Is God a liar?

[Meowzltov]

There is actually no scientific evidence for macro evolution or that proteins can form DNA without intelligence intervention.

First of all, I never said evolution without intelligent intervention. There is such a thing as Theistic Evolution

Secondly, there absolutely is evidence of macro evolution. For example:

 

[Meowzltov]

the "theory" of evolution.

Do you understand what a scientific theory is? It's not the same thing as an opinion or educated guess.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." Wikipedia

 

[Meowzltov]

Please point out the scientific evidence for creation of living matter out of non living matter with no outside interference.

The answer is obvious. We know from the geologic record that at one time no life existed on earth. Then there was life. Primitive single cell life, sure, but life. Non-life, to life. Even the Bible agrees things went from non-life to life.

 

[Meowzltov]

There is also no evidence that insects can become mammals and that a whale is related to a tree.

You are way oversimplifying things. No one is saying that insects became mammals. But we are saying that insects and mammals had a common ancestor. Non on is saying that whales came from trees. But we are saying that they had a common ancestor. You need to study up on the basics of evolution, because right now you can't even argue against it given that you don't even understand what it is.

 

[Abraxos]

First of all, I never said evolution without intelligent intervention. There is such a thing as Theistic Evolution

Secondly, there absolutely is evidence of macro evolution. For example:

I see pictures of animals; then I see "lines" connecting them which is where the problems arise.

And theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms—like the oxymoron "act naturally". God can no more direct an undirected process than He can create a square circle. Yet this is precisely what theistic evolution presupposes.

You can believe in it, but it lacks logic.

 

[Humble Servant of Christ]

First of all, I never said evolution without intelligent intervention. There is such a thing as Theistic Evolution

Secondly, there absolutely is evidence of macro evolution. For example:

Nice pictures but pictures are not science. Read about the gaps in darwin. Let us remeber that at one tie there were pictures of a flat earth in books. Old earth yes but macro evolution is a fairy tale

 

[Meowzltov]

I see pictures of animals; then I see "lines" connecting them which is where the problems arise.

And theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms—like the oxymoron "act naturally". God can no more direct an undirected process than He can create a square circle. Yet this is precisely what theistic evolution presupposes.

You can believe in it, but it lacks logic.

The lines are there for visualization, but what connects them is not the lines, but similarities in physical attributes, beginning with something highly unusual about the ear that we only see in whales and dolphins. That's what's being traced back -- that's why you see the skulls being shown. And interestingly enough, as you trace this ear feature back through time geologically, what else shows up? A slow gradual trail of the development from a wetland mammal to the cetaceans we have today. Cool coincidence -- but exactly the kind of thing you would expect if evolution were factual.

 

[Humble Servant of Christ]

You are way oversimplifying things. No one is saying that insects became mammals. But we are saying that insects and mammals had a common ancestor. Non on is saying that whales came from trees. But we are saying that they had a common ancestor. You need to study up on the basics of evolution, because right now you can't even argue against it given that you don't even understand what it is.

Not really. Common ancestor....please find any scientific evidence for spontaneous life or even amino acids forming in nature. There is none. Primordial soup is now rejected but science. Thermal vent theory....why don't we see if now. If simple life can spawn complex life, we would still see the process today. The laws of nature are the same today as in the distant past. Light still acts the same....why dont we see dna forming out of amino acids in nature today. Evolution is the simplistic state. Macro evolution uses pictures to fill the gaps. Please look into intelligent design and progressive creationism. Evidence points to sudden appearance of complex and diverse life. The physical evidence contradicts darwins words

 

[Humble Servant of Christ]

You are way oversimplifying things. No one is saying that insects became mammals. But we are saying that insects and mammals had a common ancestor. Non on is saying that whales came from trees. But we are saying that they had a common ancestor. You need to study up on the basics of evolution, because right now you can't even argue against it given that you don't even understand what it is.

I think you need to understnd evolution. A simple cell organization is more complex than darwin knew. He did not know of DNA or even the basics of a single cell organism. His theory was based on visual assumptions. Please read signature in a cell.

 

[Meowzltov]

Not really. Common ancestor....please find any scientific evidence for spontaneous life or even amino acids forming in nature.

1. Creationists agree that life came from non-life. God created man out of the dust of the earth. There is no argument.

2. Abiogenesis is a whole different topic from evolution. We are discussing Evolution. Let's focus like a laser beam.

 

[Meowzltov]

Macro evolution uses pictures to fill the gaps.

Look at the chart of whale evolution I gave you. the "pictures" were not fantasies, but renditions based on actual fossils. These fossils are actual evidence. They exist. They are transitional forms. That ear formation from cetaceans CAN be traced back in time to wetland mammals with four legs, gradually.

 

[Meowzltov]

Nice pictures but pictures are not science. Read about the gaps in darwin. Let us remeber that at one tie there were pictures of a flat earth in books. Old earth yes but macro evolution is a fairy tale

I'm not asking you to reply to the pretty art. I'm asking you to reply to the fossils.

 

[Meowzltov]

I think you need to understnd evolution. A simple cell organization is more complex than darwin knew. He did not know of DNA or even the basics of a single cell organism. His theory was based on visual assumptions. Please read signature in a cell.

You are correct that Darwin didn't understand cell biology or genetics. It's amazing how much he got right without that knowledge. He only had taxonomy. It's so much easier for us to know the truth of evolution with the backing of the field of genetics. Now we have evidence coming in from SO MANY different disciplines that it's just an avalanche! Biology, Genetics, Paleontology, Geology. My favorite is how Plate Tectonics solves puzzles about different species, but lately I've been re-watching Robert Sapolsky's online video's on Evolutionary Biology as regards behavior.

 

[Abraxos]

The lines are there for visualization, but what connects them is not the lines, but similarities in physical attributes, beginning with something highly unusual about the ear that we only see in whales and dolphins. That's what's being traced back -- that's why you see the skulls being shown. And interestingly enough, as you trace this ear feature back through time geologically, what else shows up? A slow gradual trail of the development from a wetland mammal to the cetaceans we have today. Cool coincidence -- but exactly the kind of thing you would expect if evolution were factual.

Yeah, the lines are there simply as a visualization. The problem is that we don't have any reason to presuppose that a wolf-like creature the size of a fox can turn into a blue whale. Ears from sonar capabilities is a stretch for calling that proof of Darwinism.

Seemed you dodged my other point regarding theistic evolution being a contradictory position to take.

 

[Humble Servant of Christ]

1. Creationists agree that life came from non-life. God created man out of the dust of the earth. There is no argument.

2. Abiogenesis is a whole different topic from evolution. We are discussing Evolution. Let's focus like a laser beam.

I'm not asking you to reply to the pretty art. I'm asking you to reply to the fossils.

There are no transitional fossils as Darwin envisioned. Darwin's transitional stages would be gradual and plentiful enough to pass on the genetic mutations. To work, the gradual mutuations needed to be wide spread. We don't have that evidence. We have fossils of massive sudden explosions of life forms. We see this over and over. Remember that nature abhores mutations. If there were massive genetic mutations in a single life form the chances it would survive would be impossible. Macro evolution needs large populations of small mutations over a long period. If that occured, we would have abundant fossils. We don't. The fossils we have - that are pictured in the evolution drawings - are too dramatic of changes. There is no way the types of radical genetic mutations as shown would survive in nature. What is missing from the fossil record are the tiny widespread mutational intermediaries needed. The fossil record supports sudden radical life.

 

[Meowzltov]

Ears from sonar capabilities is a stretch for calling that proof of Darwinism.

I'm not necessarily connecting it with sonar. This trait existed prior to sonar capabilities.

There are no transitional fossils as Darwin envisioned. Darwin's transitional stages would be gradual and plentiful enough to pass on the genetic mutations.

I gave you a chart full of transitional forms documenting the evolution of a wetland mammal into the aquatic mammals we have today. And don't give me the "pretty picture" routine. They are fossils. Far too many fossils for you too explain away. All of these fossils share the same unique ear structure found only in cetaceans.

 

[pastor marty]

I'm not necessarily connecting it with sonar. This trait existed prior to sonar capabilities.

I gave you a chart full of transitional forms documenting the evolution of a wetland mammal into the aquatic mammals we have today. And don't give me the "pretty picture" routine. They are fossils. Far too many fossils for you too explain away. All of these fossils share the same unique ear structure found only in cetaceans.

Why can't GOD have said',enough w/this makin' stuff.I laid da blueprint so all ya lil' molecules jus evolve,I'll check back later & when HE did & saw th' DINO'S He went 'whoops'shoulda seen that comin,no prob;got ME an astroid th' size o' Kansas 2 remedy them raptors so's I kin prepare th' place 4 EDEN. Why do evolution & a CREATOR have 2 be inconpatible. O ye of narrow & constrained GODZ.

 

[Meowzltov]

If there were massive genetic mutations in a single life form the chances it would survive would be impossible.

I would probably bore you to death if I tried to explain the whole shabang about how heritability is more often not a single gene but systems of genes and usually not the gene itself, but the on-off switches and the transmission genetics involved and ... well... if you really wanted to know all that stuff, you'd take a class led by a real professor and not me.

But the point that I DO have to make i that most mutations don't have any effect at all, but they can accumulate, until along with other mutation, they effect an entire system of genes. So.... Trait X can go whistling on its merry way for centuries unchanging as various mutation begin building up, until finally we have the very last mutation necessary to complete the necessary batch, and then suddenly we will see a big change because the genetic SYSTEM is changed.

This system change will cause a trait change in a species. Not "masses of changes." Evolution works VERY SLOWLY, and only what is adaptive gets passed on. So by design, evolution doesn't wipe out species, but is exactly what keep them from being wiped out. IOW if the habitat changes and they don't evolve, that's when they die out.

 

[Abraxos]

I'm not necessarily connecting it with sonar. This trait existed prior to sonar capabilities.

I gave you a chart full of transitional forms documenting the evolution of a wetland mammal into the aquatic mammals we have today. And don't give me the "pretty picture" routine. They are fossils. Far too many fossils for you too explain away. All of these fossils share the same unique ear structure found only in cetaceans.

Well the next obvious question is where's the evidence? What exactly is it that connects a Pakicetus to cetaceans? I've actually delved into the anatomy of the Pakicetus and what they found, and there were really no tangible evidences of a "inner ear" or anything that connected it to whales.

Seemed you still dodged my other points as well as theistic evolution being a contradiction.

 

[JacksBratt]

OMGosh. If you understood what waves/photons were, you wouldn't say that.

Really? You think that God needs waves and photons in order to create light?

You think God needs a star or some planetary body to emit light?