proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually, we understand how that happened - via the artifiical selection of clustered alleles which arose via mutations.

You keep ignoring (or not understanding) how genetics and stuff works.

After all, you wrote what is in my signature - if one gene controlled it all, then obviously no new breeds could possibly exist at all WITHOUT mutations producing variation.

Except no mutations produced the Chinook. Just the mixing of two different genetic strains from two subspecies.

No mutations created the Afr-Asian, just the mixing of two different genetic strains from two subspecies.

If mutations were involved, then since every Asian born is born with a different random mutation, as is every African, then an Afro-Asian would not be produced every time.

If mutations were the cause, then every Husky born with a different random mutation, along with every Mastiff, would not produce the Chinook every time.

No, your mutation theory having any significant affect is dead, as soon as all of you let it die a peaceful death.

Only you with your false theory needs mutations and millions of years. I need but “two” and nine months for humans and about 28 weeks for dogs.

And we can include every other animal alive as well. For mutations do nothing, but every single time you mate two variations in the species you get another. And never something new each time, but the same breed, strain, subspecies, whatever you want to call them today, every single time.....

No, mutations play no important role at all. Except in the realm of make-believe.

 

[rjs330]

I certainly won't disagree with that. I moved to the bible belt six years ago and, because I was in a southern gospel band here for two years, I played at a lot of those small local baptist churches. I got to hear a lot of sermons and talk to a LOT of people about beliefs. Christianity down here is a culture, almost more than it is a religion. It is very difficult to carry on a conversation about doctrine because, though many here are VERY religious, their knowledge of bible content was stunted at around their teens. Not everyone, but there is a lot of it.

But there are also many that know what they are talking about and are on a lifetime quest for more understanding.

Jesus DID say the way is narrow...

Yes he did and he also said that only those who do the will of the father get in. A great many people call themselves Christians who really don't know what being a Christian really means. It means following Christ and the teachings in the Bible. It's kind of hard to do that if you don't really have much of an idea what the Bible teaches.

 

[rjs330]

A Pastor's duty is supposed to be to deliver the "good news" of Jesus Christ... but for too many Christians in America, the only "good news" they want to hear is "it's not your fault, it's [insert name of scapegoat du jour] to blame for all your woes!"

Either that or Jesus dies to make you rich!
Another one that's crept into the church is the one that says "you can do whatever you want and still go to heaven."

 

[rjs330]

You can believe the Bible without believing that the first few chapters of Genesis are an accurate, literal account of history.

You can do whatever you wish. Doesn't make it right though. I mean why would we believe everything else but those chapters? It's very double minded.

 

[sfs]

You can do whatever you wish. Doesn't make it right though.

Nope. It's being right that makes it right.

I mean why would we believe everything else but those chapters?

Why would you believe everything else was literal history, I assume you mean. I have no idea why you would believe everything else was literal history, since much of it clearly isn't.

 

[rjs330]

If Satan is behind the theory of evolution, he's not doing his job. Evolution only disturbs the faith of a minority of Protestant Christians, leaving the rest secure in their salvation in Christ. You'd think he'd come up with something more effective.

But it's not about just Protestant Christians is it? Take a look at these boards and all the unbelievers here who use evolution as a reason to not trust the Bible. And the believers who don't either are held up by the unbelievers as proof that the Bible isn't accurate because not even Christians think it is. So why should they believe anything the Bible has to say?
Once the world can dismiss the bible as a book of allegory it becomes nothing more potent than Aesops fables or Greek mythology.

Since evolution flies in the face of how God himself said he made everything we have a conundrum. Trust God or trust science. I trust God's own words.

 

[rjs330]

But it is irrelevent to the discussion. God's creation of the Universe and all it contains is regarded as a fact by all Christians, and I presume by all of whatever religion you belong to, whatever that is. But we regard it as a fact whether evolution is true or not.

Why do you believe that? How did you come to that understanding?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Except Jesus supported Genesis and all the Old Testiment scriptures. The only thing he objected to is interpretation of said scriptures.

But of course -- he was a Jew after all, as I said.

And this is precisely why his early followers, including the Gospel Writers with the exception of John, saw him as the latest and greatest in the series of Jewish prophets and heroes, putting him front and center with the likes of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha. (John, of course, being penned after the schism, takes a decidedly non-synoptic turn)

So to say creation is inconsistent but Jesus and sinful nature is not, is inconsistent since Jesus supported both.

Who said it was inconsistent? Certainly not me. You seem to be waiting for someone to make that specific point so you can rail against it. I suppose we're about to see why...

The only thing inconsistent with reality is belief in evolution. It’s those interpretations that are flawed, as were the Pharisees.

...and there it is: an attempt at humor.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Either that or Jesus dies to make you rich!
Another one that's crept into the church is the one that says "you can do whatever you want and still go to heaven."

...so long as you vote Republican.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But it's not about just Protestant Christians is it? Take a look at these boards and all the unbelievers here who use evolution as a reason to not trust the Bible.

-_- I assure you, evolution has nothing to do with why I don't believe the bible is a divine text.

And the believers who don't either are held up by the unbelievers as proof that the Bible isn't accurate because not even Christians think it is.

Actually, I am greatly inspired by their willingness to be flexible enough to reconcile their faith with science in a way that doesn't compromise either.

So why should they believe anything the Bible has to say?

That's like saying a person unreliable source of information just because they were demonstrably wrong on a few things. There's no reason the bible couldn't be accurate on some things and inaccurate on other things.

Once the world can dismiss the bible as a book of allegory it becomes nothing more potent than Aesops fables or Greek mythology.

I'm pretty sure that even the evolution supporting Christians don't generally view the whole thing as allegory.

Since evolution flies in the face of how God himself said he made everything we have a conundrum. Trust God or trust science. I trust God's own words.

A bit of a false dichotomy you are making here. I don't believe that the bible was inspired by any deity to begin with, so from my perspective, it's "trust the words of some guys in ancient times, or trust the scientific method".

 

[Speedwell]

Why do you believe that? How did you come to that understanding?

Because I find the theory of evolution plausible and it does not trouble my faith. As far as I am concerned, nothing that science has or potentially can discover about the natural world can deny God's authorship of the universe and all that it contains. I didn't agree with your interpretation of Genesis before I ever heard of evolution and I wouldn't even if the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow.

 

[Speedwell]

But it's not about just Protestant Christians is it? Take a look at these boards and all the unbelievers here who use evolution as a reason to not trust the Bible. And the believers who don't either are held up by the unbelievers as proof that the Bible isn't accurate because not even Christians think it is. So why should they believe anything the Bible has to say?

Believers who don't trust the Bible? Who are they? For my part, I trust the Bible entirely--it is the word of God, after all.

Once the world can dismiss the bible as a book of allegory it becomes nothing more potent than Aesops fables or Greek mythology.

No intelligent, literate person could dismiss a complex collection of texts like the Bible as entirely a single literary genre. The thought is absurd. Even non-believers are unlikely to do that.

Since evolution flies in the face of how God himself said he made everything we have a conundrum. Trust God or trust science. I trust God's own words.

I prefer to distrust your reading of Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then I shouldn’t have to point it out to you for the twentieth time.

“The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands.”

This includes all 15 plus two from the mainlands.

But ignoring the data is your only recourse.

That does not say all. It only implies some. They surprised to see gene flow. You did not make your point. It does not say that all species could interbreed or even imply it. You need to study ring species That may help you to understand how A can interbreed with B, B can interbreed with C, C can interbreed with D, but D cannot interbreed with A. That is speciation. The article does not support your claims. At best you are misunderstanding it on purpose.

Oh I understand he ignores the same facts you do, that species are defined as those capable of interbreeding. That because he wants to ignore this so he can call anything he likes a species, he ignores that if two are interbreeding, they are not closely related species, but subspecies in the same species. But there you go again ignoring scientific definitions of subspecies as well.

Please, don't make false claims about me. I have not ignored anything and he has not either.

a subdivision of a species: such as
a :a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs”

But following scientific definitions isn’t a strong suit of evolutionists because then they can’t claim anything they like from day to day.

Once again, please do not violate the TOS here. You know that is not true at all about me. I am willing to discuss fully any proper article that you link. You on the other hand seem to be loath to do so.

 

[xianghua]

I have literally given you lists of ways to disprove the theory of evolution, and you are still posting this garbage. Every time someone shows you a way to disprove the theory, you just go "nuh uh, that wouldn't disprove it" and give absolutely no evidence to defend your claim.

its no so simple sarah. for instance: if we will see a cat evolving into a dog we can always say that there is an unknown mechanism that make the cat evolving into a dog. very similar to a caterpillar evolving into a butterfly. so such an example will not necessarily disprove evolution.

 

[Kylie]

its no so simple sarah. for instance: if we will see a cat evolving into a dog we can always say that there is an unknown mechanism that make the cat evolving into a dog. very similar to a caterpillar evolving into a butterfly. so such an example will not necessarily disprove evolution.

You really don't understand how science works, do you?

 

[USincognito]

But it's not about just Protestant Christians is it? Take a look at these boards and all the unbelievers here who use evolution as a reason to not trust the Bible. And the believers who don't either are held up by the unbelievers as proof that the Bible isn't accurate because not even Christians think it is. So why should they believe anything the Bible has to say?
Once the world can dismiss the bible as a book of allegory it becomes nothing more potent than Aesops fables or Greek mythology.

Since evolution flies in the face of how God himself said he made everything we have a conundrum. Trust God or trust science. I trust God's own words.

Probably because fundamentalists have created that false dichotomy in their minds and after seeing the massive evidence supporting evolution and deep time have concluded with one of the two choices fundamentalists presented them.

What in the world are you talking about? With few exceptions, the nonbelievers here respect the theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists.

 

[Jimmy D]

We have never observed any new species. Not once, ever. You may if you wish correctly call the different breeds of dog subspecies, just as if you wish you may correctly call the different races of humans subspecies, or even those finches.

There are more organisms than humans, finches and dogs you know.

I’ve never claimed any species popped into existence. Where did you ever come up with that idea? Oh yah, from your incorrect classifications and incorrect view of how variation occurs in the species. I can see how being you think new species happen, you would automatically believe everyone else also ignores empirical observational evidence and ignores their own scientific definitions.

I apologise if I'm misrepresenting your beliefs. I thought that you claimed that the first husky came from two wolves mating, is that not correct? If not you had better explain how the husky came about becuase it's not exactly clear what you believe.

My confusion has nothing to do with how I view the taxonomic classification system or scientific definitions.... for the sake of argument, and if it means you'll stop endlessly repeating it, I'll even accept your argument that certain species should be reclassified as subspecies.

 

[Ophiolite]

There are more organisms than humans, finches and dogs you know.

This aspect of discussion on evolution has always amused and frustrated me in equal measure. While studying palaeontology intensively over four years I and my classmates all rather looked down on vertebrate palaeontology, considering it rather boring and of very little value. The interesting fossils were brachiopods, graptolites, ammonites, trilobites, lamellibranchs, ostracods, etc. They had the good grace to be present in large numbers and generally to show readily traceable evolutionary trends, with few gaps (and furnished a wealth of detail about their environment).

 

[Almost there]

Yes he did and he also said that only those who do the will of the father get in. A great many people call themselves Christians who really don't know what being a Christian really means. It means following Christ and the teachings in the Bible. It's kind of hard to do that if you don't really have much of an idea what the Bible teaches.

Though I agree with that, I also believe you can be saved having never cracked a bible. Salvation is actually pretty simple. Do you believe Jesus is the Christ and he was raised from the dead?

The rest is window dressing.

As C. S. Lewis once said (and I paraphrase), sometimes I feel like I'm being pretty good an other times I feel like I'm not being very worthy of His sacrifice for me. I'm probably closer to God in the latter case.

As a Christian, I want to do my father's will because I love Him and want to please Him, not because I'm afraid He's going to write me out of the will.

 

[pitabread]

very similar to a caterpillar evolving into a butterfly.

Caterpillars don't "evolve" into butterflies. The correct term is metamorphasis: Metamorphosis - Wikipedia