Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[rjs330]

If the theory of evolution was overturned, science would just start looking for another theory. The paradigm shift would be tremendous, on a par with the shift that occurred when Newton's theory was overturned by Einstein; it does happen from time to time in science, but science marches on.

But proving evolution wrong wouldn't prove your Bible doctrine right. People who reject it now do so largely for reasons having nothing to do with evolution. Take the Oriental churches (Copts, Armenians, etc.) for example. They generally have no use for evolution, but they have no use for your Bible doctrine, either. Do you really think they would take it up just because evolution was shown to be false?

And you would still have the age of the Cosmos to deal with.

Tell me what do the Coptic and Armenians believe and why do they believe that way?

 

[klutedavid]

Ummmm, plants can't grow in the first place without sunlight. Unless you're going to appeal to magic. In which case....LOL!



Yep, the lowest population for humans was between 3,000-10,000 during a population bottleneck. We've also traced genetics back to a mitochondrial Eve and a y-chromosome Adam. They weren't sexual partners and didn't during the same time or in the same place.



Only two people on the planet would mean there is a lack of genetic diversity. It would just be inbreeding which would lead to genetic defects and eventually an extinct species.



That is a lot of claims. Perhaps you'd like to support those claims with evidence?



That doesn't support the creation story in Genesis. You're trying to twist a study to make it mean what you want it to mean.

Hello Jon.

You stated the following.

Yep, the lowest population for humans was between 3,000-10,000 during a population bottleneck. We've also traced genetics back to a mitochondrial Eve and a y-chromosome Adam. They weren't sexual partners and didn't during the same time or in the same place.

How do you define, 'human'?

How did you arrive at these figures, 3,000-10,000?

How can you trace genetics back in time? A theoretical genetic trace may not reflect the
historic genetic development.

 

[klutedavid]

Science doesn't deal in proof.

Correct.

It deals in evidence.

Incorrect, the evidence that science uses is the evidence that science recognizes as
evidence. This scientific evidence is empirical evidence.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

There is no evidence for common ancestry, no evidence of a universal common ancestor.
There are many hypothesis regarding the origin of life, as yet, science is in the dark to
how life originated. Science is not even sure what the prevailing conditions were when
life began.

DNA slammed the door shut on any doubt.

Monkeys and humans have different genetic coding, unrelated.

But you can keep denying it all you want.

You are a believer brother, a believer in naturalism. I am not a believer brother in
naturalism. Science cannot prove naturalism, that is a belief system. Belief systems
have no proofs. Mathematics has axioms and proofs, natural sciences are belief systems.
The door has slammed back open, the door is the primary belief system.

The evidence won't magically disappear.

No evidence, no need for any magic.

The evidence demonstrates exactly what we'd expect if evolution is true.

Evolution can never be proven to be true, you are reaching beyond your domain.

Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. Taxonomic groups fit perfectly and completely
inside other taxonomic groups.

This theoretical hierarchy is a naturalistic, theoretical, evolutionary tree. Which has
no trunk, no common ancestor, not even a reasonable idea to how life began.

Exactly what we should expect to see when we examine the evidence.

Exactly what a believer will see when one has been conditioned in any belief system.

DNA evidence demonstrates overwhelming evidence of a common ancestor.

Did early life have DNA?

 

[Speedwell]

Tell me what do the Coptic and Armenians believe and why do they believe that way?

You're the one who brags about having a university degree in the Christian religion. That you don't know what your fellow Christians believe speaks volumes. Look it up.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Since science doesn't prove anything then how can thecdood slam shut on anything

It's called following the evidence to a logical conclusion. Do you know how the scientific method works? We make the observation that populations change over time and species share similarities to each other. We hypothesize that all life on earth is related. We gather the evidence in the fossil record, embryology, comparative anatomy, DNA, observations in nature and in experimentation in the lab. All of these studies converge on the same conclusion. That all life is related and shares a common ancestor.

Evidence then is only good for something you believe to be true, but since it can't be proven it still is only a belief system

Is evidence in a court of law only evidence and not good enough? If I have DNA evidence of a murder suspect, can I not convict them of the crime? You need to learn how to use the scientific method. Starting at a conclusion and working backwards is what creationists do. Here is a good question for you: What predictions about the natural world can creationism make? What falsifiable test could potentially disprove creation? Evolution answers these questions for itself. It has passed every test and has predictive abilities.

Its wishful thinking based upon things you want to believe is evidence of something that cannot be proven.

You're describing yourself. My life doesn't depend on if evolution is true or not. It's just what the evidence shows. Reality doesn't care what you want.

What was a spider before it was a spider?

It was a spider. Evolution takes place in populations, not individuals. There are 35,000+ species of spiders.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There is no evidence for common ancestry, no evidence of a universal common ancestor.

99.9% of ERV insertions in the human genome insert in the same place in the chimpanzee genome. This is only possible if you share a common ancestor. Shared ERVs also fall into a nested hierarchy, exactly what we'd expect.

There are many hypothesis regarding the origin of life, as yet, science is in the dark to
how life originated.

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. That is abiogenesis. How many times are creationists gonna drag out this dishonest strawman?

You are a believer brother, a believer in naturalism. I am not a believer brother in
naturalism. Science cannot prove naturalism, that is a belief system. Belief systems
have no proofs. Mathematics has axioms and proofs, natural sciences are belief systems.
The door has slammed back open, the door is the primary belief system.

Do you say this to all scientific theories? Do you not wash your hands because germ theory of disease is not "proven"?
Or is it just evolution that you whine about it because it threatens your religious beliefs?

No evidence, no need for any magic.

Keep telling yourself that. Tell me....why shouldn't someone take antibiotics for a viral infection?

This theoretical hierarchy is a naturalistic, theoretical, evolutionary tree. Which has
no trunk, no common ancestor, not even a reasonable idea to how life began.

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. It has nothing to do with it. It describes how existing life evolves. Do you understand that now?

Exactly what a believer will see when one has been conditioned in any belief system.

Evolution can make accurate predictions about the natural world. That makes the scientific theory very strong. What prediction can creationism offer and what falsifiable test can it run?

 

[USincognito]

What was a spider before it was a spider?

What is it with Creationists and their almost pathological compulsion to dishonestly ask questions that

have
been
answered

three times already?

 

[ScottA]

What about the evidence in this world? Did God create this world in your mind?

There's a word for it: Manifest.

 

[ScottA]

Men wrote the bible. Genesis is exactly what i'd expect to be written in a primitive culture as they had no knowledge of biology. People also used to think that diseases were plagues sent by God. We now have the germ theory of disease...do you reject that also?

God made man, man wrote the bible, man developed amnesia. Terrific.

God made man, man wrote the bible, man takes apart his watch and thinks he know what makes it tick. Intelligent.

 

[ScottA]

It's called following the evidence to a logical conclusion. Do you know how the scientific method works? We make the observation that populations change over time and species share similarities to each other. We hypothesize that all life on earth is related. We gather the evidence in the fossil record, embryology, comparative anatomy, DNA, observations in nature and in experimentation in the lab. All of these studies converge on the same conclusion. That all life is related and shares a common ancestor.

So...theoretically...all pies came from a common dough...that just appeared in the kitchen... Cool logic - brilliant!

 

[USincognito]

In the days of the NT Paul told us that individuals in the church were granted to be teachers.

In the days of Paul there was no New Testament.

 

[ScottA]

In the days of Paul there was no New Testament.

In the days of Hancock there was no Declaration of Independence, no Constitution. Etc.

 

[USincognito]

Yes, I did. Science has not caught up to God yet. He said He created light before He created the sun, everyone said that is against observable science, it therefore can not be a literal interpretation. Now science is changing it's mind about light. I take it you did not read the article, or you did not understand.

I didn't read the links you provided because "missing light" and dark matter has nothing to do with the fact that we have dozens of lines of evidence pointing to deep time and evolution. But since you want to focus on light, here's just one example of the problem with the "created light" apologetic - SN 1987A. When SN 1987A was first observed, two to three hours before the light was detected, a burst of neutrinos was detected at three different neutrino observatories.

Why is this an issue for a literal Genesis? Because the core collapse (neutrinos) and subsequent supernova (light) that followed happened 162,000 years before the universe supposedly existed. That either means that God a trickster to such detail that he put that 2 to 3 hour lag time in the neutrinos and the light, or that SN 1987A actually did happen 168,000 years ago.

 

[USincognito]

In the days of Hancock there was no Declaration of Independence, no Constitution. Etc.

If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.

 

[mmksparbud]

I didn't read the links you provided because "missing light" and dark matter has nothing to do with the fact that we have dozens of lines of evidence pointing to deep time and evolution. But since you want to focus on light, here's just one example of the problem with the "created light" apologetic - SN 1987A. When SN 1987A was first observed, two to three hours before the light was detected, a burst of neutrinos was detected at three different neutrino observatories.

Why is this an issue for a literal Genesis? Because the core collapse (neutrinos) and subsequent supernova (light) that followed happened 162,000 years before the universe supposedly existed. That either means that God a trickster to such detail that he put that 2 to 3 hour lag time in the neutrinos and the light, or that SN 1987A actually did happen 168,000 years ago.

If you have not read the article then there is nothing to talk about---besides---how can faith in God and His word be debated with an atheist? What is there to say--Yes He is---No He isn't........without end. You can not convince me, and there is nothing I can say to convince you. God can only be understood by those who experience Him, without that---there is nothing to relate to.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is it with Creationists and their almost pathological compulsion to dishonestly ask questions that have been answered three times already?

Oh, please!

Walk a mile and a thread in my shoes, why don't you?

 

[USincognito]

If you have not read the article then there is nothing to talk about

Yes there is. For starters, you could actually respond to the question asked.

---besides---how can faith in God and His word be debated with an atheist? What is there to say--Yes He is---No He isn't........without end. You can not convince me, and there is nothing I can say to convince you. God can only be understood by those who experience Him, without that---there is nothing to relate to.

Try staying on topic. We're not talking about the existence of God. We're talking about the fact that the Creation tells us that deep time is real, evolution happened and the Flood didn't. Any chance you can address those facts instead of rambling on about dark matter? Any chance you can actually address SN 1987A?

 

[USincognito]

Man has made up evolution not God.

You're very confused. Evolution happened. Science has uncovered how it happened. You might not like that fact. You may even not understand that fact. But it is a fact.

God says evolution didn't happen.

No, your literalist interpretation of Genesis leads you to conclude evolution didn't happen because you ignore all the evidence from God's creation that it did happen.

God's creation does not lie.

And yet you're claiming that it does by denying that it provides enormous amounts of evidence for deep time and evolution.

Men do and thus can't be trusted to properly understand his creation.

Says the man who places his interpretation of Genesis over the creation and the evidence for deep time and evolution it provides to us.

 

[KWCrazy]

Oh, please!

Walk a mile and a thread in my shoes, why don't you?

First we would need to know if those shoes are work boots or loafers.

 

[rjs330]

You're the one who brags about having a university degree in the Christian religion. That you don't know what your fellow Christians believe speaks volumes. Look it up.

I have a degree in bible literature not a degree in worldwide Christian belief systems. During my studies we learned a little about a couple denominations but not world wide beliefs. As expected the focus as on bible literature. Studying and learning about the bible through language study and hermeneutics and exegesis.

You made the claim so I would like you to prove it.