The evidence for Evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

God tells us that atheists, which you claim to be, cannot understand the Spiritual. Should I believe Him or you?

No, the Bible may be interpreted to say that. That is not "God" saying that.

*** Sorry, but there is no such limit to evolution. But go ahead. See if you can give me a working definition of "kinds". It would be a first.

There are two kinds. One kind is the kind which Jesus made with His own Hands like a Potter molds the clay. Humans are His kinds since we were formed by Lord God, YHWH/Jesus. Gen 2:7

You do realize that Jesus never claimed to be "God" in the Gospels, don't you? Why not just say "God". And again, that s not a definition. You claimed to have one.

The other kind is Their kind or the creatures who were created and brought forth from the water some 3.8 Billion years ago in man's time, or on Day 5 in God's time. The sons of God (prehistoric people) were one of the creatures which can trace their beginnings to the last universal common ancestor who came forth from the Water....according to Gen 1:21 AND Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

Again, not a definition. With a working definition you would be able to look at two different groups of animals and tell me if they are the same "kind" or not.

*** And why are you afraid to even learn what is and what is not evidence? You really cannot properly debate about science if you lack that understanding.

I'm not afraid of learning scientific evidence since I show that Scripture AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science. The problem with today's Science is that it is so backward in it's thinking. Science is just now beginning to discover what God told us more than 3k years ago in Genesis chapter One.

Since the theory of evolution is a discovery of science that does not seem to be the case.

Try again.

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

The above shows the difference in kinds IF you have the proper interpretation. God Bless you

Now you are putting a spin into the Bible that is not there at all.

I am still waiting for a definition of "kind". Examples are not a definition. Quotes from the Bible are not a definition. You claimed to have one. Can you please tell me what your definition of "kind" is?

 

[dad]

There is no evidence for the idea that time wouldnt be the same in the distant universe. [

There is no evidence for the idea that time would be the same in the distant universe.You cant just say...oh i think the distant universe is like our own with respect to time, but then have no evidence for that. There is no reason to assume that it is the same.

In space we can look at distant galaxies and distant solar systems and we can see object, like distant planets orbiting stars.

Unless time existed and existed the same as here NO distances could be known or sizes. Whatever is orbiting could be small for all we know, not any planet.

We can just the same, pull out our own telescope and look at mars. Mars looks normal, and appears to operate in space and time just as we do on earth, and there is no reason to expect otherwise.

We know about the solar system. Thus far and no further, you can not pass.

And if before launching the drones to mars, someone said "hey time may be different there, maybe the drone will be frozen in time or will age a million years over night", then that person ought to have a reasonable argument backing that comment.

I have one. You just don't know. Also, assuming it is has led to truly godless and insane conclusions and models!

You need a valid argument for why time would be different.

You need one for any claim it is the same.

Otherwise, the default position is to recognize it as it exists as we know it.

False. The default is not defaulting to absolute godless ignorance for rational men.

And if further discoveries demonstrate otherwise, thats good.

Don't hold your breath. You ain't going there before Jesus returns.

But until then, there is no reason to assume such alternatives exist.

Until then no one should care what you assume unless you can prove it.

 

[dad]

Visual binary stars provide the evidence. Astronomers observe the components of binary stars revolving in elliptical orbits around their common centre of gravity, with periods of decades, centuries or millennia. The observed orbits are used to calculate the masses of the stars, which are similar to the mass of the Sun.

Wrong. No mass is known unless time exists there also as here. Also mass has to do with purely physical matter. We don't know if there may be a spiritual component to matter in deep space. Simply having something at an unknown distance and unknown size in unknown time and spavce orbit at time intervals as seen on earth of a certain length doesn't tell us anything about time there! You kidding

 

[Job 33:6]

Wrong. No mass is known unless time exists there also as here. Also mass has to do with purely physical matter. We don't know if there may be a spiritual component to matter in deep space. Simply having something at an unknown distance and unknown size in unknown time and spavce orbit at time intervals as seen on earth of a certain length doesn't tell us anything about time there! You kidding

This is just crazy talk. I cant be bothered with this. You and that other guy in the other thread are talking about bizarre time and space bending, really strange ideas. You have no support for them, but youre standing by them. Like, why even bring up spiritual components of deep space if you have no tangible idea of what that might be or how it might act? Its just so strange.

There are regular, reasonable doubts people have about scientific ideas. Then theres just these bizarre philosophical stances that a very small minority seem to take that just doesnt hold any weight. Strange...

I cant be bothered with this. Best of luck dad.

 

[dad]

This is just crazy talk. I cant be bothered with this. You and that other guy in the other thread are talking about bizarre time and space bending, really strange ideas. You have no support for them, but youre standing by them. Like, why even bring up spiritual components of deep space if you have no tangible idea of what that might be or how it might act? Its just so strange.

I allow for some possible spiritual component to deep space because the bible talks of angels there. They are spiritual after all. What science sees out there is only part of the picture.

There are regular, reasonable doubts people have about scientific ideas. Then theres just these bizarre philosophical stances that a very small minority seem to take that just doesnt hold any weight. Strange...

I cant be bothered with this. Best of luck dad.

You do not judge what is reasonable when it comes to godless wild eyed insane claims about creation and space made by science. You just chose sides. Hoo ha.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course not, most mutations may be neutral, some will be harmful, the harmful ones are less likely to be passed on though aren't they?

Also whether a mutation can be considered beneficial would depend on the environment. Take the changes that caused lighter skin in humans for example, enhanced capacity for producing vitamin D for the northerners would be beneficial, less protection from the sunlight in hotter climates would be harmful.

Except genetic changes occur every time two people mate, and it occurs naturally without mutations. But you refuse to accept natural changes and want every change to have been caused by mutation.

Do you at least accept that some mutations will be beneficial?

I already agreed that the quadrillionth mutation may be beneficial. But then I'm not the one ignoring the billion other beneficial changes that occur naturally every time two people mate and produce offspring which is far more likely to cause variation than the rare mutation.

This bit just seems like semantic nonsense....

Regardless of the number of mutations that might successfully write a portion of the genetic code into a new format, that code was already existing, just in a different format. No new DNA has been created.

Isn't that how evolution works, subtle changes?

That's because you don't want to accept that because a mutation might copy a T in the place where C once went, that the T already existed...... no new DNA has ever been observed to have been created. Mutations only copy in a new order what already exists. Subtle or not the T already existed. Although perhaps that fact is not subtle enough for you to comprehend the reality thereof?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, I also do not know that there are clouds on the other side of my house in the sky. But considering it is a cloudy day, I assume that what is normal before my eyes, is normal in other scenarios as well.

Time is something that has always been normal for me. So, i dont see why i would assume time would be abnormal say...in the past 6000 years.

And yet the clocks on board the GPS slow due to their acceleration. Clicks on board airplanes due to their acceleration slowed in relation to clocks kept on the ground. Some on here simply want you to ignore the actual science that clocks slow as they undergo acceleration.

Those on board the airplanes noticed no changes, yet it was experimental fact that the clocks slowed from their acceleration compared with stationary ground clocks. No one is arguing that as you undergo the slowing of time and decay because of your acceleration that you yourself are able to perceive it. But that's because you still call those ticks of a longer duration seconds, just as you once called ticks of a shorter duration seconds.

Let's say my clock is accurate. Let's say your clock runs 10 seconds slower every hour. You still call those longer ticks seconds and believe nothing has changed, correct? Yet in a few years, let alone thousands, your clock and my clock would diverge drastically. Don't you think you might need to adjust for the time differences? Especially if it has been proven scientifically the slowing of your clock was an actual physical event caused because you were undergoing a different rate of acceleration than me?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't need to support my claims in every post. I do support them quite often. The difference between the two of us is that I do support my claims at times. You never can support yours. By your own standards your models fall by the wayside.

Still waiting for that one common ancestor proof.......

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still waiting for that one common ancestor proof.......

I would suggest that you learn how science is done. There is no "proof" in science. Yet you rely on it constantly.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, the Bible may be interpreted to say that. That is not "God" saying that.



You do realize that Jesus never claimed to be "God" in the Gospels, don't you? Why not just say "God". And again, that s not a definition. You claimed to have one.



Again, not a definition. With a working definition you would be able to look at two different groups of animals and tell me if they are the same "kind" or not.



Since the theory of evolution is a discovery of science that does not seem to be the case.

Try again.



Now you are putting a spin into the Bible that is not there at all.

I am still waiting for a definition of "kind". Examples are not a definition. Quotes from the Bible are not a definition. You claimed to have one. Can you please tell me what your definition of "kind" is?

You already have a definition of kind, you just ignore that it's a more stable one than species.

Family (biology) - Wikipedia

"Families can be used for evolutionary, palaeontological and generic studies because they are more stable than lower taxonomic levels such as genera and species."

And share the same problems in describing as all do.

"There are no hard rules for describing or recognizing a family, or any taxa. Taxonomists often take different positions about descriptions of taxa, and there may be no broad consensus across the scientific community for some time. Some described taxa are accepted broadly and quickly, but others only rarely, if at all; the publishing of new data and opinion often enables adjustments and consensus over time."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I would suggest that you learn how science is done. There is no "proof" in science. Yet you rely on it constantly.

Yet you claimed you had proof and that the theory was proven. Now it seems you are engaging in double talk because in reality you have no proof.

Do you or do you not have an example of a single common ancestor that split?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You already have a definition of kind, you just ignore that it's a more stable one than species.

Family (biology) - Wikipedia

"Families can be used for evolutionary, palaeontological and generic studies because they are more stable than lower taxonomic levels such as genera and species."

And share the same problems in describing as all do.

"There are no hard rules for describing or recognizing a family, or any taxa. Taxonomists often take different positions about descriptions of taxa, and there may be no broad consensus across the scientific community for some time. Some described taxa are accepted broadly and quickly, but others only rarely, if at all; the publishing of new data and opinion often enables adjustments and consensus over time."

So you still seem to have no working examples. Remember, in evolution such "fuzzy" defintions are to be expected. If creationism is true then you should be able to come up with a hard and fast definition that works without any "fuzziness". That you can't supports the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet you claimed you had proof and that the theory was proven. Now it seems you are engaging in double talk because in reality you have no proof.[/QOUTE]

Did I? I would like to see the context. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does exist. I try to claim that I have evidence. And you have no evidence. In a debate mountains of evidence beats no evidence at all all of the time.

Do you or do you not have an example of a single common ancestor that split?

Nope. Don't need one. And since we are talking unicellular life one is not expected. Why do you ask? One is not needed to show that evolution is correct.

 

[VirOptimus]

And yet the clocks on board the GPS slow due to their acceleration. Clicks on board airplanes due to their acceleration slowed in relation to clocks kept on the ground. Some on here simply want you to ignore the actual science that clocks slow as they undergo acceleration.

Those on board the airplanes noticed no changes, yet it was experimental fact that the clocks slowed from their acceleration compared with stationary ground clocks. No one is arguing that as you undergo the slowing of time and decay because of your acceleration that you yourself are able to perceive it. But that's because you still call those ticks of a longer duration seconds, just as you once called ticks of a shorter duration seconds.

Let's say my clock is accurate. Let's say your clock runs 10 seconds slower every hour. You still call those longer ticks seconds and believe nothing has changed, correct? Yet in a few years, let alone thousands, your clock and my clock would diverge drastically. Don't you think you might need to adjust for the time differences?

You seem to not understand relativity. The clocks dont slow down in their frame of reference. Its when comparing different frames of reference that time goes differently and there is no "true" frame to hold as the "real" time (whatever that even would mean).

 

[Jimmy D]

Except genetic changes occur every time two people mate, and it occurs naturally without mutations. But you refuse to accept natural changes and want every change to have been caused by mutation.

What changes do you mean? You need to be more specific.

I already agreed that the quadrillionth mutation may be beneficial. But then I'm not the one ignoring the billion other beneficial changes that occur naturally every time two people mate and produce offspring which is far more likely to cause variation than the rare mutation.

Few questions...
Where did your quadrillionth figure come from?
What "billion other beneficial changes" that occur every time two members of a population reproduce are you referring to?

That's because you don't want to accept that because a mutation might copy a T in the place where C once went, that the T already existed...... no new DNA has ever been observed to have been created. Mutations only copy in a new order what already exists. Subtle or not the T already existed. Although perhaps that fact is not subtle enough for you to comprehend the reality thereof?

Obviously, and that T in the place of the C is a new sequence is it not? When you say "new dna" what exactly are you referring to? It sounds like a strawman.

 

[Herman Hedning]

The above shows the difference in kinds IF you have the proper interpretation. God Bless you

And does anyone have that proper interpretation except you?

 

[Aman777]

No, the Bible may be interpreted to say that. That is not "God" saying that.

Sure it is unless you can explain How ancient men knew that every living creature that moves was made from WATER as Science discovered last year. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

I don't think you can. All I see you doing is disagreeing with the majority of people on Earth today. Remember that evolution is NOT the majority view.

 

[Aman777]

Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things
Again, not a definition. With a working definition you would be able to look at two different groups of animals and tell me if they are the same "kind" or not.

Again, not a definition. With a working definition you would be able to look at two different groups of animals and tell me if they are the same "kind" or not.

You are asking that I show you something which is invisible in mankind since we are His kinds (temporary kinds subject to death). That is WHY we MUST be born again Spiritually in Christ by the AGREEMENT of The Trinity and become THEIR kinds since Their kinda are always ETERNAL.

Therefore, ANY animal, which descended from WATER, is THEIR kind since they will be with born again Christians in the 3rd Heaven. ANY person you see can be either a Temporary person (atheists agnostics) or an Eternal person (Christians).

Jesus explains: Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

[Aman777]

Since the theory of evolution is a discovery of science that does not seem to be the case.

Try again.

False, since the ToE is a False assumption of godless men who forgot about the flood which totally destroyed Adam's world 2Pet3:6 where Humans originated. This will soon be confirmed by scientists since we are currently living in the last days before the tribulation.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit (Spirit of Truth) upon ALL flesh:

All flesh incudes atheists agnostics and scientists. God's Truth will be shown in the last days because scientists will continue to confirm the Literal Truth of Genesis. This leaves unbelievers with no excuse. Scientific facts are facts but Scientific Theories (current consensus views of where facts are pointing) are subject to change and soon the false ToE will be discredited as incomplete. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

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

The above shows the difference in kinds IF you have the proper interpretation.

Now you are putting a spin into the Bible that is not there at all.

Then tell us what the verse says in your opinion and we will be able to see if your view is correct or not.

*** I am still waiting for a definition of "kind". Examples are not a definition. Quotes from the Bible are not a definition. You claimed to have one. Can you please tell me what your definition of "kind" is?

I can tell you but someone who remains in their trespasses and sins (a temporary person) while rejecting Eternal life, according to God, CANNOT understand.

1Co 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and CANNOT understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.