Evolution is just a theory!

[joshua 1 9]

Any scientific evidence that the TOE is missing?

I don't see any in this post.

I do not know what a TOE is. Are you talking about the theory of everything, the theory of evolution or something else?

 

[bhsmte]

I do not know what a TOE is.

Theory of evolution.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Theory of evolution.

The evidence is the same for Creationism and Evolution. I for one am very grateful to evolutionists for their hard work in gathering all the evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There were mammals living on Pangea that later on evolved into humans and all the other mammals we see today. Otherwise the atmosphere was very different during the time of the dinosaurs, so that larger mammals and dinosaurs could not survive at the same time. Even if they could it would be like bears and humans in Alaska where they compete for the same food.

What you are suggesting and what the evidence shows are nothing alike.
The mammals that were present in Pangea before the split were tiny things, roughly the size of a rat. And if I remember my history correctly, the atmosphere had a higher oxygen content. Not as high as during the Carboniferous, but still high enough to influence the growth of giant lizards (note that I said lizards, as dinosaurs came about during the Triassic period and did not exist before).
Comparing that to humans and bears living in Alaska and the two competing for the same food is a bad argument.

 

[bhsmte]

The evidence is the same for Creationism and Evolution. I for one am very grateful to evolutionists for their hard work in gathering all the evidence.

I quote you below from post 145.

Please present the "scientific evidence" that evolution is disregarding.

"If Adam & Eve had not followed the Serpent in his rebellion then the earth would be a paradise today. Not in the condition that it is in. All of creation is going to be redeemed and restored. Evolution seems to disregard all of that. It is like trying to solve a puzzle when you are missing an essential piece."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The evidence is the same for Creationism and Evolution. I for one am very grateful to evolutionists for their hard work in gathering all the evidence.

But you haven't shown how the evidence works for both evolution and creationism. You just go "Here's the Bible" and spout a number of verses and claim that as your evidence.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Maybe life evolved on this old earth after it was placed here in primitive form 550,000,000 years ago, and will-conscious man sprang onto the scene 1,000,000 years ago, and the fist administration of spiritual leadership was the bright "prince of this world" who fell into sin, caught up in the Lucifer rebellion, becoming the "crafty beast" who would trip up the worlds 2nd administrators, Adam and Eve once they arrived leading to further complications on a previously fallen world.

* The "beast" was already fallen, already sinful, working against Gods will for Adam & Eve.

* True though, had Adam & Eve stayed loyal they would have effected the illumination of disease and defective genetic strains. We would be a much more homogeneous world. But sadly they did not remain loyal, their genetic infusion into the human races has spread in an imbalanced way.

There are many turning points. Evolution is NOT a slow gradual process according to Gould & Eldridges theory of punctuated equilibrium.

THE 25 BIGGEST TURNING POINTS IN EARTH'S HISTORY

http://www.bbc.com/earth/bespoke/story/20150123-earths-25-biggest-turning-points/index.html

 

[joshua 1 9]

I quote you below from post 145.

Please present the "scientific evidence" that evolution is disregarding.

"If Adam & Eve had not followed the Serpent in his rebellion then the earth would be a paradise today. Not in the condition that it is in. All of creation is going to be redeemed and restored. Evolution seems to disregard all of that. It is like trying to solve a puzzle when you are missing an essential piece."

According to science "About eight percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors," In the Bible we read: "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." If this is true then God never intended for humans to have eight percent virus. But evolution does not have a problem with this. Maybe someday science will be able to clean up the DNA and eliminate all the Genetic diseases.

 

[bhsmte]

According to science "About eight percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors," In the Bible we read: "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." If this is true then God never intended for humans to have eight percent virus. But evolution does not have a problem with this. Maybe someday science will be able to clean up the DNA and eliminate all the Genetic diseases.

Please cite a scientific source, to support what is in bold above.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Please cite a scientific source, to support what is in bold above.

That was the results that came up from a google search. What is so difficult about typing the information into google and searching it for yourself? I will try to be more careful to give the reference for the quotes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107103621.htm

 

[justlookinla]

That was the results that came up from a google search. What is so difficult about typing the information into google and searching it for yourself?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107103621.htm

Interesting. You'll probably get a 'its' not peer reviewed' reaction though.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Interesting. You'll probably get a 'its' not peer reviewed' reaction though.

It was the results from a study at University of Texas at Arlington. I do not know how they can wiggle there way out of that one or why they would even want to. They consider retro virus to be evidence for evolution.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I quote you below from post 145.

Please present the "scientific evidence" that evolution is disregarding.

"If Adam & Eve had not followed the Serpent in his rebellion then the earth would be a paradise today. Not in the condition that it is in. All of creation is going to be redeemed and restored. Evolution seems to disregard all of that. It is like trying to solve a puzzle when you are missing an essential piece."

Ok, sorry what I mean is the mutation theory. Creationism considers mutations to be evidence for the fallen condition of mankind and by proxy all of creation. Even I hear people say that when man is restored the other planets will have life on them. They believe this is a living universe and there should be planets with life everywhere in the universe. Some people like Gould who died an early death believed that if you were to start all over again at the beginning here on earth everything would have been totally different. This is a planet of the apes sort of thing. Others say that the natural laws are an extreme guiding force and that you could go anywhere in the universe and end up with the exact same life that we end up with here on earth. I think this is more along the line of the evo devo school.

Science says: "Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

 

[bhsmte]

It was the results from a study at University of Texas at Arlington. I do not know how they can wiggle there way out of that one or why they would even want to. They consider retro virus to be evidence for evolution.

Your conclusion is then, the 80% number, is because of the fallen world?

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not saying that genetic deficiencies do not exist. I am just saying that genetic deficiencies are not a result of the story told in Genesis.

As I said, there were no genetic deficiences when Genesis 1 comes to a close.

God pronounced everything that existed, including the gene pool, 'very good.'

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As I said, there were no genetic deficiences when Genesis 1 comes to a close.

God pronounced everything that existed, including the gene pool, 'very good.'

In the story, yes. But, as I have stated before, there is zero evidence to prove that claim is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the story, yes. But, as I have stated before, there is zero evidence to prove that claim is true.

You're the one who said this:

(for some messed up reason)

And although you retracted it later, you didn't offer an alternative.

All I see you doing is defending your position that you don't think evolution is actually de-evolution.

And, of course, that's your prerogative.

Nothing is pure, according to evolutionist; and to that, I'll agree that today, nothing is pure.

But there was a time when everything was pure.

The only thing scientists know about purity is how to spell it.

To them, not even Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus Christ.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Scientific theories tend to disregard influences, that lack evidence to support them.

If you have "scientific evidence" that Adam and Eve influenced defects in DNA and it should be included in the TOE, please present this scientific evidence.

Of course mutation go back long before Adam and Eve. Even mutations go back long before Humans came along.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course mutation go back long before Adam and Eve. Even mutations go back long before Humans came along.

No scientific evidence then, thanks.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're the one who said this:

And although you retracted it later, you didn't offer an alternative.

All I see you doing is defending your position that you don't think evolution is actually de-evolution.

I didn't offer an alternative because I couldn't think of an alternative.

And, of course, that's your prerogative.

Nothing is pure, according to evolutionist; and to that, I'll agree that today, nothing is pure.

But there was a time when everything was pure.

The only thing scientists know about purity is how to spell it.

To them, not even Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus Christ.

And I assume that here when you say 'scientist', your are using your definition of "Anyone who disagrees with me".
Bottom line: you cannot offer any proof that the Bible's claim that everything was created 'pure' is factual. You have a claim only.