[__ Science __ ] Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution.

[Barbarian]

Again I repeat as have everyone else have, you have no scripture and your "science" is heavily flawed.

I realize you want to believe that, but even your fellow YE creationists know better.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood

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

First you try to take a very simple principle (ie genetic information) and try to turn it into a very complicated explanation and in this complexity you hope to lose and fool those discussing evidence with you.

There's nothing whatever complicated about it. It's accessible to anyone with a grasp of high school math. C'mon. The formula is very straightforward:

You also avoid many topics (such as the complexity of DNA and genetic information being a major piece of evidence against evolution)

Since we now know that RNA can be self-catalyzing, that's not a problem, either. And if you were following the math, you'd realize that any new mutation in a population increases information. And often speciation actually decreases information before it increases information. Would you like to see how that works?

I said physical death is always the result of spiritual death,

That's wrong. Squirrels die physically. You think they die spiritually first?

But let's keep things simple. First we can observe that the fossil evidence tells us a different story than evolution.

Not according to your fellow YE creationists. As you learned, scientists who are creationists are away that fossil evidence is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

The fossil history of organisms that actually lived instead show a different story of a regression in earth's diversity.

Well, that's testable belief. Over the ages, we see a spectacular increase in the diversity of mammals from the Cretaceous. We see a huge increase in diversity of organisms in the Cambrian, over the relatively few complex animals of the Ediacaran.

And there are also ages where diversity decreases. It's not a straight progression as your teachers assumed.

A millions years from now if there are still evolutionists they will claim that the platypus is the link between ducks and beaver.

No, that would be silly. Ducks have a narrow bill that is made of hornlike material. Platypuses have wide, soft mouths made of soft tissue with many, many nerve endings. You've confused analogous organs with homology.

The skeletons of platypuses are mammalian, typical of monotremes. The skeletons of ducks are avian, typical of birds like flamingos.

The vast majority of observable mutations are what we call cancer, genetic diseases, and genetic disorders.

No, that's wrong, too. Most mutations don't do much of anything at all. You have dozens of mutations that were present in neither of you parents. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts them out.

ou cannot say that there are many mutations that do not harm but we just can't detect them.

Of course we can detect them. How else would we know about them?

If Darwin was alive today he would condemn his own theories of macro-evolution.

Nope. In fact he'd be gratified, since genetics cleared up a serious problem with his theory. Would you like to learn about that?

If Darwin was alive today he would condemn his own theories of macro-evolution. He had stated that if any part of an organism can have irreducible complexity then that part could ever have evolved because it could not have been less than it currently is and still function.

No, he never said that. But if you'd like to give me a checkable source, I'd be pleased to see it. You're confusing IC with something else. And irreducible complexity has been observed to evolve. Would you like to see that? Just tell me what you think irreducible complexity is, and we'll take a look.

So explain in simple terms how the human eye evolved. What came first, the lens or the iris? When was the retina added?

Fortunately, the transitional forms are still in existence in some phyla. Mollusks, for example:

 

[Moseme]

I realize you want to believe that, but even your fellow YE creationists know better.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood

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



There's nothing whatever complicated about it. It's accessible to anyone with a grasp of high school math. C'mon. The formula is very straightforward:

Since we now know that RNA can be self-catalyzing, that's not a problem, either. And if you were following the math, you'd realize that any new mutation in a population increases information. And often speciation actually decreases information before it increases information. Would you like to see how that works?



That's wrong. Squirrels die physically. You think they die spiritually first?



Not according to your fellow YE creationists. As you learned, scientists who are creationists are away that fossil evidence is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."



Well, that's testable belief. Over the ages, we see a spectacular increase in the diversity of mammals from the Cretaceous. We see a huge increase in diversity of organisms in the Cambrian, over the relatively few complex animals of the Ediacaran.

And there are also ages where diversity decreases. It's not a straight progression as your teachers assumed.



No, that would be silly. Ducks have a narrow bill that is made of hornlike material. Platypuses have wide, soft mouths made of soft tissue with many, many nerve endings. You've confused analogous organs with homology.

The skeletons of platypuses are mammalian, typical of monotremes. The skeletons of ducks are avian, typical of birds like flamingos.



No, that's wrong, too. Most mutations don't do much of anything at all. You have dozens of mutations that were present in neither of you parents. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts them out.



Of course we can detect them. How else would we know about them?



Nope. In fact he'd be gratified, since genetics cleared up a serious problem with his theory. Would you like to learn about that?



No, he never said that. But if you'd like to give me a checkable source, I'd be pleased to see it. You're confusing IC with something else. And irreducible complexity has been observed to evolve. Would you like to see that? Just tell me what you think irreducible complexity is, and we'll take a look.



Fortunately, the transitional forms are still in existence in some phyla. Mollusks, for example:

Sometimes I just love to argue and don't even know why. Lol I dont have to continue this. You obviously dont want to abandon your belief and no matter how you speak without giving any credible evidence you cannot change my beliefs. I forget that you also say you believe in God and this subject bears no weight at all on salvation. Everyone else in this thread is also not fooled by your arguments so I dont have to worry about them being swayed. I wont stay for pride because whether people think I win or lose it means nothing the next hour. And more importantly I do love arguing way to much and I dont want to get lost in it. Maybe one day we will pick this discussion back up in heaven lol.

Just a couple clarifications though. I do not care what Dr. Wood or Dr. Wise has to say. Just because they have PhD doesnt make their opinions right. And I am not a fellow creationist like them. I really like the gap theory.

 

[Cygnus]

You didn't like the answer you got.

As you know, God does allegories about real events.



As you realize, the Fall was a real event, even if God told us a parable about it. But your assumption is not really about that. It's a more fundamental question.

Do you suppose there was a real good Samaritan, or did Jesus just tell us a parable about it?

Do you think the rule He gave was less valid if it was based on an event that didn't really happen?

Once again....why did Paul establish a rule..establish a rule based upon an event that never happened?

STOP DANCING.

 

[Cygnus]

It doesn't support YE creationism, either. It is however, entirely consistent with evolution. As you know, "evolutionism" is a creationist superstition about science.

Evolutionism is anti-biblical. It does away with Genesis...after all look at what you need to do with Genesis...you make it a simple allegorical never happened myth.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolutionism is anti-biblical.

Evolutionism is an invention of creationists. You'll have to talk to them about that. As you realize, evolution is a natural phenomenon, part of God's creation.

As you learned earlier, the allegory of creation is about real events, not a 'never-happened myth' as creationists say.

 

[Barbarian]

Sometimes I just love to argue and don't even know why. Lol I dont have to continue this. You obviously dont want to abandon your belief

Christianity is the core of who I am. Sorry.

and no matter how you speak without giving any credible evidence you cannot change my beliefs.

As you learned, even YE creationists admit there is "gobs and gobs of evidence" for evolution. Dr. Wise is a YE creationist, but an honest one; he admits that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

I forget that you also say you believe in God

Do you say you believe in God?

and this subject bears no weight at all on salvation.

Right. Jesus makes very clear what will determine you eternal home, and what you think if Genesis is not one of those things. Would you like to learn what He says about it?

Just a couple clarifications though. I do not care what Dr. Wood or Dr. Wise has to say. Just because they have PhD doesnt make their opinions right.

IT does mean that they know what the evidence is. So they have a basis on which to judge that issue.

And I am not a fellow creationist like them. I really like the gap theory.

Fortunately, it won't make any difference to your salvation.

 

[Cygnus]

Evolutionism is an invention of creationists. You'll have to talk to them about that. As you realize, evolution is a natural phenomenon, part of God's creation.

As you learned earlier, the allegory of creation is about real events, not a 'never-happened myth' as creationists say.

Real events..as the real event that Eve was made from Adams rib.

 

[Moseme]

Christianity is the core of who I am. Sorry.



As you learned, even YE creationists admit there is "gobs and gobs of evidence" for evolution. Dr. Wise is a YE creationist, but an honest one; he admits that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."



Do you say you believe in God?



Right. Jesus makes very clear what will determine you eternal home, and what you think if Genesis is not one of those things. Would you like to learn what He says about it?



IT does mean that they know what the evidence is. So they have a basis on which to judge that issue.



Fortunately, it won't make any difference to your salvation.

Yes I believe in God and as for what is necessary for salvation. I'll just use Paul's words. For I determined not to know anything among you except for Jesus Christ and him crucified. The only requirement for salvation is to accept the free grace that leads to a relationship with God. Because the goal of salvation is that relationship.

And having a PhD does not mean that they know what evidence is. It just means that they were probably exposed to more evidence than the average person. But as we see there are many doctors who misinterpreted the evidence or failed to see the significance of some evidence because their views are already biased. I mean there are some people with doctorates who just flat out wont consider evidence because it contradicts a belief that they formed before they ever started looking at any evidence. There are many people with PhDs who don't believe in God, many who believe in God and not evolution, and apparently a couple who believe in God and evolution. Having a PhD means nothing. That would be the logical fallacy of arguing from authority.

 

[Truthfrees]

Darwin, for example, just thought there was a creator. No scientific theory explains creation. Evolutionary theory merely explains how living things change over time.

But creationism fails, for the reasons we've discussed.

God's words address everything perfectly

your words and darwin's words not so much

 

[Truthfrees]

Everyone else in this thread is also not fooled by your arguments so I dont have to worry about them being swayed.

so true - evolution is easy to debunk - your posts were very good - thanks

 

[Barbarian]

God's words address everything perfectly

your words and darwin's words not so much

Just better than the modern-day revision of scripture called "creationism." And coming in second to God sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes I believe in God and as for what is necessary for salvation. I'll just use Paul's words. For I determined not to know anything among you except for Jesus Christ and him crucified. The only requirement for salvation is to accept the free grace that leads to a relationship with God. Because the goal of salvation is that relationship.

Jesus is a bit more explicit in Matthew, but I've had "faith only" people tell me that if one has faith, works will follow as Jesus requires of us for salvation. And that's a good answer, I think.

And having a PhD does not mean that they know what evidence is.

Having PhDs in paleontology, biology, etc. does indeed mean they know what the evidence is.

But as we see there are many doctors who misinterpreted the evidence or failed to see the significance of some evidence because their views are already biased.

Sure. Someone who already has a bias toward the new doctrine of creationism will discount the evidence for evolution. But Christians like Francis Collins who had no such bias, find evolution to be no conflict with their faith.

I mean there are some people with doctorates who just flat out wont consider evidence because it contradicts a belief that they formed before they ever started looking at any evidence.

Sure. Discovery Institute fellow Jonathan Wells, for example, studied biology because his Unification Church master gave him a "mission to destroy evolution." Accordingly, his bias kept him from accepting the evidence.

There are many people with PhDs who don't believe in God, many who believe in God and not evolution, and apparently a couple who believe in God and evolution.

Most of us are theists of some kind, mostly Christians. There are very, very few PhDs in biology who reject evolution, even the majority of us who are theists.

Having a PhD means nothing. That would be the logical fallacy of arguing from authority.

See the thread above. Knowing what one is talking about, is a definite advantage.

 

[Truthfrees]

Just better than the modern-day revision of scripture called "creationism." And coming in second to God sounds pretty good to me.

creation has been around since before the bible was written

it's only modern man who thinks we came from slime instead of from God

 

[Cygnus]

creation has been around since before the bible was written

it's only modern man who thinks we came from slime instead of from God

Some people here like to send a false narrative that creation is a new comer.

 

[Truthfrees]

Some people here like to send a false narrative that creation is a new comer.

hard to believe anyone would even try

thanks for your informative posts - good job sharing truth

 

[Barbarian]

creation has been around since before the bible was written

it's only modern man who thinks we came from slime instead of from God

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. (Douay-Rheims)

Job 33:6 I am just like you before God; I was also formed out of clay. (KJV)

We came from God. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

 

[Barbarian]

Some people here like to send a false narrative that creation is a new comer.

Creationism is a modern revision of God's word. Creation, as you have seen, is entirely different, and consistent with evolution.

 

[Truthfrees]

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. (Douay-Rheims)

Job 33:6 I am just like you before God; I was also formed out of clay. (KJV)

We came from God. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

here it is in hebrew:

7וַיִּיצֶר֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים וַֽיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃

afar - dry earth - dust

h'adamah - the ground - red earth

doesn't equate to slimy primordial ooze no matter how hard you try

6הֵן־אֲנִ֣י כְפִ֣יךָ לָאֵ֑ל מֵ֝חֹ֗מֶר קֹרַ֥צְתִּי גַם־אָֽנִי׃

m'chomer - clay cement mortar

again - no slimy primordial ooze here

 

[Barbarian]

So clay, cement, mortar, isn't slimy?

C'mon.

 

[Cygnus]

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. (Douay-Rheims)

Job 33:6 I am just like you before God; I was also formed out of clay. (KJV)

We came from God. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

How did He do it?