of the religion of YE creationism. Here's some more confusion...

"The most basic criterion of scientific fact is observation. It’s a bit difficult to advance something as a scientific fact when it fails to meet this fundamental standard."

Once, I had to learn to do fire investigations. Even if an investigator was not there to watch the building burn, his observation of evidence left behind tells him what actually happened. That's how science works. Which seems to be a mystery to AIG.

'“Why don’t more people accept what you’re saying? Why doesn’t the mainstream scientific community believe you?” It’s a common question. With a little reflection, it’s also easy to answer. For most scientists, the mainstream education system bends over backward to ensure that students—from kindergarten through graduate school—are never exposed to creationist thinking, evidences, and discoveries.'

The first thing a cult tells you, is "everyone else is lying."

You said:

Once, I had to learn to do fire investigations. Even if an investigator was not there to watch the building burn, his observation of evidence left behind tells him what actually happened. That's how science works. Which seems to be a mystery to AIG.

My response:

Part of such an investigation is determining whether or not the evidence leads to the conclusion that the fire was either caused by circumstance, or on purpose.
Is this not so?

 

[Barbarian]

Part of such an investigation is determining whether or not the evidence leads to the conclusion that the fire was either caused by circumstance, or on purpose.
Is this not so?

Could be. Say, if Mrs. O'Leary's cow set the Chicago fire when it kicked over a lantern, would you say that was caused by circumstance or on purpose?

How about a fire caused by friction (mortgage rubbing against the insurance policy)?

How about a large scorch mark on the wooden floor, indicating an accelerant?

This is not a trivial thing. For example, if we find a rock oddly-shaped, scientists take a deeper look to see if it was formed by nature or by humans deliberately shaping it to a purpose. The reason few scientists accept YE creationist doctrine is because we find no evidence of conscious action in nature, other than human action.

IDer Michael Denton argues that it is because the "designer" chose to use only natural forces to effect creation. Maybe so.

 

[Barbarian]

Nope. From a young age I assumed, by reading the Text, that God made the first creatures immediately, taking no time when He made them.

That is your revision of scripture. He doesn't say it took no time.
you've been convinced that the days of creation are literal 24 hour days.

That's what evidence and Scripture show, so far.

No. Even knowledgeable YE creationists admit otherwise. Scripture itself says the days are not literal ones, being unable to have mornings and evenings without a sun. YE creationist Dr. Harold Coffin admitted under oath in the Arkansas creationism trial that if it were not for his interpretation of scripture, he would think that the world is very ancient.

addressed this already somewhere else.

Nope. Just denial.

As you can see, not once have I "limited God".

Then why not just accept what He did as it is? Why would you have to change figurative language to a literal interpretation?

Yec truth (comes from the Bible

From fallible man's revision of the Bible.

For example, one group of dinosaurs evolved wings.

What part were the wings supposed to come from?

Forelimbs. Homology clearly shows that the structures of maniraptoran wings are the same as found in other dinosaurs forelimbs.

If there were, it's because God already endowed them with that. Flight is too complex to have come about by nature.

You're underestimating God. As we discussed, evolutionary processes actually work better than design. He knows what He's doing.

The feathers are made up drawn by artists.

Nope. They show up in fossils. Sometimes even evidence for colors. You were misled about that.

First one that comes to mind...
EvoDevo
29 July 2014
Interestingly, a prevalent pleiotropic effect of mutations that cause fused caudal vertebral bodies (as in the pygostyles of birds) is tail truncation. We identified 23 mutations in this class, and these were primarily restricted to genes involved in axial extension. At least half of the mutations that cause short, fused tails lie in the Notch/Wnt pathway of somite boundary formation or differentiation, leading to changes in somite number or size. Several of the mutations also cause additional bone fusions in the trunk skeleton, reminiscent of those observed in primitive and modern birds. All of our findings were correlated to the fossil record.

So how are these errors IN the tail supposed to improve it????

Random mutation and natural selection. Engineers are now using that process for problems they can't solve by design. It works really well. God knows what He's doing. In this case, we actually know which alleles changes in which way to make it work.

No, God made the original tails perfect for their pre-Fall pre-Flood environments with all the genes necessary for things.

No. As you see in the example above, new genes evolved over time under natural selection. In this case, we happen to know how.

Design (not in the human sense like you assume) that adapts to surroundings is what is true, not min to min evolution.

Since birds are dinosaurs, this is not even kind to kind evolution by YE standards.

Evolution is an OE creationist invention.

God is not an OE creationist. You got that wrong.

Well actually no they borrowed it from pagans.

God borrows nothing from pagans. Whatever they believed in an attempt to understand God, was, as Paul says in Romans 1:20, their apprehension of his divine nature clearly seen in the things of creation.

But there is no evidence at all for some barrier between "kinds."

Yes there is, the breedability test.

Nope. A single mutation can change one species to two non-breeding populations. So that won't work. Even the YE definition of "kind" won't work with that.

You couldn't name one feature of birds not also true of dinosaurs. By your own failure to name any differences at all, birds are dinosaurs.

bird only: The ability to chirp.

No, that won't work.

nature
15 February 2023

An ankylosaur larynx provides insights for bird-like vocalization in non-avian dinosaurs​

Although bird-unique vocal source (syrinx) have never been reported in non-avian dinosaurs, Pinacosaurus could have employed bird-like vocalization with the bird-like large, kinetic larynx. This oldest laryngeal fossil from the Cretaceous dinosaur provides the first step for understanding the vocal evolution in non-avian dinosaurs toward birds.

They had all the structures necessary to chirp. Maniraptorans actually had the same syrinx as birds.

dino only:

Not the same thing. You couldn't name one feature of birds not also true of dinosaurs. They are, as I showed you earlier, dinosaurs. Your inability to name even one feature of birds not found in dinosaurs confirms this.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Could be. Say, if Mrs. O'Leary's cow set the Chicago fire when it kicked over a lantern, would you say that was caused by circumstance or on purpose?

How about a fire caused by friction (mortgage rubbing against the insurance policy)?

How about a large scorch mark on the wooden floor, indicating an accelerant?

This is not a trivial thing. For example, if we find a rock oddly-shaped, scientists take a deeper look to see if it was formed by nature or by humans deliberately shaping it to a purpose. The reason few scientists accept YE creationist doctrine is because we find no evidence of conscious action in nature, other than human action.

IDer Michael Denton argues that it is because the "designer" chose to use only natural forces to effect creation. Maybe so.

You said:

Could be. Say, if Mrs. O'Leary's cow set the Chicago fire when it kicked over a lantern, would you say that was caused by circumstance or on purpose?

My response:

Obviously, unless the cow has the intelligence to kick the lantern over on purpose, it was circumstance.

I think that here, you are avoiding the main point. That point is that in every other field of human inquiry, other than origins, we accept that we can determine whether or not events in the past, have been done with the purposeful calculations of intelligent agency, or through blind circumstance.

You stated:

How about a fire caused by friction (mortgage rubbing against the insurance policy)?

How about a large scorch mark on the wooden floor, indicating an accelerant?

My response:

Same as the cow. In such cases, intent determines culpability. Again, the only areas of human research we have said this cannot occur within is origins. That just makes no sense.

You said

The reason few scientists accept YE creationist doctrine is because we find no evidence of conscious action in nature, other than human action.

My response:

As far as I can see, they see no evidence because they have pre-concluded that no evidence is possible. That has affected the theory of evolution. The synthetic theory demands fundamental randomness in nature and that is based in the idea that no evidence for intelligence behind nature is possible.

I am sorry, but logically speaking, Denton has a point against this idea.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

That is your revision of scripture. He doesn't say it took no time.
you've been convinced that the days of creation are literal 24 hour days.


No. Even knowledgeable YE creationists admit otherwise. Scripture itself says the days are not literal ones, being unable to have mornings and evenings without a sun. YE creationist Dr. Harold Coffin admitted under oath in the Arkansas creationism trial that if it were not for his interpretation of scripture, he would think that the world is very ancient.


Nope. Just denial.

Then why not just accept what He did as it is? Why would you have to change figurative language to a literal interpretation?


From fallible man's revision of the Bible.

For example, one group of dinosaurs evolved wings.


Forelimbs. Homology clearly shows that the structures of maniraptoran wings are the same as found in other dinosaurs forelimbs.


You're underestimating God. As we discussed, evolutionary processes actually work better than design. He knows what He's doing.


Nope. They show up in fossils. Sometimes even evidence for colors. You were misled about that.

First one that comes to mind...
EvoDevo
29 July 2014
Interestingly, a prevalent pleiotropic effect of mutations that cause fused caudal vertebral bodies (as in the pygostyles of birds) is tail truncation. We identified 23 mutations in this class, and these were primarily restricted to genes involved in axial extension. At least half of the mutations that cause short, fused tails lie in the Notch/Wnt pathway of somite boundary formation or differentiation, leading to changes in somite number or size. Several of the mutations also cause additional bone fusions in the trunk skeleton, reminiscent of those observed in primitive and modern birds. All of our findings were correlated to the fossil record.

Random mutation and natural selection. Engineers are now using that process for problems they can't solve by design. It works really well. God knows what He's doing. In this case, we actually know which alleles changes in which way to make it work.


No. As you see in the example above, new genes evolved over time under natural selection. In this case, we happen to know how.

Since birds are dinosaurs, this is not even kind to kind evolution by YE standards.


God is not an OE creationist. You got that wrong.

God borrows nothing from pagans. Whatever they believed in an attempt to understand God, was, as Paul says in Romans 1:20, their apprehension of his divine nature clearly seen in the things of creation.

But there is no evidence at all for some barrier between "kinds."


Nope. A single mutation can change one species to two non-breeding populations. So that won't work. Even the YE definition of "kind" won't work with that.

You couldn't name one feature of birds not also true of dinosaurs. By your own failure to name any differences at all, birds are dinosaurs.


No, that won't work.

nature
15 February 2023

An ankylosaur larynx provides insights for bird-like vocalization in non-avian dinosaurs​

Although bird-unique vocal source (syrinx) have never been reported in non-avian dinosaurs, Pinacosaurus could have employed bird-like vocalization with the bird-like large, kinetic larynx. This oldest laryngeal fossil from the Cretaceous dinosaur provides the first step for understanding the vocal evolution in non-avian dinosaurs toward birds.

They had all the structures necessary to chirp. Maniraptorans actually had the same syrinx as birds.


Not the same thing. You couldn't name one feature of birds not also true of dinosaurs. They are, as I showed you earlier, dinosaurs. Your inability to name even one feature of birds not found in dinosaurs confirms this.

Just putting the YEC viewpoint out there from their own words:

The World's Oldest Bird Fossil

Ask college freshman biology students to name the oldest bird fossil and they’ll probably say the evolutionary icon Archaeopteryx. In that case, you’d hear the wrong answer. The story of which fossil receives the prize for the oldest bird has as many twists as the story of bird evolution itself...

www.icr.org

From the article:
In 1983, paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee described Triassic bird fossils from west Texas. They belonged to a bird kind he named Protoavis. Talk about out of place! The Tecovas Formation from which Chatterjee’s teams collected several Protoavis fossils has an evolutionary age assignment of about 75 million years before Archaeopteryx, which is already too old to fit evolution. No wonder Chatterjee wrote, “From the beginning, Protoavis was received with much skepticism.”5

 

[Barbarian]

Just putting the YEC viewpoint out there from their own words:

That's decades out of date. By the end of the Cretaceous, there were remarkably modern-looking birds. The oldest known avialan dinosaur so far is from the late Jurassic. Proavis is hypothetical, because the fragments of bones are so difficult and sparse. But Auornis looks very much like some scientist's interpretation of "proavis."

The Tecovas Formation from which Chatterjee’s teams collected several Protoavis fossils has an evolutionary age assignment of about 75 million years before Archaeopteryx, which is already too old to fit evolution.

Nope. You see, Archaeopteryx isn't quite a bird. Close, but it's on a different lineage. It's still a dinosaur with more dinosauran traints than avian ones. But much more birdlike dinosaurs existed much earlier.

 

[Barbarian]

I think that here, you are avoiding the main point. That point is that in every other field of human inquiry, other than origins, we accept that we can determine whether or not events in the past, have been done with the purposeful calculations of intelligent agency, or through blind circumstance.

I think you're a bit confused about "origins." For example, the evolution of chickens, dogs, and horses reflect human involvement. We can see that in fossils.

The reason few scientists accept YE creationist doctrine is because we find no evidence of conscious action in nature, other than human action.

As far as I can see, they see no evidence because they have pre-concluded that no evidence is possible.

See above. The way a rock became shaped as it does, the way domesticated crops and animals evolved, and so on, all show the action of humans. But otherwise, no such thing. It's all nature otherwise. Why would you expect it to be different? Nature is the way God does most everything in this world.

The synthetic theory demands fundamental randomness in nature

Darwin's great discovery is that it isn't random. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. And the New Synthesis did not overturn that. Nor have more recent refinements of evolutionary theory.

I am sorry, but logically speaking, Denton has a point against this idea.

Denton's thesis is that every living thing is the product of nature and natural forces. His teleological view is that the designer uses nature to do that.

And for a Christian even chance can be used by God to effect His will. Christian theologians have known this for a long time.

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

 

[electedbyHim]

I am clueless about science and evolution, in fact I thought is was all garbage in High School.

Wikipedia says humans evolved from primates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

The question I have for Christians who believe in evolution is how do they explain we evolved from primates when the Bible teaches that we are formed from the dust of the ground and made in God's image?

Just looking for an honest answer.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

That's decades out of date. By the end of the Cretaceous, there were remarkably modern-looking birds. The oldest known avialan dinosaur so far is from the late Jurassic. Proavis is hypothetical, because the fragments of bones are so difficult and sparse. But Auornis looks very much like some scientist's interpretation of "proavis."

Nope. You see, Archaeopteryx isn't quite a bird. Close, but it's on a different lineage. It's still a dinosaur with more dinosauran traints than avian ones. But much more birdlike dinosaurs existed much earlier.

You said:

Proavis is hypothetical, because the fragments of bones are so difficult and sparse.

My response:
There is no "out of date" here. Your above statement proves that. Your statement simply mirrors what the YEC say...in that the Protoavis from the Triassic discovered is an issue of contention. Why would you dismiss a contentious find, unless YOU had a preconceived bias that demanded it?

You stated:

Nope. You see, Archaeopteryx isn't quite a bird.

My response:

But you have based your answer in rationalizations that have accrued since YEC's have first critiqued Archaeopteryx. Furthermore, your answer predicates on the TRUTH of your first statement...which...I am sorry, is NOT an answer of TRUTH.
Friend...I am 55 years old and have researched this issue since I was twelve, and introduced to the creationist perspective and I STILL am undecided, and I am saying that as a committed Orthodox Christian.

You said:

But much more birdlike dinosaurs existed much earlier.

My response:

And the denunciations there depend on the rejection of protoavis.

Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

I think you're a bit confused about "origins." For example, the evolution of chickens, dogs, and horses reflect human involvement. We can see that in fossils.

The reason few scientists accept YE creationist doctrine is because we find no evidence of conscious action in nature, other than human action.


See above. The way a rock became shaped as it does, the way domesticated crops and animals evolved, and so on, all show the action of humans. But otherwise, no such thing. It's all nature otherwise. Why would you expect it to be different? Nature is the way God does most everything in this world.


Darwin's great discovery is that it isn't random. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. And the New Synthesis did not overturn that. Nor have more recent refinements of evolutionary theory.


Denton's thesis is that every living thing is the product of nature and natural forces. His teleological view is that the designer uses nature to do that.

And for a Christian even chance can be used by God to effect His will. Christian theologians have known this for a long time.

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

You said:

I think you're a bit confused about "origins." For example, the evolution of chickens, dogs, and horses reflect human involvement. We can see that in fossils.
My response:

I really am not. I am a 20+year veteran of this debate. Your exposition has nothing to do with what I stated.

You said:

The reason few scientists accept YE creationist doctrine is because we find no evidence of conscious action in nature, other than human action.

My response:

What would evidence of "conscious action in nature" look like?

You said:

See above. The way a rock became shaped as it does, the way domesticated crops and animals evolved, and so on, all show the action of humans. But otherwise, no such thing. It's all nature otherwise. Why would you expect it to be different? Nature is the way God does most everything in this world.

My response:

Not one bit of this makes any sense at all to what I stated.

You said:

Darwin's great discovery is that it isn't random. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. And the New Synthesis did not overturn that. Nor have more recent refinements of evolutionary theory.

My response:

Friend, you apparently do NOT understand the Evolutionary formulation. In it's basic formulation it is "random mutation plus natural selection equals evolution".
Natural selection is a non-random element. Mutation, however, is supposed to be FUNDAMENTALLY RANDOM.
If you dispute this, we must address it. Because it is absolutely essential to the debate. I can EASILY document, from scientific literature, what I have stated above. Do you need me to do that?

You said:

Denton's thesis is that every living thing is the product of nature and natural forces. His teleological view is that the designer uses nature to do that.

My response:

Denton's thesis was that intelligent intent can be inferred from natural phenomenon. It really seems that you do not comprehend what his thesis truly is.

You said:

And for a Christian even chance can be used by God to effect His will. Christian theologians have known this for a long time.

My response:

Perhaps you could explain that in detail, because I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and I am a life-long Christian theologian.

Christ is amongst us. Now and ever and unto ages of ages, amen!