Evolution is a Fact

[Loudmouth]

I believe it is hard to extract accurate data and/or understanding that data when you are certain that you already know the end result.

This is exactly why creationism is not science.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."--Answers in Genesis
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

I think science needs to be open to the possibility that everything was created so that the facts aren't twisted in to the mould of evolution.

How do you suggest we test this idea? What experiments can we run to see if creationism is true or not? What evidence, if found, would be inconsistent with creationism? Which features in a fossil would falsify creationism? What genetic markers would falsify creationism?

Science is open to testable claims, but not dogmatic, unfalsifiable religious beliefs.

 

[MoonLancer]

basically if computer programs were put in an environment where each subsequent copy was flawed in some way, and it fell pray to environmental hazard and other programs, one would see a form of evolution without the need for someone to program new versions. Of course it would take millions of years though.

 

[Cabal]

basically if computer programs were put in an environment where each subsequent copy was flawed in some way, and it fell pray to environmental hazard and other programs, one would see a form of evolution without the need for someone to program new versions. Of course it would take millions of years though.

QFT.

You'd think for someone so apparently keen on computing the genetic algorithm would be convincing enough.

 

[TerranceL]

I know what you were pointing out.

How about pointing out an answer to my question now?

Or are you going to yak it to death first?

I can answer your question for you.

Mythological creatures do not evolve because by nature they don't exist.

 

[TerranceL]

You have more faith than I do. To believe Evolution as a fact is to believe that something came from nothing with no evidence of it. WOW. May God grant me more faith!

Nothing in evolution says something came from nothing.

 

[Hawk007]

I guess that is because you don´t know the mechanisms involved... both that of Evolution as well as that of Creation.

I guess I don't, but I cannot fathom that these mechanisms could have come in to place without being engineerd by some intelligence.

The naturalistic view of "life" is based on the laws of nature. Things react. Complex things react in complex ways. Things can get more complex by the natural mechanisms of reproduction, change and selection.

Who was the law maker of the "laws of nature"?

This is a possible explanation for the evolution of complex lifeforms. It is at least an explainable and testable mechanism.

...micro evolution I do believe is true...

On the other hand, the creationists have it easy. Regardless of how strange, against human experience, possible observations, unverifiable, untestable... God can do it. Do what? No matter, anything!

God can! But you see, you do not believe in Him and do not experience Him in your life......ex.how often do you see a person with HIV gets healed?

 

[Hawk007]

The question is why would an omnipotent being create anything with similar coding? He is omnipotent. For humans we use similar programs because it is easier for use to make, an omnipotent being has no such drawbacks.
So God made birds and crocodiles share similar DNA why?

Why not?

 

[Cabal]

Why not?

Pretty lazy and unimaginative, and pretty ironic that he made us look very similar to apes and very similar genetically if we're meant to be completely separate from them.

 

[Freodin]

I guess I don't, but I cannot fathom that these mechanisms could have come in to place without being engineerd by some intelligence.

Who was the law maker of the "laws of nature"?

These mechanisms, these "laws of nature" are not something that "came into place". They are part and parcel of existence itself.

It is just the human "common sense" that makes the distinction between "what things are" and "how things behave".

Imagine: you have a (mathematical) cube in front of you. Who made the law "A cube has six sides"? What would that cube be, if that law had not be made? A cube is a three-dimensional object. What was it, before these three-dimensionality was "engineered"?

I´d say the answer is: these questions are meaningless. There is nothing called "cube" without six sides and three dimensions.


So the only partially valid question for a "lawmaker" would be "Why is there something instead of nothing at all?"
Why did I say "partially valid"? All the times this question is asked in order to show the necessity of God, the theists make a false equation: they hold as equal "not this" and "nothing".

The answer to this question is simply: "Nothing is not an option. Nothing is an invalid term. Nothing does not exist."

Non-theists do not believe that "everything came from nothing". They believe that everything came from something else - only that this something else is not conscious in a human sense and does not care about our sex-life or eating habits, just as it does not care about the solar habits of giving wind.

...micro evolution I do believe is true...

There is no meaningful distinction between micro- and macroevolution.

God can! But you see, you do not believe in Him and do not experience Him in your life......ex.how often do you see a person with HIV gets healed?

God can do all the things that his follower attribute to him, and is incapable to do the things that his followers cannot "fathom". God is limited by human imagination... and that is, in my view, a certain sign that God IS human imagination.

 

[Hawk007]

We didn't evolve from any living being.

Ok, then what?

Funny, coming from a person convinced we used to be dust.

I am not convinced, but I believe it is true, dust or clay, for the oldest book of the Bible tells us so....Job 33:6 "Behold, I belong to God like you; I too have been formed out of the clay

That said, no, common descent doesn't imply abiogenesis. There are many christians who thinks that God formed the first early life forms with the capacity to evolve. In other words, they accept common descent but reject abiogenesis.

Christians believe the Word of God as it is written in the Bible, so if they believe in evolution then I would like them to explain to me why God said:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Genesis. 1:26

There is no suggestion here that evolution was part of the creation of man, do any Christian suggest, God first made some ape and then over millions of years evolved into to the image of God or maybe we are not yet in God's image, it could be that we still have to evolve another billion of years........I am sorry, but I am so glad I do not have to believe the world!

I advice against making assumptions based on a lack of understanding. Perhaps you should look into what the arguments and evidence are. You don't appear to have done that at all.

My lack of understanding might be a blessing, for I am not captivated by many other peoples views and understanding, I have my own. If I am wrong, so be it, but I believe I will never be wrong as long as I stay in Christ......for He is the truth!

That statement is probably the best compliment you can possibly give to evolution. And no, abiogenesis isn't a theory. It's a study composed of various competing hypotheses, facts and models. It will take alot of work before it can be called a scientific theory.

Thank you for showing it out, I gave to much credit for abiogenesis, I am such a nice guy!

If that were true the millions of christian evolutionists in the world wouldn't exist.

I would like to be pointed out in the Bible by Christians that can show me where God included evolution with His creation, we must also understand that when I talk about evolution, I only talk about macro evolution, where a cat produces a dog, etc.

We are animals whether you accept evolution or not. Even if you believe God created us from dust, he still created us with traits that all other animals share. We're eukaryotic, multicellular, heterotrophic, we have mitochondria, Golgi apparatuses, 80S ribosomes, 3 RNA polymerases, endoplasmic reticula, a cytoskeleton, we go through a blastula stage during embryonic development, we're freely motile, at least in one life stage.

Yip we are mammals, but show me any animal who has an intimate relationship with God?

If you disagree that we're animals, tell me of a trait that all the other animals share, but which we don't have.

Global peace/no world domination/ no search for power, they do not have the ability or desire to wipe out species, they form a part of an Eco system that is self sustained, as long as the weather and other environmental factors stays stable......we on the other hand have the ability to wipe out nations and have done so in the path, we are not dependent on environmental factors....

Neither are theories. That said, I choose neither. While several abiogenesis hypotheses looks promising, I'll wait until the verdict is in.

Peter

May the verdict be in before time runs out to make up your mind!

Be blessed my friend!

 

[Legion.As.One]

"Evolution is a fact"

R'Amen to that!
Panspermia FTW

 

[Hawk007]

"Evolution is a fact"

R'Amen to that!
Panspermia FTW

If so, can you show me evidence of one type of animal producing a different type of animal?

Maybe a Lion giving birth to a piglion or a shark giving birth to a crocodileshark?

 

[Cabal]

If so, can you show me evidence of one type of animal producing a different type of animal?

Maybe a Lion giving birth to a piglion or a shark giving birth to a crocodileshark?

I'm really hoping you're joking here.

Evolution does not work that way.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pretty lazy and unimaginative, and pretty ironic that he made us look very similar to apes and very similar genetically if we're meant to be completely separate from them.

Your assessment aside, He also told us, in Writing, not to go by looks.

The Theory of Evolution is a testament to our disobedience.

 

[Cabal]

Your assessment aside, He also told us, in Writing, not to go by looks.

Perhaps you missed the word "genetically."

The Theory of Evolution is a testament to our disobedience.

What, so God rigged the phylogenetic tree after the fall to make it look like we evolved?

 

[AV1611VET]

What, so God rigged the phylogenetic tree after the fall to make it look like we evolved?

I don't know what you just said, but if He did, He warned us not to climb it.

 

[Freodin]

If so, can you show me evidence of one type of animal producing a different type of animal?

Maybe a Lion giving birth to a piglion or a shark giving birth to a crocodileshark?

I´m not sure what to answer to such a post.

Perhaps you haven´t heard it yet - though I doubt this can go past anyone interested in the Evolution/Creation debate - but this concept that you present here as "Macroevolution" is simply false.

No animal will ever give birth to a "different type" of animal. It will give birth to a different version of his own type, and these differences can add up to a point where the human mind - which likes clear-cut boundaries - interpretes them as "different types".

Have you ever seen a Chihuahua give birth to a German Shephard? No? But somehow, somewhere in the history of dogs (and wolves) all these "dog type x" gave birth to "dog type y". Not immediately, but by small changes.

Now creationist will say "But all these are still dogs, not a single cat amongst them!" This again is a misinterpretation. Descend only works in distinct lines. Your wife will never ever give birth to your cousin, and still you are descended from the same ancestor. But your lines of descend have seperated with this "common ancestor", and once the possibility of reproduction fails, there is no way for these lines to cross again.

So, cats and dogs once had a common ancestor. An animal with characteristics of both currect species.
But even if Creationists would accept that, they would start to claim "These are still mammals - show me where a reptile gave birth to a mammal!" And there can be found a common ancestor for these.

Nested hirarchies... this is what The Theory of Evolution predicts. Not this wild cross-species-birthing that creationists burn as their strawman.

 

[Cabal]

I don't know what you just said, but if He did, He warned us not to climb it.

I'll paraphrase:

So God made it look like we evolved only after we were disobedient?

Because I'm pretty sure an ape in the Garden of Eden would look like an ape after the fall.

 

[Legion.As.One]

If so, can you show me evidence of one type of animal producing a different type of animal?

Maybe a Lion giving birth to a piglion or a shark giving birth to a crocodileshark?

Haha, I wish.
Evolution doesn't produce different types of animals, it produces different species and over a long period of time - take note. Longer than 200 years, unless it's done by humans, like dog breeding for example. But you know already know that, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll paraphrase:

So God made it look like we evolved only after we were disobedient?

Because I'm pretty sure an ape in the Garden of Eden would look like an ape after the fall.

If you want to deny that you've been warned not to go by looks, that's your prerogative.

As I said, the Theory of Evolution is a testament of our disobedience.

And trying to turn it around and make it look like it's God's fault is not going to work.

Eve was okay, until she chose scientific observation over God's Word.