Is God a liar?

[Speedwell]

Indeed.



Indeed acquiring brand new genes - demonstrating new function in phenotype. For example the prokaryote bacteria - "acquiring" a cell wall around the nucleus on its way to becoming an Amoeba (over time of course possibly 100's of generations). Something that never happened - but much imagined "new feature" all the same in blind faith evolutionism.



In the example I give above - we have 50,000 generations of "observations in nature" proving that it does not happen.



Certainly it is true that the "improbable nay in fact impossible" proposed changes in the many-storied scheme of evolutionism are "infrequent" and the more we have "observations in nature" available (such as the 50,000 generations worth" the more it is "confirmed" that by faith alone evolutionism - is faith in things that don't actually happen in nature.

Just because those who believe in investigating reality find evolutionism does not happen - does not mean they are evil.

For example human evolution is imagined to have happened in less than 1/10th of the 50,000 generation experiment "observed in nature" in the case of bacteria.

What is more - bacteria are 'designed' to genetically adapt to their environment wearing their DNA literally "on their sleeves" as compared to humans. So the uber-adabtable organism is "observed" not to evolve up the ladder - over 50,000 generations yet it is still to be 'much imagined' that humans, horses and rabbits would not be so slow to adapt and evolve as their much more adaptive bacteria competitor.

Up what ladder?

 

[Aman777]

For example human evolution is imagined to have happened in less than 1/10th of the 50,000 generation experiment "observed in nature" in the case of bacteria.

Actually, it happened within ONE generation since Noah's grandsons had NO other Humans to marry. They married and produced children Gen 10:10 with the prehistoric people (sons of God) who were already here when the Ark arrived. Gen 6:4 No 5,000 generations of magic needed.

Today's hybrid Humans (descendants of Adam) have inherited his superior intelligence, which is like God's Gen 3:22 AND we have also inherited the DNA of the prehistoric people who married Noah's descendants. That's God's Truth of HOW He produced the soon to be 10 Billion Humans alive today, with NO magical evolution involved. Inheritance trumps evolution. God Bless you

 

[BobRyan]

Up what ladder?

Taxonomy - biological systematics... you know... "the ladder"

 

[Speedwell]

Taxonomy - biological systematics... you know... "the ladder"

But there is no up or down in evolution, and using the term "ladder" implies that it exists before anybody starts to climb on it.

 

[BobRyan]

But there is no up or down in evolution, and using the term "ladder" implies that it exists before anybody starts to climb on it.

I like your idea that Evolution could have started with a horse and worked its way to a bacteria over time. I guess that is the best we could have hoped for given that we are talking about evolution.

But as it is - we do have Taxonomy - biological systematics... you know... "the ladder"

 

[Speedwell]

I like your idea that Evolution could have started with a horse and worked its way to a bacteria over time. I guess that is the best we could have hoped for given that we are talking about evolution.

Whether that is possible or not, there is nothing in the theory of evolution which holds that the horse is "higher" than the bacteria.

But as it is - we do have Taxonomy - biological systematics... you know... "the ladder"

Taxonomy is merely descriptive. Life exists, we decide somewhat arbitrarily how to classify it for our own convenience.

 

[BobRyan]

Whether that is possible or not, there is nothing in the theory of evolution which holds that the horse is "higher" than the bacteria.

Taxonomy is merely descriptive. Life exists, we decide somewhat arbitrarily how to classify it for our own convenience.

I am ok with both of those - the more evolutionism has to claim that nature went from horse all the way to bacteria - and horse came before bacteria - the more it makes my point. It's a religion - and not a very good one at that. But still lots of faith -- gotta give them credit for that.

 

[Aman777]

I am ok with both of those - the more evolutionism has to claim that nature went from horse all the way to bacteria - and horse came before bacteria - the more it makes my point. It's a religion - and not a very good one at that. But still lots of faith -- gotta give them credit for that.

Evolution is the name given to descent with modification between His and Their kinds. In trying to remove God from His own Creation, these mental giants must admit that they know nothing of the difference between His and Their kinds. Does anyone here know the difference?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I am ok with both of those - the more evolutionism has to claim that nature went from horse all the way to bacteria - and horse came before bacteria - the more it makes my point. It's a religion - and not a very good one at that. But still lots of faith -- gotta give them credit for that.

You can relax, the idea of bacteria coming from horses is not a part of evolution at all. However, consider cancer cells that come from animals . . . . have you heard of the immortal cells of the Hela culture, that originally came from Henrietta Lacks?

 

[BobRyan]

Well individuals change . . . . but we don't call that evolution.

Indeed.

Evolution is when the genetics of a species change.

Indeed acquiring brand new genes - demonstrating new function in phenotype. For example the prokaryote bacteria - "acquiring" a cell wall around the nucleus on its way to becoming an Amoeba (over time of course possibly 100's of generations). Something that never happened - but much imagined "new feature" all the same in blind faith evolutionism.

Well, as long as we talk about it using the words in the same way we can then advance on to disagreeing as to whether it happened or not.

In the example I give above - we have 50,000 generations of "observations in nature" proving that it does not happen.

Or perhaps they only illustrate you are discussing a kind of mutation that is so rare it occurs somewhat less frequently than that.

Certainly it is true that the "improbable nay in fact impossible" proposed changes in the many-storied scheme of evolutionism are "infrequent" and the more we have "observations in nature" available (such as the 50,000 generations worth" the more it is "confirmed" that by faith alone evolutionism - is faith in things that don't actually happen in nature.

Just because those who believe in investigating reality find evolutionism does not happen - does not mean they are evil.

For example human evolution is imagined to have happened in less than 1/10th of the 50,000 generation experiment "observed in nature" in the case of bacteria.

What is more - bacteria are 'designed' to genetically adapt to their environment wearing their DNA literally "on their sleeves" as compared to humans. So the uber-adabtable organism is "observed" not to evolve up the ladder - over 50,000 generations yet it is still to be 'much imagined' that humans, horses and rabbits would not be so slow to adapt and evolve as their much more adaptive bacteria competitor.

Up what ladder?

Taxonomy - biological systematics... you know... "the ladder"

But there is no up or down in evolution, and using the term "ladder" implies that it exists before anybody starts to climb on it.

I like your idea that Evolution could have started with a horse and worked its way to a bacteria over time. I guess that is the best we could have hoped for given that we are talking about evolution.

But as it is - we do have Taxonomy - biological systematics... you know... "the ladder"

Whether that is possible or not, there is nothing in the theory of evolution which holds that the horse is "higher" than the bacteria.

Taxonomy is merely descriptive. Life exists, we decide somewhat arbitrarily how to classify it for our own convenience.

I am ok with both of those - the more evolutionism has to claim that nature went from horse all the way to bacteria - and horse came before bacteria - the more it makes my point. It's a religion - and not a very good one at that. But still lots of faith -- gotta give them credit for that.

============================================ and then this???

You can relax, the idea of bacteria coming from horses is not a part of evolution at all.

You post in response to that thread of discussion above - but not sure how you mean to be responding to the points made above.

 

[Humble Servant of Christ]

God tricked no one since He made it clear He spoke the universe into existence. Even man can created his created universe with age so you believe God is more limited in His creation than man in his?
Hebrews 11:3 "Through Faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

It's like a truck goes down the highway is clocked by a cop at 649 miles from the coast going 65 mph. Another cop clocks the same truck one mile down the road going 65mph at noon. Both cops get together to compared data and proclaims the truck came out of the ocean at 2am that morning. Of course this assumption is totally based there is no intelligence involved and the truck never changed speed or direction. This is exactly how man comes up with the age of the universe and never questions if the principle of continuity is actually true.

It's like those who lined up dominoes in a huge room years ago which knocking over the first one will cause a chain reaction leading to all the dominoes getting knock over one by one. When someone points out the dominoes are too far apart for these theories to work they will accuse that person of using the "god of the gaps" argument. Of course if the principle of continuity is false there are no gaps for God to filled.

God is not limited at all. He created the singularity of the big bang and with his created laws of the universe, the universe was created as we see it today. The universe is expanding which can not be denied. Where is it expanding from? Do you believe in a static universe? A static universe needs no creator. Only a universe that came from nothing needs a creator and only a universe in which time and space is created needs a creator who is outside of time amd space (i.e. Eternal). Once again, why would God created a universe with so much evidence of it being ancient if it is not ancient? A literal interpretation of Genesis points to the Big Bang.

 

[RickG]

1. That evolutionism is a belief system about origins totally incompatible with the Bible.

Evolution is a physical science based on observable facts. As for being incompatible with the Bible, that completely depends upon ones interpretation of the Genesis account of creation; that is whether it is literal or allegorical.

2. That 100's of millions of years of fossil producing events on planet earth should have left zillions of fossils demonstrating the much-loved much-expected "progression" that was affirmed by faith alone by Darwin.

With respect to marine fossils, there are zillions upon zillions of fossils. For example, limestone is mostly made up of the accumulation of countless shell, coral, algal, and fecal debris. With respect to terrestrial fossils, they are much less common due to the environments they form in, which is much less favorable for fossilization.

Nevertheless, the fossil record can only be explained through evolution. If evolution were false we would find fossils of all life forms in all layers of geologic strata. The fact is that we find fossils, without compromise, spread throughout the geologic column in a specific order that can only be explained by evolution.

 

[RickG]

If no individual in the population evolves - there is no possibility of evolution ever taking place.

I believe the emphasis of my comment is being misunderstood. As populations of the same species become isolated from one another, they will over time evolve slightly differently, usually due to different environmental influences adaptations. Conversely, a population with no outside influences or environmental changes will evolve extremely slow if at all. It is quite evident in the geologic record that where abrupt environment changes are seen is where evolution is most noticeably observed.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe the emphasis of my comment is being misunderstood. As populations of the same species become isolated from one another, they will over time evolve slightly differently, usually due to different environmental influences adaptations. Conversely, a population with no outside influences or environmental changes will evolve extremely slow if at all. It is quite evident in the geologic record that where abrupt environment changes are seen is where evolution is most noticeably observed.

Change is observed - true. Evolution - no.

The bacteria can "change" and are seen to change over time -- and in less than 50,000 generations obviously.

But no evolution - no "Acquiring" a novel feature like a cell wall around the nucleus.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Change is observed - true. Evolution - no.

The bacteria can "change" and are seen to change over time -- and in less than 50,000 generations obviously.

But no evolution - no "Acquiring" a novel feature like a cell wall around the nucleus.

But were the bacteria in an environment such that a cell wall would have helped them? And perhaps to disprove evolution you should give them more time, like 500,000 years before assuring us all evolution can't handle that problem.

 

[BobRyan]

But were the bacteria in an environment such that a cell wall would have helped them?

Who was going to tell them that? When is it that bacteria no longer can exist? We still have them today. Today the same environment that supports bacteria can often also support amoeba and a great many other single-celled life forms. Still the case to this very day.

And perhaps to disprove evolution you should give them more time, like 500,000 years before assuring us all evolution can't handle that problem.

Humans supposedly evolved in 1/10th the time that 50,000 generations of primates would need to even live and reproduce and so then 'exist'. And we are not at all as adaptive genetically "by design" as a bacteria with its genetic code free-floating.

Recall Patterson's statement about evolutionism having to claim "I have no idea as to the mechanism to show it - but it happened I just know it happened"

 

[BobRyan]

Evolution is a physical science based on observable facts.

Unless you want to "observe in nature" that bacteria do not remain bacteria even over 50,000 generations. IN that case - "observations in nature" prove that evolution does not happen!

 

[Uber Genius]

Gould was trying to argue for evolutionism surviving the lack of intermediates by claiming that all the intermediates happened in short bursts of accelerated evolutionism too short to "capture" in the fossil record as a fossil.

Gould and Eldridge's proposal vs Neo Darwinian model (circa early 1970s)

Gould and Eldridge still produced a graduated model with rapid changes in terms of speciation not phyla!

Cambrian Big Bang model looks like this (circa 1990 to today)

All major phyla arise with no transitional forms in less than 50 million years.

This is why PE was rejected. It didn't demonstrate either empirically or theoretically how to explain the fossil data coming out of the China and Burgess finds. Finds that were so enormous as to double our historic data!

 

[BobRyan]

This is why PE was rejected. It didn't demonstrate either empirically or theoretically how to explain the fossil data coming out of the China and Burgess finds. Finds that were so enormous as to double our historic data!

Which would be a problem for all models of evolutionism

 

[Aman777]

Evolution is the name given to descent with modification between His and Their kinds. In trying to remove God from His own Creation, these mental giants must admit that they know nothing of the difference between His and Their kinds. Does anyone here know the difference?

All I hear is Crickets..... Any educated evolutionist should know the difference. How can anyone understand the Bible and not understand the difference between kinds.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after His kind, and cattle after Their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after His kind: and God saw that it was good.