There is no evidence againts the Theory of Evolution.

[Hieronymus]

It has everything to do with theology,

No.

and in particular with a fundamentalist reading of the Bible.

Ahh, you had to throw that "fundamentalist" in there didn't you?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Then where do the assumed changes in the DNA come from?
Selection does not change the DNA, you see.

There are no beneficial changes in the DNA. All the information was there in the beginning. God knows the end from the beginning. The only changes are neutral or negative due to the fallen condition the world is in and that is why all of creation is waiting for redemption. Although God does cause all things to work together for good, but that concept is a bit difficult for the unredeemed to understand. For those who are saved daily we see how all things work together for the good of those who love God. As Joseph told his brothers when they sold him into slavery: "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good." Slavery is not considered to be good, but God was able to bring good out of all the adversity he suffered in his life. Just as God is able to bring good out of any and all of the adversity that we suffer in our lives. Only God is good and what He is able to do in our lives. Mutations are either neutral or negative because. Six times in Genesis chapter one we are told that "it was good" and at the end of the sixth day we are told that everything was very good. This is why: "creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God." In many, many, many ways it is very good to be a Christian. There are many, many, many benefits and advantages. I just do not see why the skeptics and the scoffers allow their treasure to be taken and allow themselves to be cheated out of all the benefits that God holds in reserve for them. If you can be a kings kid then why would you want to throw all of that away to live the life of a deprivation and poverty?

 

[lesliedellow]

But it isn't true, there is no evidence to support evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species.

Have you ever read anything written by people who know what they are talking about? Such as Francis Collins, Dennis Alexander, Ken Miller, Joan Roughgarden or Francisco Ayala?

No, of course you haven't.

 

[lesliedellow]

Ahh, you had to throw that "fundamentalist" in there didn't you?

Almost nobody outside of the southern states of America tries to read Genesis as if it was a scientific text book. Except, paradoxically, Richard Dawkins, and he does it because he wants an easy target to aim at.

 

[Hieronymus]

There are no beneficial changes in the DNA. All the information was there in the beginning.

That implies all kinds were there from the beginning.
And i would agree.
We can only be certain of extinction.

God knows the end from the beginning. The only changes are neutral or negative due to the fallen condition the world is in and that is why all of creation is waiting for redemption. Although God does cause all things to work together for good, but that concept is a bit difficult for the unredeemed to understand. For those who are saved daily we see how all things work together for the good of those who love God. As Joseph told his brothers when they sold him into slavery: "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good." Slavery is not considered to be good, but God was able to bring good out of all the adversity he suffered in his life. Just as God is able to bring good out of any and all of the adversity that we suffer in our lives. Only God is good and what He is able to do in our lives. Mutations are either neutral or negative because. Six times in Genesis chapter one we are told that "it was good" and at the end of the sixth day we are told that everything was very good. This is why: "creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God."

We agree.

In many, many, many ways it is very good to be a Christian. There are many, many, many benefits and advantages.

Like prosecution and ridicule? Yeah, i love it... [/cynicism]

I just do not see why the skeptics and the scoffers allow their treasure to be taken and allow themselves to be cheated out of all the benefits that God holds in reserve for them. If you can be a kings kid then why would you want to throw all of that away to live the life of a deprivation and poverty?

I don't know.
Our default (but fallen) nature seems to be we want to be our own gods..
The fact that we're hormonal mammals doesn't help either...

But what does this have to do with biological evolution?

 

[Hieronymus]

Almost nobody outside of the southern states of America tries to read Genesis as if it was a scientific text book. Except, paradoxically, Richard Dawkins, and he does it because he wants an easy target to aim at.

Boy, he'll be in for a surprise !

 

[joshua 1 9]

That species can adapt, like the finches.
The conjecture that organisms can gain purposeful characteristics (write their own DNA) has been bankrupted since the knowledge of DNA.

Darwin's Islands is little compared to the 10,000 Islands that we find in the Pacific. The interesting thing is the effect that Global Warming and the Rise in the Ocean Level has had on the biodiversity of the various islands. So we have come a long way sense Darwin wrote his book.

 

[Hieronymus]

Have you ever read anything written by people who know what they are talking about? Such as Francis Collins, Dennis Alexander, Ken Miller, Joan Roughgarden or Francisco Ayala?

No, of course you haven't.

Indeed i haven't.
I bet they know their stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence for evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species.
There is no mechanism that accidentally writes purposeful DNA.
Sorry...

 

[Hieronymus]

Darwin's Islands is little compared to the 10,000 Islands that we find in the Pacific. The interesting thing is the effect that Global Warming and the Rise in the Ocean Level has had on the biodiversity of the various islands. So we have come a long way sense Darwin wrote his book.

Of course "we" have.
We now know that the phenomenon of life can not be explained by naturalism, basically...
Not even an organ can be explained.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The fact that we're hormonal mammals doesn't help either...

This is difficult to understand but some say that God the Creator became a part of His Creation. Even this began at the time when the Super Continent Pangea was broken up into the seven continents that we have now.

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Tim 3 16

 

[joshua 1 9]

Have you ever read anything written by people who know what they are talking about? Such as Francis Collins, Dennis Alexander, Ken Miller, Joan Roughgarden or Francisco Ayala?

No, of course you haven't.

I have read Francis Collins and I have two of his books if you want a discussion on them.

 

[Hieronymus]

This is difficult to understand but some say that God the Creator became a part of His Creation. Even this began at the time when the Super Continent Pangea was broken up into the seven continents that we have now.

Why do you insist on mixing naturalistic models with super-naturalism?
It really doesn't make sense to do that.
Moreover, i linked your name in a topic, where you can see that the scientific community CHOOSES a naturalistic paradigm, excluding God.
Pangea is a naturalistic model, you see.
And it's not even a good model !

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Tim 3 16

So you believe in Scripture, but you don't...

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why do you insist on mixing naturalistic models with super-naturalism?

That is really the teaching of Kat Kerr and she does that based on what she learned when she went to Heaven and learned about the Creation and the history of the world. I have talked to her myself. In fact she was live at the time so the conversation was recorded. I could not find anything that she says that contradicts the Bible.

 

[lesliedellow]

Indeed i haven't.
I bet they know their stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence for evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species.
There is no mechanism that accidentally writes purposeful DNA.
Sorry...

So you "know" there is no evidence by refusing to read anything, written for the layman, which gives the evidence. How wonderful.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So you believe in Scripture, but you don't...

I have read the Bible at least five times. Every word of it, which is why I believe the genealogies are accurate and true. All the Bible is accurate and true because God watches over His word to perform it. God does what He says He is going to do. In fact we have a Covenant relationship with God, If we do our part of the Covenant then we can be sure that God will perform His part. Yet Paul clearly says: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 cor 13 12

Job 36:26
How great is God--beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out.

Man may see God's works, and is capable of discerning his hand in them, which the beasts are not, therefore they ought to give him the glory. While the worker of iniquity ought to tremble, the true believer should rejoice.

 

[Hieronymus]

That is really the teaching of Kat Kerr and she does that based on what she learned when she went to Heaven and learned about the Creation and the history of the world. I have talked to her myself. In fact she was live at the time so the conversation was recorded. I could not find anything that she says that contradicts the Bible.

Well, if her message endorses evolution (but i don't know to what extent) there you have the contradiction...
(i.m.h.o.)

 

[joshua 1 9]

So you "know" there is no evidence by refusing to read anything, written for the layman, which gives the evidence. How wonderful.

There is no evidence to read. In fact what evidence there is all contradicts the mutations theory. But they are stuck with it until a better theory comes along to replace it. Look at all the research and study they did on fly's. Many, many generations, still they start with a fly and then end up with a fly. There maybe lots of variation, and even you can get a fly to grow a leg out of his head. Still you start off with a fly and you end up with a fly.

 

[Hieronymus]

So you "know" there is no evidence by refusing to read anything, written for the layman, which gives the evidence. How wonderful.

Sorry, but i only hear: "the evidence is conclusive", "mountains of evidence", "evolution is proven", and such things, but nobody produces any...
What they bring for this ambiguous at best or isn't evolution...
I don't know the names you gave there, but the evidence is still the same, if they explain it well to the layman or not.
So then we're back at the ABSENCE of explanatory power of naturalism for the reality of the phenomenon of life and its premises.

We have established by quoting naturalists that they CHOOSE for naturalism, even when it's not probable.
Moreover, it should have taken millions of years (also according to naturalistic models) to get where we are today, so how are you ever going to prove anything scientifically?

 

[lesliedellow]

There is no evidence to read. In fact what evidence there is all contradicts the mutations theory. But they are stuck with it until a better theory comes along to replace it. Look at all the research and study they did on fly's. Many, many generations, still they start with a fly and then end up with a fly. There maybe lots of variation, and even you can get a fly to grow a leg out of his head. Still you start off with a fly and you end up with a fly.

How do you explain the fact that the family tree of species derived from pale ontological evidence coincides exactly with that which was later derived from genetic evidence?

If God specially created us, why did he give us a faulty gene, which prevents us from manufacturing our own vitamin C?

 

[lesliedellow]

Sorry, but i only hear: "the evidence is conclusive", "mountains of evidence", "evolution is proven", and such things, but nobody produces any...
What they bring for this ambiguous at best or isn't evolution...
I don't know the names you gave there, but the evidence is still the same, if they explain it well to the layman or not.
So then we're back at the ABSENCE of explanatory power of naturalism for the reality of the phenomenon of life and its premises.

We have established by quoting naturalists that they CHOOSE for naturalism, even when it's not probable.
Moreover, it should have taken millions of years (also according to naturalistic models) to get where we are today, so how are you ever going to prove anything scientifically?

And you know all that, even though you have not read one word of what they have written?