proving evolution as just a "theory"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Yes and it's only a fear issue when men have chosen to disbelieve what the Bible clearly states and instead follow a man made theory that directly contradicts what the Bible teaches. It's kind of the same thing when science teaches that ressurrection is impossible. We don't dismiss that as believers even though science says it's false. But we will dismiss creation. I don't get it. Creation has been taught and believed since the beginning of Christianity. Now because man says evolution is true, Christians jump on the bandwagon.
Or they subscribe to an interpretation of scripture which is indifferent to evolution and always have.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,259
5,978
64
✟333,184.00
Faith
Pentecostal
How? You would have to show that there was something about the inference of common ancestry which was inconsistent with the observation of similarities. Right. common ancestry is an inference. Continually misrepresenting it won't help your case. "Real observation" shows similarities. Period. Design is an inference from those similarites, just like common ancestry. How? What's the test? Which is true whether He created the creatures through evolution or in some magial way all at once. How is design observable today? This is an important question for you, one which no other ID proponent has been able to answer satisfactorily.
Nobody cares what you think Scripture says about it.
How many times do I have to say it? Common design is evident in all things. Are we not all made from cells and have genetic material? Do not all things have commonalities that allow them to grow and exist? How about air breathing animals or winged animals where the common design is such that allows all air breathing creatures to inhale the air that exists here and turn it into oxygen for the blood stream and exhale the exact thing that is used by plants to grow. Our waste becomes the plants oxygen. Or perhaps the common design of winged creatures that allows them to fly using feathers or membranes. Just look at the common design of genetic material.

Common design of plants that use what we expel.

Real observation shows similarities and common design. Real observation does not show evolution from common ancestry. Cats remain cats from the cat family and dogs remain dogs from the dog family and horses remain horses from the horse family. Observation does not show common ancestry between cats, dogs and horses and it sure doesn't show common ancestry between them and us.
 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's fine, you are free to believe what you like about it. But you don't own the Bible and your beliefs about it aren't necessarily truer or superior or normative for other Christians. If it wasn't for the political aspect, nobody would care what you believed or try to talk you out of it, any more than we care that Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat or that Mormons wear funny underwear.

Consider this, with respect to your "comealonglately" slur: There are around two billion Christians in the world. Some of them are opposed to evolution and some not, but only you "Bible believers" feel seriously threatened by it. Why do you think that is? Do you really think a Christian group like the Copts, say, who have hardly had a new theological idea since Jesus lived in Egypt, have bent the Bible to conform to "comealonglately" popular opinions?

It has nothing to do at all with what I think or believe my friend.

2 Thessalonians 2
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

] 2 Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
How many times do I have to say it?

Repeating base assertions doesn't make them true.

If you wanted to demonstrate common design, you first need to present a scientific model for it and then demonstrate how the evidence explicitly confirms that model. But you've consistently failed to do so and when pushed to do so, you just start making excuses.

Are we not all made from cells and have genetic material? Do not all things have commonalities that allow them to grow and exist? How about air breathing animals or winged animals where the common design is such that allows all air breathing creatures to inhale the air that exists here and turn it into oxygen for the blood stream and exhale the exact thing that is used by plants to grow. Our waste becomes the plants oxygen. Or perhaps the common design of winged creatures that allows them to fly using feathers or membranes. Just look at the common design of genetic material.

All of these things are indicative of biological evolution and organisms evolving in relation to their environment.

Observation does not show common ancestry between cats, dogs and horses and it sure doesn't show common ancestry between them and us.

Sure it does. I mean, you'd have to go back about 65 Mya, but the evidence points to common ancestry:

Ancestor of All Placental Mammals Revealed
The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,259
5,978
64
✟333,184.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Or they subscribe to an interpretation of scripture which is indifferent to evolution and always have.

It is interesting how the following can be interpreted any other way than what it says.

God said, “Let the waters swarm with living things, and let birds fly above the earth up in the dome of the sky.”God created the great sea animals and all the tiny living things that swarm in the waters, each according to its kind, and all the winged birds, each according to its kind. God saw how good it was.Then God blessed them: “Be fertile and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” - Genesis 1:20-22 Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:20-22 - Common English Bible

You will completely disregard this passage and interpret it differerently than what it says. It says very specifically that birds and fish were created at the same time. But somehow saying that is an "interpretation." When actually the interpretation is when you claim it doesn't mean what it says.

Yet you may trust the accuracy of the following passage.

The Lord said to Samuel, “How long are you going to grieve over Saul? I have rejected him as king over Israel. Fill your horn with oil and get going. I’m sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem because I have found my next king among his sons.”“How can I do that?” Samuel asked. “When Saul hears of it he’ll kill me!” “Take a heifer with you,” the Lord replied, “and say, ‘I have come to make a sacrifice to the Lord.’Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will make clear to you what you should do. You will anoint for me the person I point out to you.”Samuel did what the Lord instructed. When he came to Bethlehem, the city elders came to meet him. They were shaking with fear. “Do you come in peace?” they asked.“Yes,” Samuel answered. “I’ve come to make a sacrifice to the Lord. Now make yourselves holy, then come with me to the sacrifice.” Samuel made Jesse and his sons holy and invited them to the sacrifice as well.When they arrived, Samuel looked at Eliab and thought, That must be the Lord’s anointed right in front.But the Lord said to Samuel, “Have no regard for his appearance or stature, because I haven’t selected him. God doesn’t look at things like humans do. Humans see only what is visible to the eyes, but the Lord sees into the heart.”Next Jesse called for Abinadab, who presented himself to Samuel, but he said, “The Lord hasn’t chosen this one either.”So Jesse presented Shammah, but Samuel said, “No, the Lord hasn’t chosen this one.”Jesse presented seven of his sons to Samuel, but Samuel said to Jesse, “The Lord hasn’t picked any of these.”Then Samuel asked Jesse, “Is that all of your boys?” “There is still the youngest one,” Jesse answered, “but he’s out keeping the sheep.” “Send for him,” Samuel told Jesse, “because we can’t proceed until he gets here.”So Jesse sent and brought him in. He was reddish brown, had beautiful eyes, and was good-looking. The Lord said, “That’s the one. Go anoint him.”So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him right there in front of his brothers. The Lord’s spirit came over David from that point forward. Then Samuel left and went to Ramah. - 1 Samuel 16:1-13 Bible Gateway passage: 1 Samuel 16:1-13 - Common English Bible

Or perhaps you don't believe that passage either. Perhaps God really didn't say those things to Samuel and Samuel did not really anoint David. Is that your thinking? Did that really happen or not?
 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes and it's only a fear issue when men have chosen to disbelieve what the Bible clearly states and instead follow a man made theory that directly contradicts what the Bible teaches. It's kind of the same thing when science teaches that ressurrection is impossible. We don't dismiss that as believers even though science says it's false. But we will dismiss creation. I don't get it. Creation has been taught and believed since the beginning of Christianity. Now because man says evolution is true, Christians jump on the bandwagon.

Yes exactly.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
How many times do I have to say it? Common design is evident in all things. Are we not all made from cells and have genetic material? Do not all things have commonalities that allow them to grow and exist? How about air breathing animals or winged animals where the common design is such that allows all air breathing creatures to inhale the air that exists here and turn it into oxygen for the blood stream and exhale the exact thing that is used by plants to grow. Our waste becomes the plants oxygen. Or perhaps the common design of winged creatures that allows them to fly using feathers or membranes. Just look at the common design of genetic material. Common design of plants that use what we expel.
Which is exactly what the theory of evolution would predict.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Jesus did not exist until about 4 BC. The Word may have done it, but not the Word incarnate.

YHWH and Jesus are the same. God is One, physically and Spiritually. This is the incarnate description of YHWH/Jesus in the Old Testament.

Eze 1:27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of His loins even upward, and from the appearance of His loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. Eze 1:28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. (Heb-YHWH) And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
God said, “Let the waters swarm with living things, and let birds fly above the earth up in the dome of the sky.”God created the great sea animals and all the tiny living things that swarm in the waters, each according to its kind, and all the winged birds, each according to its kind. God saw how good it was.Then God blessed them: “Be fertile and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” - Genesis 1:20-22 Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:20-22 - Common English Bible

Here is the same verse from the KJV without the alterations placed there by some religious man "adding to" what was actually written.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

The version you posted falsely implies that ONLY sea animals and birds were made from Water AND it completely removes Their kind, or the kinds made by the Trinity. It also takes away His kinds, or the kinds made by the Hands of Jesus or His kinds. The Common English Version needs to be corrected.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
They don't lack belief and your assertion design is a better explanation is just you being absent the education and experience they have. That's why they're making these finds and not you.

you are welcome to believe anything you wnat. the fact is that they dont found any gene remains. so i base my claim on a fact and they dont.

Because it's pretty much the same technique being used to identify these locations where the gene has undergone mutation rendering it inoperative. It's plainly obvious you need to study up more on your science to be able to address this properly. Your religious belief is not enough to discount all the supporting evidence for Evolution.

i think someone is indeed lack any knowlage about this topic. fortunately i dont think its me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
You don't have either of these from a design perspective. Under design what you are comparing is just similarities, not actually evolutionary conservation.

its not just similarity but a conserve similarity. do you agree that if a specific sequence is the same in both fish and human- this may mean that this sequence is important even under the design model? i think its make sense. otherwise why this sequence is so conserve compare with other genes? (again; under the design model).
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
its not just similarity but a conserve similarity. do you agree that if a specific sequence is the same in both fish and human- this may mean that this sequence is important even under the design model? i think its make sense. otherwise why this sequence is so conserve compare with other genes? (again; under the design model).
It might. Too bad there isn't a design model.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
its not just similarity but a conserve similarity.

Which again only makes sense in the context of both a starting point and a mechanism for conservation of genetic sequences.

So under your "design model" what is your starting point and what is your mechanism of genetic conservation?

You need to provide a specific answer to these questions and provide a reason under the design model for why you would make these assumptions.

do you agree that if a specific sequence is the same in both fish and human- this may mean that this sequence is important even under the design model?

No I don't agree. If you want to argue these sequences would be important, you need to first demonstrate why a designer would only create similar sequences in fish and humans that are explicitly important. You need to provide a reason a designer would be constrained in that fashion. Because they could just as easily create unimportant yet identical sequences in starting organisms. You're claiming they wouldn't do the latter, yet you still have not presented a basis for this.

otherwise why this sequence is so conserve compare with other genes?

That's what I keep asking you. You still haven't provided an answer.

Look, we've been over this again and again and again. Just like last time where you spent weeks running in circles without providing a proper answer. You're just doing it all over again.

Unless you can provide a specific "design model" and describe your specific constraints related to genetic similarities and provide a proper rationale for it under this "design model", you don't have any real reasons for your claims. You're just taking the evolutionary model, making all the exact same assumptions and calling it "design". Your "design model" doesn't add anything new or different.

Unless you can bring something new to the table, we're done here. I'm not going to reply further because this is a complete waste of time. Again.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
YHWH and Jesus are the same. God is One, physically and Spiritually. This is the incarnate description of YHWH/Jesus in the Old Testament.

Eze 1:27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of His loins even upward, and from the appearance of His loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. Eze 1:28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. (Heb-YHWH) And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

How about we keep to forum rules and stick to the topic of this thread which is evolution. I'm sure you can find another thread to discuss your OP doctrine in.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,259
5,978
64
✟333,184.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Which is exactly what the theory of evolution would predict.
No evolution says all things came from a common ancestor. One thing gave birth to all things, despite the fact they can't show that.all they can really say is common design. The rest of it is assumption and supposition.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No evolution says all things came from a common ancestor. One thing gave birth to all things, despite the fact they can't show that.all they can really say is common design. The rest of it is assumption and supposition.
But if the theory of evolution was true, and evolutionary development proceded from a common ancestor by the process of variation and selection it describes, then those similarities you noted would be exactly what one would expect.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
But if the theory of evolution was true, and evolutionary development proceded from a common ancestor by the process of variation and selection it describes, then those similarities you noted would be exactly what one would expect.

And to add to this, a designer could arguably have created things that would blatantly violate common descent (i.e. chimeric organisms). For example, why don't things like whales & dolphins have the same gill structures as fish? It would make a lot more sense given they are aquatic organisms. But for whatever reason, the designer decided to make them appear like they descended from terrestrial animals, air-breathing and all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.