I am stuck thinking I need to prove faith to Evolutionists, when the Bible says "they're deluded"

[Brightmoon]

I’m not nit picking . You’re deliberately misunderstanding. The process is the same whether or not it’s one species over a few decades or several species serially over billions of years

 

[Brightmoon]

 

[The Barbarian]

Yeah yeah yeah . You rfine little word games. Little e evolution is not what we are talking about and you know that.

We all know the dodge; "yes a man can walk ten feet, but he can't walk a hundred miles." No one really takes it seriously, even people to use that argument.

YOu just wish to muddy the waters! It is the Big E evolution or microbes to man

You've had the same faulty indoctrination. Humans evolved from other primates, not microbes. And even your fellow YE creationist admits the fossil transitionals documenting that evolution is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Another YE creationist:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.
The truth about evolution

Listen to him. It would make your walk with God better for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well both you and crabby old white guy both know that when I speak of evolution I am talking microbes to man!

Yes, you think you're opposing evolution, and you're actually opposing a consequence of evolution. Evolution, as you've learned, is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Common descent is a consquence of that. And it was discovered long before people knew about evolution.

Linnaeus first realized that living things didn't form a ladder or a "great chain of being", but rather a nested hierarchy of taxa that formed a family tree. Later on, Darwin realized why that is. More recently, genetics and paleontology have confirmed Linnaeus' discovery to a high degree of precision.

Today, even many YE creationists admit a limited amount of common descent, usually new species, genera, and families. Some go further. There are practical reasons for them to make this concession, including observed speciations, and space problems on Noah's Ark.

It's a slow process, but it's progress. Eventually, creationism will essentially find peace with God's creation.

 

[nolidad]

We all know the dodge; "yes a man can walk ten feet, but he can't walk a hundred miles." No one really takes it seriously, even people to use that argument.



You've had the same faulty indoctrination. Humans evolved from other primates, not microbes. And even your fellow YE creationist admits the fossil transitionals documenting that evolution is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Another YE creationist:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.
The truth about evolution

Listen to him. It would make your walk with God better for you.

Again with your word games! You should scold all them PHD's who write articles in Scinece mags and online and even talk on TV. Yes your hypotheis is primate to human and something else evolved to primate and so on and so on all the way back to the initial microbe- that is the big picture of evolution.

But you klnow that- and just love to muddy the waters!

 

[The Barbarian]

Another YE creationist:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.
The truth about evolution

Again with your word games!

That wasn't me. You should scold all those honest YE creationists who admit there is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. I would suggest that you don't spend so much time in magazines, You Tube, and so on. Rather, you should look in the scientific literature for your information. You're much less likely to be misled as you have been on a number of occasions. There is, BTW, a scholarly literature for creationists. Would you like me to show you some?

Yes your hypotheis is primate to human

Theory. A theory is a hypothesis which has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence, as your fellow YE creationists acknowledge that it has been. Would you like me to show you again?

primate to human and something else evolved to primate and so on and so on all the way back to the initial microbe- that is the big picture of evolution.

Again, you've confused evolution (change in allele frequency in a population over time) with a consequence of evolution (common descent). As I've shown you, even major creationist organizations have admitted to a limited amount of common descent, usually accepting that new species, genera, and families of organisms develop from earlier ones. Some go beyond that. So it's a fact (we can test it by genetic analysis, including analysis of organisms of known descent). The argument is just how far common descent goes.

As you also learned, common descent was discovered long before anyone knew about natural selection or Darwinism. Linnaeus' family tree of organisms (determined by phenetic data) has since been verified by fossil, embyrological, and genetic data. Darwin just explained why there's a tree.

But you klnow that- and just love to muddy the waters!

 

[Brightmoon]

Linnaeus actually accepted that humans are apes and he did this about 100 years before Darwin

 

[nolidad]

That wasn't me. You should scold all those honest YE creationists who admit there is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. I would suggest that you don't spend so much time in magazines, You Tube, and so on. Rather, you should look in the scientific literature for your information. You're much less likely to be misled as you have been on a number of occasions. There is, BTW, a scholarly literature for creationists. Would you like me to show you some?

YOu call them honest because they believe as you do- that is why! And you do not even know all the resources I search for scientific material. I know of much scholarly literature for creationists. by creationists, but you would not call that scholarly either.

Theory. A theory is a hypothesis which has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence, as your fellow YE creationists acknowledge that it has been. Would you like me to show you again?

Well we have no repeatedly confirmed this by "evidence" but by opinion of bones and a similarity in DNA! Would you like to see why those are not confirmations?

Again, you've confused evolution (change in allele frequency in a population over time) with a consequence of evolution (common descent). As I've shown you, even major creationist organizations have admitted to a limited amount of common descent, usually accepting that new species, genera, and families of organisms develop from earlier ones. Some go beyond that. So it's a fact (we can test it by genetic analysis, including analysis of organisms of known descent). The argument is just how far common descent goes.

And that is a fallacy! Genus and species yes. But new families is still limited to you misquoting articles as I showed you in a previous thread!

 

[Brightmoon]

Actually noli Family is used for closely related genera . Modern biologists tend to use clade above species instead of as in the Linnaean system

 

[nolidad]

Actually noli Family is used for closely related genera . Modern biologists tend to use clade above species instead of as in the Linnaean system

Yes I understand that teh arbitrary lines drawn, over time h ave been redrawn, and new lines added like clade. Despite all the intense and prodigious amount of research that has been published:

It is still just a belief that scientists hold that microbes eventually became man with all the twists and turns. It cannot be validated by the scientific method-ergo is not empirical but philosophical science just as YE creationism is philosophical science.

 

[Brightmoon]

New lines aren’t being drawn . The family tree that Linnaeus proposed is still reasonably accurate. He just drew lines separating groups of closely related species for cataloging convenience. Modern biologists don’t really need them as we’re aware that all living and extinct organisms are cousins. Microbes to man is a flippant but accurate statement if you’re looking at human ancestry. But it neglects the fact the modern microbes are descended from those same microbes and they’re just as evolved as humans are

 

[The Barbarian]

YOu call them honest because they believe as you do-

Because they admit what the evidence indicates. They don't believe the evidence, but admit that it is "very good", and that there is "gobs and gobs of it."

And you do not even know all the resources I search for scientific material.

I can only go by what you've presented here. None of it is from the literature itself.

I know of much scholarly literature for creationists. by creationists, but you would not call that scholarly either.

Some of it is. I've cited at least one article. Would you like to see that, again?

Well we have no repeatedly confirmed this by "evidence" but by opinion of bones

As you have seen, the fossil transitionals predicted by Darwin have turned up one by one. As you might know, a theory is a hypothesis for which its predictions have been repeatedly confirmed.

and a similarity in DNA!

As you learned, the family tree of organisms first discovered by Linnaeus, has been repeatedly confirmed, first by predicted transitional forms in the fossil record, and then by genetic analyses. And we know DNA confirmation works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

And that is a fallacy! Genus and species yes. But new families is still limited to you misquoting articles as I showed you in a previous thread!

Sorry, you've misunderstood the creationist literature. For example, one of the first creationists to admit limited common descent (John Woodmorappe) confirmed to me in an email exchange that his concept was new species, genera, and families, but not much beyond that. His opinion has been supported by the Institute for Creation Research which published his paper Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study.

AIG:
"We know that there is a big variety of cats. They probably all came from the original kind of cat that God created on Day 6."

So let's take a look at that. So In this case, we see it extend to a suborder. The order carnivora is divided into two suborders, the Feliforma (cat kind) and the Caniforma (dog kind).

So there is that. I think Woodmorappe was more aware of the evidence that you are.

 

[Hieronymus]

Genetic scientists are collecting mounting evidence that evolution did not come on its own.

However, creationists may not like this evidence either.

Uh oh..

The evidence concerns about a global viral infection via a virus that may have come from outer space over a period of time spanning many millions of years.

LOL!
You had me worried there.

 

[Hieronymus]

The Bible doesn't mention "evolutionists" anywhere. This is quite the mental gymnastics you have going on.

It does say that man has no excuse for thinking living nature is not created.
No, the word 'evolutionists' is not used..

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes I understand that teh arbitrary lines drawn, over time h ave been redrawn, and new lines added like clade.

The surprising result (to those unfamiliar with evolutionary theory) is that the family tree first discovered by Linnaeus has been confirmed rather precisely by predicted fossil transitionals and genetic analyses.

It is still just a belief that scientists hold that microbes eventually became man

Actually, no microbe ever became a human. Humans, as you know, evolved from other primates. The fact is, microbes couldn't have become human; they only became incorporated into eukaryotes, which did eventually give rise to humans. Would you like to learn about that? It's pretty interesting, since those microbes still have a genetically independent genome within every one of your cells. You couldn't live without them. And there is observed evidence for such evolution. Would you like to learn about that?

It cannot be validated by the scientific method

You've been badly misled about that. A very large number of predictions of evolutionary theory have since been validated. I once showed you small part of that. I could do it again, if you'd like to see it again.

Because evolutionary theory made testable predictions that have been tested and verified, it is scientifically verified. It is true that YE creationism is a modern religious belief, but lacking any testible claims, it cannot qualify as a scientific hypothesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

But it neglects the fact the modern microbes are descended from those same microbes and they’re just as evolved as humans are

Good point. And it points up a major fallacy you see in many, many creationists. They think of evolution as a ladder, with microbes at the bottom and us at the top. That's completely wrong. Darwin rather convincingly disposed of orthogenesis.

So bacteria are, in many cases as evolved as some mammals. Humans are far from the most evolved of mammals, having rather generalized characters in many cases, even though we have some very evolved characters.

 

[timewerx]

Uh oh..LOL!
You had me worried there.

That viruses can cause mutations across entire species? Go look it up.

Sometimes the mutations can be benefitial.

 

[The Barbarian]

That viruses can cause mutations across entire species? Go look it up.

Sometimes the mutations can be benefitial.

That can happen in a number of ways. Sometimes viruses get permanently deactivated and incorporated into the organism genome as non-coding DNA. New genes can sometimes be produced from these viral remnants.
Origins of New Genes and Pseudogenes | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[Brightmoon]

It does say that man has no excuse for thinking living nature is not created.
No, the word 'evolutionists' is not used..

if creationists can demonstrate evidence of that creation then scientists would accept it as a fact rather than as a currently untestable hypothesis. The ball is in the creationist court.

as far as the separate creation of life , that ship sailed over 150 years ago

 

[nolidad]

Because they admit what the evidence indicates. They don't believe the evidence, but admit that it is "very good", and that there is "gobs and gobs of it."

The very few that your evolutionary apologist sites found.

I can only go by what you've presented here. None of it is from the literature itself.

"The literature"?? No my benighted friend it is found in lots of literature- but as you do not recognize creationsim as science you would not recognize the literature either.

Some of it is. I've cited at least one article. Would you like to see that, again?

Have you bothered to read the technical papers peer reviewed and published by ICR, AIG and CRS?