proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Aman777]

The Genesis story was told by neolithic man who was groping for knowlede about the world and his place in it. I do not understand why anyone could give precedence to a fable over that of modern science.

False, since God the Holy Spirit is the Author. IF you could understand Genesis, you would know that since Gen 1:28-31 is prophecy of a future event. Changeable Science is the view of men who have rejected God's Truth. In the end, they will know that their view was false. Like Lucifer, some have assumed that they know more than God. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

The Gospel message is that the first man Adam sinned and passed his sin on to all of his descendants of whom we are told we are all of. Kind of the same way an alcoholic passes his alcoholism on to his children.

False, since what Adam passed to his descendants was the supreme intelligence of God. ONLY God and Adam/Humankind have this superior intelligence. Gen 3:22 Creatures (prehistoric man) who descended from WATER, do NOT have this ability.

 

[Astrophile]

You seem to be implying that the Bible is not valid when it comes to it's description of Creation. If that is true then we should toss the entire thing out because that renders all of it invalid. My contention is that if any of it is true it is all true and if any false all is false. In Romans 1:20 God challenges us to prove His existence through the study of science. I have taken that challenge up about 27 years ago and yet to find any actual scientific evidence that it conflicts with. Not only this the Bible agrees with all of known history. Not only this, within its pages from Genesis to Revelation one cannot find a single true inconsistency. Not only this, the icing on the cake is that it contains hundreds of highly specific prophecies and is 100% prophetically accurate. This is what I call the SHIP test. Science, History, Inconsistency, and Prophecy. An all knowing all powerful God would not fail in a single one of these four areas. And the Bible not only passes, but in many cases it surpasses the test demonstrating it to be divine rather than human in origin. So contrary to your claim that it is a dead issue it is very much alive and well my friend.

So if A Midsummer Night's Dream is fiction, then King Richard II, King Henry IV Part I and King Henry VIII never existed. Alternatively, if Romulus and Remus never existed, then the whole of Roman history is false. Also, your third sentence is illogical. The Bible could be partly true and partly false, and then you would have to argue that it was both all true and all false, which is impossible.

More seriously, what do you mean when you say that we should toss the entire thing out because the scientifically falsity of Genesis renders the whole Bible invalid? Does the fact that Genesis is false prove that Jesus and St Paul never existed, or that murder, adultery and lying are good things?

To turn the question round, why should we keep any of the Bible? (This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.) Would it make any practical difference to our lives if it were to be proved that King Solomon was the son of Uriah the Hittite or that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon never conquered Jerusalem? If you gave up believing in the God of the Bible, would you be logically forced to abandon your moral principles? I have no wish for eternal life, nor do I believe in it; I am 70 years old, and when I die the world will go on without me. If I were dying of cancer or if I were hopelessly senile, I should want to have my life shortened so that I could 'go gentle into that good night'. So, apart from some fine literature and a reasonably accurate history of a small Semitic nation, what should we lose by tossing out the Bible?

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

False, since God the Holy Spirit is the Author. IF you could understand Genesis, you would know that since Gen 1:28-31 is prophecy of a future event. Changeable Science is the view of men who have rejected God's Truth. In the end, they will know that their view was false. Like Lucifer, some have assumed that they know more than God. Amen?

A very predictable answer but very sad.
Where do you get the idea that God in any form wrote anything.

 

[BradB]

Yes, special pleading at it's best.

And, who, created God?

Is this a logical question? You are asking who "created" an infinite being? Do you understand what infinite means?

 

[pitabread]

Is this a logical question? You are asking who "created" an infinite being? Do you understand what infinite means?

It's still special pleading. You're arguing the necessity of a creation but then exempting the creator from that necessity.

 

[bhsmte]

Is this a logical question? You are asking who "created" an infinite being? Do you understand what infinite means?

Special pleading then, thanks.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

There is no doubt speciation is a fact. The question is does it result in a new species. The inability to reproduce does not constitute a new species. This can be caused by to much interbreeding. In the ring species of salamanders, the salamanders remained salamanders, That is not evidence of evolution.

Sure it is. Not just salamanders either of course, Herring Gulls and the Caribbean slipper spurge Euphorbia tithymaloides are great examples too - you have to agree that where they meet again at opposite ends of the ring, they are morphologically unique too - not just genetically incompatible. This is proof that these organisms diverge genetically, and will continue to diverge, left unchecked. Check out Fig. 3 at The Caribbean slipper spurge Euphorbia tithymaloides: the first example of a ring species in plants. - PubMed - NCBI, it shows that these two have diverged so much as to be different species, even though they show an imperceptible graduated change as you follow the ring species around from end to end, even though they are undeniably different when they meet again.

The usual example given for the evolution of bacteria is that some seem to become a new species based on their ability to resist antibiotics. For all we know some of them already had that ability or they would have died from the antibiotics. In any case, the bacteria, like the salamanders remained bacteria. No evolution.

Way more than bacterial resistance, I'm afraid. The Lederberg Experiment: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/lederberg_01 lent great support to the Theory of Evolution though this experiment (and against ID too, mind you). If you so much as looked marginally further into the bacteria kingdom for examples of Evolution than a cursory glance, you'd notice bacteria do indeed enjoy a swathe of unique changes in their genomes bringing about complex traits requiring a number of steps (for which we can indeed 'know' how they came about), much of it by chance to achieve these novel traits: Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - even if we hadn't seen the citrate digestion trait appear in e-coli (among others), the genetic change in these bacteria are so diverse that we regularly find as much genetic change as we see between us and say, Giraffes from the same genetic stock - it's likely why there's more bacterial species than there are animal and plant species put together. It's trivial to have them evolve into something unique enough to be a separate species all of its own in a matter of months - the same genetic uniqueness to become humans of today took us hundreds of thousands of years - we can see that change in bacterial species well within a lifetime.

I can hear it now "...but they're still just bacteria!" - Just like humans, spiders, coral sponges and banana trees are still just eukaryotes...

The evolution tree is as a joke because you have no fossil links joining any of them to each other. I thought evolution had even abandoned that in the theory.

Why don't you explain how the leg of a land animal can become the fin of a sea creature. Genetically of course. Maye you can include how and why land animal surviving quite well on land could become a sea creature. That refutes natural selection, another evolution fantasy that should start with "one upon a time."

Not in the least, an opportunity to come by food easier gives rise to unique traits that make gathering that easier food source.... well, easier. That's only one on any number of reasons for the change though, not like anyone was around to take a poll or anything... Anyhoo:

LMGTFY
​

Also, this has been covered here on these forums already:

Whale evolution without fossils.​

Then...

05 » How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans » University of Florida
Culture and Genetic Evolution in Whales
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03​

A cursory glance over these various articles shows the rear limbs primarily governed by the Hand2/SHH and the forelimbs by Hoxd12 and Hoxd13. In both cases, the evolutionary dependence and change sequence has been well documented. Seriously, it's almost as if you're deliberately avoiding the evidence or something...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

since you didnt gave any evidence for evolution so far, and since they didnt gave any evidence that this gene realy lost, i think the answer is clear. but again: you are welcome to believe anything you want...

I didn't give evidence for two reasons - You didn't give any evidence for your assertions first up, then the evidence that's already out there in support of Evolution which is accepted by professional researchers and scientists trained and working in this field has already been provided to you in spades - that you 'don't understand it' isn't synonymous with 'was not presented/does not exist'.

 

[omega2xx]

Sure it is. Not just salamanders either of course, Herring Gulls and the Caribbean slipper spurge Euphorbia tithymaloides are great examples too - you have to agree that where they meet again at opposite ends of the ring, they are morphologically unique too - not just genetically incompatible. This is proof that these organisms diverge genetically, and will continue to diverge, left unchecked. Check out Fig. 3 at The Caribbean slipper spurge Euphorbia tithymaloides: the first example of a ring species in plants. - PubMed - NCBI, it shows that these two have diverged so much as to be different species, even though they show an imperceptible graduated change as you follow the ring species around from end to end, even though they are undeniably different when they meet again.

The inability to reproduce is not evidence of evolution. For ring species to be an example of evolution, the salamander etc., must become something other than what it was, and the salamanders remained salamanders.

Way more than bacterial resistance, I'm afraid. The Lederberg Experiment: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/lederberg_01 lent great support to the Theory of Evolution though this experiment (and against ID too, mind you). If you so much as looked marginally further into the bacteria kingdom for examples of Evolution than a cursory glance, you'd notice bacteria do indeed enjoy a swathe of unique changes in their genomes bringing about complex traits requiring a number of steps (for which we can indeed 'know' how they came about), much of it by chance to achieve these novel traits: Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - even if we hadn't seen the citrate digestion trait appear in e-coli (among others), the genetic change in these bacteria are so diverse that we regularly find as much genetic change as we see between us and say, Giraffes from the same genetic stock - it's likely why there's more bacterial species than there are animal and plant species put together. It's trivial to have them evolve into something unique enough to be a separate species all of its own in a matter of months - the same genetic uniqueness to become humans of today took us hundreds of thousands of years - we can see that change in bacterial species well within a lifetime.

I can hear it now "...but they're still just bacteria!" - Just like humans, spiders, coral sponges and banana trees are still just eukaryotes...

Do you really not understand that for evolution to be true at some point an A must become a B?

Not in the least, an opportunity to come by food easier gives rise to unique traits that make gathering that easier food source.... well, easier. That's only one on any number of reasons for the change though, not like anyone was around to take a poll or anything... Anyhoo:

Poor analogy. The ability to gather food easier may result in the survival of the species, but it will not result in a change of species.

LMGTFY

​

Also, this has been covered here on these forums already:

What evidence did they offer?

Whale evolution without fossils.

The problem her is that your whale "experts" offer fossils.​

Then...

05 » How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans » University of Florida
Culture and Genetic Evolution in Whales
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03​

A cursory glance over these various articles shows the rear limbs primarily governed by the Hand2/SHH and the forelimbs by Hoxd12 and Hoxd13. In both cases, the evolutionary dependence and change sequence has been well documented. Seriously, it's almost as if you're deliberately avoiding the evidence or something...[/QUOTE]

Saying it is true doesn not make it true. The explanation must include HOW it is genetically possible, and the hardest thing you need to explain is why a l and animal surviving well on land would need to become something other than what it was. That refutes natural selection.

I didn't give evidence for two reasons - You didn't give any evidence for your assertions first up, then the evidence that's already out there in support of Evolution which is accepted by professional researchers and scientists trained and working in this field has already been provided to you in spades - that you 'don't understand it' isn't synonymous with 'was not presented/does not exist'.

You didn't give any evidence for only 1 reason, you have none. My evidence is the laws of genetics. Parents with no gene for fins, can't have a kid with fins. Can you falsify that?

 

[xianghua]

I could take three planes, one with traditional wheel-based landing gear, one with skis and one with pontoons, and conclude that the landing gear seems functionally unimportant because it bears no similarity between the thee planes ("conservation" according to you). Yet they are critical to the design of each plane, because without which none of those planes would be able to take off or land.

1) again: this is the exceptional rather then the general.
2) the wheel itself is conserve. other kinds of "wheels" arent realy wheels so we can consider them as another parts (or in this case other proteins\genes). so a wheel shape is conserve when other parts arnet.

Branding is another great example of where commonality serves no function beyond identification. For example, here is a Ford logo on a truck:

actually this logo is very important to the company, since the ford company want you to know who made those cars. so it may even support my position.

 

[xianghua]

I didn't give evidence for two reasons - You didn't give any evidence for your assertions first up

incorrect. the evidence clearly show that there is no gene remains of this alx3 gene. so you are the one who base his evidence on belief, were i used a fact (this gene is totally missing).

 

[xianghua]

Saying it is true doesn not make it true. The explanation must include HOW it is genetically possible

no evolutionist can do that. we indeed need a great amount of DNA change for this transition. actually many biological systems required at least several genes for their minimal function (a motion system for instance). so such a system cant evolve stepwise- therefore evolution is impossible.

 

[rjs330]

LOL! That's good, rjs, the laugh of the day for sure even though it isn't even ten o'clock in the morning yet.

How do I know it was inspired by God? Because Paul says so. How's that for a reason? What's your reason?

Paul was just a man. He could have made it all up. How did Paul know the OT was inspired? How did Paul know about God?
How did Paul know God even existed? Do you believe that the events that led up to Paul's conversion actually happened? How did Paul know that God actually spoke through the prophets?

 

[Speedwell]

Paul was just a man. He could have made it all up. How did Paul know the OT was inspired? How did Paul know about God?
How did Paul know God even existed? Do you believe that the events that led up to Paul's conversion actually happened? How did Paul know that God actually spoke through the prophets?

This is getting really weird. Don't you believe any of those things? What kind of Christian are you? Do you believe the Resurrection was all made up, too?

 

[rjs330]

Obviously you don't know what ID is. The Discovery Institute says something very different.

You are talking about creation, not "design." I think you are just calling it "design" because you think it's sciency-sounding.

I don't think the institute says anything of the sort. Because I am not a scientist and don't use a bunch of science-y words I just do what I can. From what I understand from the institute, and I just listened to a podcast today, they are saying what I am saying only in a more elliquent fashion. They too believe in creation.

 

[Speedwell]

Wait! I'm beginning to get an idea. You may have answered my perennial question about creationists after all. It's still pretty vague in my mind, maybe you can help me with it:

You start with a book you believe to be self-authenticating, and your belief in the Christian faith comes from that self-authenticating book.

And that is why you feel threatened by anyone who impeaches what you see as the self-authenticating properties of the book.

help me out here--is that even close?

 

[rjs330]

Can you really not see the irony of this statement?

Not at all. Why? Because something never comes from nothing. Ever. There is always a creator. There is always a designer for everything. Snow skis did not just evolve into airplanes. Someone designed them and someone installed them. Eyes do not just appear onto creatures. Someone designed them and installed them into the genetic make up.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think the institute says anything of the sort. Because I am not a scientist and don't use a bunch of science-y words I just do what I can. From what I understand from the institute, and I just listened to a podcast today, they are saying what I am saying only in a more elliquent fashion. They too believe in creation.

As I understand it, they believe that evolution is responsible for most of the diversity of life which we observe, except for a certain few biological structures (deemed to be "irreducibly complex") which God has to tinker with personlly to get right. The bacterial flagellum would be an example of such a structure which would require His personal intervention.

 

[rjs330]

In the case of God creating something from nothing there is in fact a special case to consider. If you have God who is said to contain infinite power, and infinite knowledge, and infinite existence, there are infinite factors involved. In a math equation 0+0 will always equal 0. However 0 plus any other factor will always equal the number of the other factor. What is 0+infinite? Therefore in this case we are not saying the universe was created from nothing we are saying it was created from nothing plus God.

Exactly, God was the designer.