Help a (creationist) brother out?

[Nithavela]

In human evolution alone there are a number of excellent transitional fossils:

View attachment 309925

I see 13 missing links in that picture alone.

 

[Bradskii]

Saying Jesus is the door to our salvation is a metaphor, but a description of who he was and what he did is an historical account. In my opinion, Genesis is also history, which you choose not to believe. Maybe you think it's a metaphor for abiogenesis, or for God bringing it about through the macroevolution process... I think not. Science books interpret things as they are now and project backwards, speculating more the further back they go, believing things have always operated the same way. Exact processes can't be verified, so they speculate more, all the while ignoring God's word because it doesn't fit a science model. God does not have to justify His word, you either believe it or you don't. From Adam on we've repeatidly failed in that regard. I think most attempts at making the Genesis account metaphorical are to discredit God's word, and therefore Him as well (JMO). Arrogant men, who a thousand years from now will still be groping for an answer to our origin; and belittling God's word in their attempt, which no doubt will be here for those who wish to read it.

You are denying science. And what that does is turn away people from Christianity (or at least your version of it) who have even a basic understanding of science and the scientific method. That doesn't concern me. But I would have thought it would you.

 

[Hark]

In human evolution alone there are a number of excellent transitional fossils:

View attachment 309925

I thank you for sharing but those are not proof.

Human skulls can take different size & shape even today.

8 Neanderthal Traits in Modern Humans

The problem here is assuming we came from apes and there is no actual evidence of that.

One could say we are closer to the pig than the ape, but that is hardly convincing that we came from pigs either..

The orangutan has 3 gene/DNA series. The Gorilla has 4. The chimp has five. Most humans have six. But the black sub Sahara Africans have 9 series. You can search for that on the internet.

The oddity is any human can breed with sub Sharan Africans but nothing will happen with breeding with a pig or a chimp or any ape.

So.... not everything is cut & dry going to genetics but the Law of Biogenesis cites that life did not come from nothing, but life comes from similar life as a man will always be a man as a chimp will always be a chimp and a pig will always be a pig. That is what has been observed and proven in real science.

 

[Hark]

Go back to that thing you claim evos say about fossils in mountain rocks.
Find one example to show you didnt make it up.
Thats just one of an entire post of garbage.

You know, you could have looked it up yourself, but here it is.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA (Published 1987).

Note how they do not explain how the fossilized land animals were found buried with the fossilized marine life? Yet here is proof that the global flood did cover the mountains.

 

[Shemjaza]

I thank you for sharing but those are not proof.

Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence.

Proof is about absolutes and that is only found in purely theoretical fields like maths or logic.

Unless you use proof in the context of "prove in a court of law" then evolution is absolutely proven true.

Human skulls can take different size & shape even today.

If you claim the set of skulls represent possible human variation then you seem to accept that you can't tell a chimp from a human... which isn't sensible.

In addition using modern humans as a gauge there are absolutely none who could be mistaken for even the more similar species such as Homo erectus (H on the chart).

8 Neanderthal Traits in Modern Humans

The problem here is assuming we came from apes and there is no actual evidence of that.

There's the fossils and the non coding genetic remnants. That's evidence.

One could say we are closer to the pig than the ape, but that is hardly convincing that we came from pigs either..

You could say that, but it would simply be a lie.

Genetically and structurally we are more similar to other apes than we are to pigs.

We are distantly related to them as we are both mammals, but they are not particularly close.

A common misunderstanding about the similarity of humans and pigs comes from them being commonly used for medical research... this is due to them being a similar size to humans and much cheaper and easier to breed and house than apes.

The orangutan has 3 gene/DNA series. The Gorilla has 4. The chimp has five. Most humans have six. But the black sub Sahara Africans have 9 series. You can search for that on the internet.

The oddity is any human can breed with sub Sharan Africans but nothing will happen with breeding with a pig or a chimp or any ape.

I'm honestly confused by what you are talking about here. Do you have a reference?

Humans of all varieties are all much more similar to each other than they are to chimps or pigs.

Modern humans, even the ones not partially descended from Neanderthals are still more similar to Neanderthals then they are to other species.

So.... not everything is cut & dry going to genetics but the Law of Biogenesis cites that life did not come from nothing, but life comes from similar life as a man will always be a man as a chimp will always be a chimp and a pig will always be a pig. That is what has been observed and proven in real science.

The Law of Biogenesis only refers to experiments showing that advanced modern life doesn't spontaneously form from unliving matter. It doesn't do anything to disprove any abiogenesis hypothesis based in modern biochemistry.

I agree that life does come from similar life. It's all tiny steps that over time represent big changes, but it's still the exact same mechanism.

A human is still a primate and it's still a mammal and it's still a tetrapod and it's still an animal and it's still alive.

The evidence from the fossil record and the genetic studies support that all life is a branching pattern of relatedness.

You can see that structurally a human is more similar to a monkey than it is to a kangaroo, more similar to a kangaroo than it is to a lizard and more similar to a lizard than it is to a snail.

The genetics and bone analysis line up the same way.

 

[Hark]

Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence.

Unfortunately, assuming evidence as being towards the evolution theory is not really evidence.

If you claim the set of skulls represent possible human variation then you seem to accept that you can't tell a chimp from a human... which isn't sensible.

Ever note how they derive a missing link skull of the Peking man from an extinct pig?

Yet if that does not give you cause for doubting the so called evidence of transitional fossils, I do not know what will. See the evidence by reading that whole blog if you are interested in having that balanced view of being equally skeptical on both sides of this issue..

Evolution: A Fairytale for Atheists Leads to Ape-Man Frauds & Fallacies

Surely you can see my skepticism?

 

[coffee4u]

Then you need a begining for mankind. And that's when we became God's children. When we were ensouled. Either en masse or as a couple at some point if you want an Adam and an Eve. But there is a galactic amount of evidence showing that a literal 6 day creation a few thousand years ago cannot by any stretch of the imagination be taken as anything except a metaphorical story, a parable, an indication to people over two thousand years ago that there was a begining. A vast majority of people who were illiterate and had probably not seen a written word let alone be capable of understanding how we actually came to be.

You are denying almost every scientific field there is. Astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics...the list just goes on and on.

I have a beginning
Genesis 1
7 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Your 'galactic amount of evidence' is based on assumptions and stories built around a small amount of facts. None of what you claim about evolution is observable, testable and repeatable. Its also based on the huge assumption that what you see now somehow shows the past, it doesn't.

Their understanding wasn't important. When God gave the ancient Israelite's hygiene laws he didn't explain why. Did they need to understand germ theory to obey? No. All they had to do is go and do as they were told. Their understanding of the world was not important either, they just had to write down God's words.

>>>You are denying almost every scientific field there is. Astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics...the list just goes on and on
Yep, happy to.

 

[Shemjaza]

Unfortunately, assuming evidence as being towards the evolution theory is not really evidence.

The pattern of genetic and physical similarities are not assumptions they are demonstrable facts.

You can disagree with the conclusions of the evidence, that evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life, but that doesn't make the evidence assumptions.

Ever note how they derive a missing link skull of the Peking man from an extinct pig?

Yet if that does not give you cause for doubting the so called evidence of transitional fossils, I do not know what will. See the evidence by reading that whole blog if you are interested in having that balanced view of being equally skeptical on both sides of this issue..

Evolution: A Fairytale for Atheists Leads to Ape-Man Frauds & Fallacies

Surely you can see my skepticism?

Not in the least.

Peking man was a Homo erectus and we have many others... and even your source doesn't imply that it came from pig remains.

The pig misunderstanding was from someone jumping the gun from a tooth, because of the similar size and diet of ancient pig and primates.

It of course brings up the ultimate example of Piltdown man, which is a fossil that was always inconsistent with other evidence and it was scientists who discovered and demonstrated the fraud not Creationists.

 

[Bradskii]

>>>You are denying almost every scientific field there is. Astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics...the list just goes on and on
Yep, happy to.

This has me perplexed. That you can take a couple of hundred years worth of scientific endeavour across dozens of scientific fields by hundreds of thousands of scientists (the vast majority of whom were Christians) who have ammassed a gargantuan amout of evidence which correlates to an extent that is almost impossible to comprehend and then say 'Nah, it's all wrong'.

 

[coffee4u]

Giving 3 explanations for why some might hold the view of theistic evolution is literally three examples as to why your initial statement was false.

Utter nonsense.

If it's a quote, what's it source? It seems confused and unclear.

I like to use clear and accurate words for things.

My phrase was actually "any particular hypothesis of abiogenesis" because there isn't a single explanation that all researchers agree on.

I assume the context of your crimped text was providing a comparison to the so called "law of biogenesis" arguing against the formation of complex modern animals from unliving matter.

Except your statement in inherently misleading by linking the evidence for and mechanisms of evolution and abiogenesis. Neither is dependent on each other.

I'm happy to explain my understanding of evolution... creationists have not been so willing to do so with their declarations.

You either believe life came from non life and went from one cell to man through naturalistic means or you don't. It really is that simple.

That quote on 'hypothesis of abiogenesis' is simply a copy paste from the first link that shows up on Google.
First link: Abiogenesis
If you don't like their explanation maybe you should contact them and have it out with them.

Can you explain how one particular spiritual interpretation can be distinguished from another?
Theistic Evolutionist, Old Earth Intelligent Design Proponents, Young Earth Creationists and Flat Earth believers can all be Christians with the same scripture... how do you spiritually discern between them?

First sensible question.
A variety of things determine beliefs including past held beliefs and ideas, education, personality, life experiences, lack of Biblical teaching to false biblical teaching. Lastly to a genuine disagreement over scripture because we are fleshy imperfect people.
Just because someone has done a prayer of repentance and asked Jesus into their life and found a church to attend does not automatically make them Bible scholars. Even if the church they attend holds to creation they don't tend to run classes on it, its simply stated and assumed.

Many people put a high level of trust in scientists and doctors. If a doctor or scientist has said something then it must be true and other things will be adjusted to fit including scripture. Theistic Evolutionist and Old Earth Intelligent Design Proponents are trying desperately to combine scripture and science. They grasp onto these ideas because it makes sense to both sides of their belief system.

I am a young earth creationist as this is what scripture says. This is what God says. Who am I going to pick, God who I trust completely or the words of fallen evil men?
Exodus 20
And God spoke all these words:
1 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Unlike the Theistic Evolutionist or OEISP who trust the findings of science I came from a background of mistrust in doctors. I may have become a Christian and gone over to TE but that was simply because I was your average garden variety evolutionist before that. Try taking a camera and mic out on the street and asking each passer by what hypothesis of abiogenesis is.
What kind of answers do you think you will get?
All it took was some good solid Bible teaching to show me that scripture all points to 6 day creation and no death before sin and I switched from TE to YEC. This is what many people are lacking, solid Bible teaching.

As to Flat Earth believers, they are creationists who believe the world is flat, that is all.
I have left a 1% chance open to that possibility even though I don't think they are correct. I have nothing against flat earth, I just don't think they have made a solid case from scripture for it because most of the scripture verses they use is poetry. Doctrine should not be based on poetry.

 

[coffee4u]

This has me perplexed. That you can take a couple of hundred years worth of scientific endeavour across dozens of scientific fields by hundreds of thousands of scientists (the vast majority of whom were Christians) who have ammassed a gargantuan amout of evidence which correlates to an extent that is almost impossible to comprehend and then say 'Nah, it's all wrong'.

You see a star and say it is 6 billion years old due to calculations science has made.
I see that star and say God moved it into place with the light trailing behind it in an instance.
You may say God doesn't exist but you can't disprove Him so you can't actually disprove that God didn't create that star just as I said.

 

[Astrid]

You know, you could have looked it up yourself, but here it is.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA (Published 1987).

Note how they do not explain how the fossilized land animals were found buried with the fossilized marine life? Yet here is proof that the global flood did cover the mountains.

I dont need to look it up.
Basic geology covers uplift, tectonics,
mountain building.

Ive found fossil shells a thousand miles and thousands of feet up
from the ocean.
The NYT article i cant open, i dont know exactly what it says.
But sure, whale bones far from the sea, everyone knows about
that.

YOU, though, said, " suddenly, trapping" . That is the false
part. Where do yiou find that? Not from any scientist.
So where did you get it?
So, score one news of the well known, and score two
for falsehoods.

Anyway, two false claims from you. Want to do more.

And i got the nyt article
No sudden. No explanation for he land animals,
didnt even try?
Note how you didnt even read the article?
Its right there. Simple and makes sense.


Looks like you got some more explaining to do.

 

[Astrid]

This has me perplexed. That you can take a couple of hundred years worth of scientific endeavour across dozens of scientific fields by hundreds of thousands of scientists (the vast majority of whom were Christians) who have ammassed a gargantuan amout of evidence which correlates to an extent that is almost impossible to comprehend and then say 'Nah, it's all wrong'.

Personal infallibility is all it takes

 

[Astrophile]

People can have faith without knowing much about scripture at all. The same way many people would agree with evolution without understanding a thing about it. There are levels of understanding.

Yes it does detract from the teaching of Jesus very much so. This is why we are so outspoken about this. Just because people don't seem to see it, speaks more to the fact that people are lacking in Bible knowledge than anything else. Church sermons don't teach on this or if they do its barely touched on and not in any kind of depth. The average Christian isn't going to ever see this teaching unless they seek it out for themselves. They are happy enough with "God is creator, Jesus is savior, I won't worry about the details"
I say that as someone who thought exactly that way but I got lucky and had the opportunity given to me to learn from a very knowledgeable Bible teacher.

Perhaps you ought to discuss these matters with some of the scientists who accept the evidence for an old Earth and biological evolution and who are also Christians. The Biologos website may be a good place to start.

 

[Bradskii]

You see a star and say it is 6 billion years old due to calculations science has made.
I see that star and say God moved it into place with the light trailing behind it in an instance.
You may say God doesn't exist but you can't disprove Him so you can't actually disprove that God didn't create that star just as I said.

To the first point, I only need to ask why. Why would God make a star that you say is 6,000 years old yet give it all the properties of one that has existed for billions of years? You say that God tells us in Genesis exactly how He created everything and now you are suggesting that He's trying to hide the very same information from us by some subterfuge. Does God move in mysterious ways, so we'll never know why He is deceiving us? Or do you have an answer?

And as to the second, I have never said that God does not exist, I don't say it now and I never will say it. His existence or non-existence and my belief in either of those two options has literally nothing to do with how old stars are.

 

[inquiring mind]

You are denying science. And what that does is turn away people from Christianity (or at least your version of it) who have even a basic understanding of science and the scientific method. That doesn't concern me. But I would have thought it would you.

I'm not denying science and the benefits we enjoy; I just don't always agree with the speculative parts, macroevolution for example.

 

[Astrid]

I'm not denying science and the benefits we enjoy; I just don't always agree with the speculative parts, macroevolution for example.

It is not "speculative"
Anyone can disagree, but with no education in thevsubject and no
basis it looks a bit silly.

Like the janitor can disagree with what the surgeons say about
interpreting the CAT scan. But, you know...

 

[inquiring mind]

It is not "speculative"
Anyone can disagree, but with no education in thevsubject and no
basis it looks a bit silly.

Like the janitor can disagree with what the surgeons say about
interpreting the CAT scan. But, you know...

Did you just call me a surgeon?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not denying science and the benefits we enjoy; I just don't always agree with the speculative parts, macroevolution for example.

Macro evolution is far from speculative since it has been directly observed.

 

[SkyWriting]

A few weeks ago, a creationist claimed:

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment." I asked for evidence for this claim, no response. I provided a link for a genome database search tool to help this creationist find the evidence he apparently thought existed, to no avail. Can any creationist provide what your creationist brother was incapable of doing? Or shall we chalk this u to lame 'witnessing'?​

The evidence would be the speed that a species can "evolve" easily suggests that genetic variation is no accident.

Gene connected to hyper-fast evolution - Futurity.org
Super-fast evolving fish splitting into two species in same lake

Three-spine sticklebacks were introduced to Lake Constance in Switzerland around 150 years ago – a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. But since then, the fish have begun splitting into two separate types: one that lives in the main lake (pictured above left, female top, male in breeding colours below), and another that lives in the streams that flow into it (above right).

The main lake dwellers are bigger, with longer spines and tougher armour. In theory, these differences could be due to lifestyle rather than evolution – perhaps lake fish survive longer and grow larger.

But David Marques of the University of Bern and colleagues have found that there are already clear genetic differences between the two types. “We could be glimpsing the beginnings of two species,” he says.

What makes this finding extraordinary is that both types of fish breed in the same streams at the same time of year. They have been interbreeding all along, and still do, yet they are splitting into two genetically and physically different types.



Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-into-two-species-in-same-lake/#ixzz7FwHf1x9o
​