Wild claims about only SDAs being young Earth Creationists in the 1800's and early 1900's.

[BobRyan]

Sure:
1. It's a change in allele frequencies in a population. (observed to happen)

wrong. That is mutation.

The issue is not mutation -- the issue is the "salient element" in the story telling of evolutionism.

Humans manipulated mutations to create various dog breeds - but that is not evolution no matter how you slice it since dogs today are still dogs and while they may have a marked decrease in genetic variation from their ancestors - it is never-the-less NOT evolutionism's mechanism for origins. Rather it is simply a subset of the prior gene pool plus some destructive mutations added in the pool (Hip displasia for example).

"German Shepherds German Shepherd dogs have a high prevalence of hip dysplasia as well as a genetic problem with the nerves leading to their hindlimbs (degenerative myelopathy)"

2. It tends to increase fitness in a population.

define fitness.

' (observed to happen)

yeah - we do have dog breeds.

But still dogs.

3. It can produce new taxa from pre-existing species (observed to happen)
4. A well-fitted population in a stable environment will be prevented from evolving much by natural selection. (observed to happen)
5. Evolution often involves epistasis (interaction of two genes) in nature. (observed to happen)
6. Natural selection will change the expected ratios of alleles in a population in the next generation (Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium)

changing ratios of existing alleles will never get you a bird out of a fish. And I think we all know it.

So then the much argued "observed evolution" fails to happen in the long running evolution experiment (just as we all knew it would) where direct observation of more than 80,000 generations DID NOT provide the jump for prokaryote bacteria that would get them into the Eukaryote class even though HUMANs supposedly evolved in much few generations from their ancestors. And of course bacteria are far more "adaptable" to their environment than are humans.

How many more would you like to see?

I like that your "examples" of evolution being observed are in your mind - unknown to those biologists who like Patters were attending the "f the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago"

Where as he said --- " all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”

Evolutionary Morphology Seminar Series

evbio.uchicago.edu

Apparently - you refer to those guys as "A bunch of geologists"

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure:
1. It's a change in allele frequencies in a population. (observed to happen)

wrong. That is mutation.

No, you're wrong. Mutations happen to individuals. Evolution happens to populations. As I pointed out before, you keep stumbling over your own arguments because you don't even know what evolution is:

Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.
Dictionary of Biology

Evolution Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary

Learn Evolution definition, examples, and more. Answer - Evolution Biology Quiz!

www.biologyonline.com

If this is difficult, Darwin's term "descent with modification" is still true, but lacks the genetic understanding.

Humans manipulated mutations to create various dog breeds - but that is not evolution

Yep by definition, it's evolution. Change in allele frequency. But it's microevolution. Macroevolution is speciation.

define fitness.

Likelihood of surviving long enough to produce viable offspring.

changing ratios of existing alleles will never get you a bird out of a fish.

If it did, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. But you can get tetrapods from fish by changing allele frequencies. Indeed, some fish have the ability to walk and even climb. And you can get amniotes (reptiles and their descendants) from stem tetrapods by a few mutations. And so on. Birds are just the surviving branch of dinosaurs. And here's your test; show me some characters found in birds that are not found in dinosaurs. If you can do that, you've got an argument. Let's see what you can do.

So then the much argued "observed evolution" fails to happen in the long running evolution experiment (just as we all knew it would) where direct observation of more than 80,000 generations DID NOT provide the jump for prokaryote bacteria that would get them into the Eukaryote class

Fossil record indicates it took about a billion years. Apparently, the most difficult step toward complex organisms. So there is that. It requires endosymbiosis (the introduction of a symbiont into the cell of a host for mutual benefit. We have directly observed such evolution. Would you like to learn about that?

I like that your "examples" of evolution being observed are in your mind

All are directly observed. Pick one and I'll show you. Which would you like to see?

I like that your "examples" of evolution being observed are in your mind - unknown to those biologists who like Patters were attending the "f the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago"

Why did he say they were geologists, then? And since those things I mentioned are repeatedly demonstrated in research papers, your unsupported claims sound pretty phony. So pick one of those and let's see if I can document it for you. Which one?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

No, that's something you added because Paul's actual words complicate your worldview. It's in the present tense, not the future.

Got it -- you really, really don't like women who aren't subservient to, well, you. You are precisely why feminism was needed.

I work with women just fine, and we get along well. I need not a woman to be subservient to me that is not my wife. God has given me no commands in that matter. Even the woman that is my wife, I do not enforce subservience. My command is to love her and give myself for her, that is all.
My heart breaks when she retains the curse of Eve and wishes to behave like Jezebel rather than a Proverbs 31 woman, but my only recourse is to continue to provide, pray and seek God. It is not my mission to enslave her, rather to be a slave for righteousness.
The lie is feminism, and the phrase, you go girl. For a woman to behave like a man does not lead to happiness or fulfillment. Sure you can find some that like it, just like in communism, the top 1 to 10% enjoy all the supposed benefits and accolades, while the other 90-99% slave away in misery and loneliness.
Do you know what the overwhelming majority of women that I work with tell me? They wish that they did not have to work. They want to stay home and take care of their kids. One woman told me that her heart breaks in the morning when her daughters cry as she leaves, “Mommy, throw your work in the garbage!” This from three and four year olds. That woman is not fulfilled by feminism.
God does not command feminism. Feminism is a lie from hell that is only meant to kill, rob and destroy the family. God commands women, your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you. Oh yeah, you will want to be the boss of your man, but if he is a man, you won’t be able to do it. All you get is boys in “man buns” effeminate and begging for sex.
The other thing that women tell me is the dating world sucks, as there are no real men any more. The boys that they do find to date are so weak and needy that they begin to depend on the woman and she feels like a mother instead of a wife.
Most women know that truth, the feminists continue to swallow the lie, and the promise, you don’t need no man, you can be like goddesses!
Now where have I heard that before?

I love it how on social media, people use the tired old cliches of toxic masculinity and call me a woman hater or misogynist, when I real life women see and feel that I possess the Godly masculinity they so desperately crave. Sorry girls, I am pledged to do one woman in holy matrimony till death to us part. Good luck finding your man, when your feminism has turned them all into boys that are not appealing in the slightest.
The only toxic masculinity is a woman trying to be a man, and the only despicable effeminate is a man trying to behave as a woman. Don’t believe me? Let’s ask God. His word is clear in 1Cor6

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,

10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

The effeminate? Who are they? Not women rather men who shirk their duty to lead their house and prefer to let the woman do it becauae he is too timid to stand up to her. The timid are either lazy and get drunk so he does not have to listen to a harpy, or thinks he has to do what he is not commanded and violently enforce a woman’s subservience. Neither one is masculine
A man does not threaten or whine, he just does. He does not need his wife’s permission to do what is right, he simply obeys God
I do not expect laudatory worship from my wife, just humble cooperation. Lord knows that she is closer to me than anyone, and God has put her here to point out all my faults, and I have plenty. I humbly accept her observations, but do not ask her permission to obey God

Sure mock me if you wish. I consider it an honor, but she since it is preferable to possess humility rather than honor, I thank God everyday that I am not married to…………..you, whether you are a woman or man, the logic holds.

 

[Phoneman-777]

I notice that there are two, contradictory genealogies for Jesus in Scripture. Which tells us that they are not literal.


They both claim to be for Jesus through Joseph. And they are very different. That's what "contradictory" means.
God doesn't care what anyone thinks of evolution. He wants you to love Him and love your neighbor. Do that, and you'll be fine. Everything else depends on that.

Jesus says that keeping those two commandments are what matter. He goes into great detail in Matthew about this. Nothing about how long you think the "creation week" is. I'll go with His opinion.

It's not. They lied to you about that.

Evidence for a large Paleozoic Impact Crater Strewn Field in the Rocky Mountains​

Evidence for a large Paleozoic Impact Crater Strewn Field in the Rocky Mountains - Scientific Reports

The Earth is constantly bombarded by meteoroids of various sizes. During hypervelocity collisions a large amount of energy is coupled to the Earth’s atmosphere leading to disruption of decimeter to hundred meter-sized meteoroids. Smaller meteoroids may form meteorite strewn fields while larger...

www.nature.com

You put your faith in the wrong people.


You just got fooled by people who took advantage of your trust in them.

Oh, the Cloud Creek crater that formed at the time of the Flood? Geologists concluded based on research studies for underground craters such as Barringer in AZ that "underground craters are encased in Flood sediments leading to the conclusion that meteorites impacted the Earth during the Flood".

Again, if every layer was "once the surface of the Earth" then every layer down there ought to contain the same impact and distribution evidence as we see on the surface today - that's simply not the case. Underground impact craters that do exist toward the top of the column like Cloud Creek and Barringer were formed at the time of the Flood and the layers that fill them are turbidites layers - as in the case with Bighorn Basin.

The sides of what was probably a level area were thrust upward and formed a basin, carrying Bear Tooth Butte along for the ride (comprised of the same material found at the bottom of the basin), which caused layers at the bottom to "fold up" on the sides - then, more material rushed down from the top into the newly formed basin and leveled out, which is why the upper basin column layers sit on the folded up layers beneath.

 

[reddogs]

Oh, the Cloud Creek crater that formed at the time of the Flood? Geologists concluded based on research studies for underground craters such as Barringer in AZ that "underground craters are encased in Flood sediments leading to the conclusion that meteorites impacted the Earth during the Flood".

Again, if every layer was "once the surface of the Earth" then every layer down there ought to contain the same impact and distribution evidence as we see on the surface today - that's simply not the case. Underground impact craters that do exist toward the top of the column like Cloud Creek and Barringer were formed at the time of the Flood and the layers that fill them are turbidites layers - as in the case with Bighorn Basin.

The sides of what was probably a level area were thrust upward and formed a basin, carrying Bear Tooth Butte along for the ride (comprised of the same material found at the bottom of the basin), which caused layers at the bottom to "fold up" on the sides - then, more material rushed down from the top into the newly formed basin and leveled out, which is why the upper basin column layers sit on the folded up layers beneath.

It wasnt meteorites..."But upon the eighth day dark clouds overspread the heavens. There followed the muttering of thunder and the flash of lightning. Soon large drops of rain began to fall. The world had never witnessed anything like this, and the hearts of men were struck with fear. All were secretly inquiring, “Can it be that Noah was in the right, and that the world is doomed to destruction?” Darker and darker grew the heavens, and faster came the falling rain. The beasts were roaming about in the wildest terror, and their discordant cries seemed to moan out their own destiny and the fate of man. Then “the fountains of the great deep” were “broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” Water appeared to come from the clouds in mighty cataracts. Rivers broke away from their boundaries, and overflowed the valleys. Jets of water burst from the earth with indescribable force, throwing massive rocks hundreds of feet into the air, and these, in falling, buried themselves deep in the ground. "(PP 99.1)

 

[The Barbarian]

It wasnt meteorites..."But upon the eighth day dark clouds overspread the heavens. There followed the muttering of thunder and the flash of lightning. Soon large drops of rain began to fall. The world had never witnessed anything like this, and the hearts of men were struck with fear. All were secretly inquiring, “Can it be that Noah was in the right, and that the world is doomed to destruction?” Darker and darker grew the heavens, and faster came the falling rain. The beasts were roaming about in the wildest terror, and their discordant cries seemed to moan out their own destiny and the fate of man. Then “the fountains of the great deep” were “broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” Water appeared to come from the clouds in mighty cataracts. Rivers broke away from their boundaries, and overflowed the valleys. Jets of water burst from the earth with indescribable force, throwing massive rocks hundreds of feet into the air, and these, in falling, buried themselves deep in the ground. "(PP 99.1)

That is the Seventh Day Adventist "prophetess" Ellen G. White's personal revision of scripture.

 

[The Barbarian]

I love it how on social media, people use the tired old cliches of toxic masculinity and call me a woman hater or misogynist, when I real life women see and feel that I possess the Godly masculinity they so desperately crave.

That sounds like a wind-up for a SNL skit.

 

[Phoneman-777]

'Change in allele frequency' is what biologists mean when they're talking about evolution. If you're going to discuss a scientific topic, it's useful to understand what the scientists are saying.

Of course you can't. Common descent (which is what you seem to mean by 'evolution') is accepted because of the mountain of evidence for it, not because we've seen allele frequencies change. In fact, common descent was accepted by scientists long before they knew what an allele was. Genetic data has merely provided overwhelming new evidence for it.

Hold on - before you continue with the "mountain of evidence" argument, please broaden your scope and find out why so many in the atheistic scientific community are pointing to things like Panspermia and saying commonly accepted ideas about evolutionary development are impossible.

>Are you aware of the evolutionary mathematical improbabilities which may as well be impossibilities?

>How the molecules for life had to form under completely different atmospheric conditions where each condition restricts the formation of other molecules which require their own specialized conditions?

>How could selection of only right hand amino acids take place without any mechanism for it, and how could enzymes (proteins) form these amino acids into the first protein if enzymes (proteins) didn't yet exist?

******PROBABILITY OF A SIMPLE PROTEIN COMING INTO EXISTENCE BY CHANCE*******​

• 3 nucleotides are needed to code for one amino acid
• for a simple protein of 100 amino acids, we need 300 nucleotides in the right sequence
• probability = 1 chance in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
• the equivalent of an explosion going off and the debris falling down in place to form NYC (this is for a simple protein - your hemoglobin, for instance, contains six hundred amino acids)

Please consider the mountain of evidence against evolutionary thinking, as well as the infallibility of Scripture which says God did it in 6 literal days and invites us to rest with Him every 7th day.

 

[Phoneman-777]

That is the Seventh Day Adventist "prophetess" Ellen G. White's personal revision of scripture.

Nope.

However, the greatest revision of all "revision of Scripture" has to be your "theistic evolution".

 

[Phoneman-777]

It wasnt meteorites..."But upon the eighth day dark clouds overspread the heavens. There followed the muttering of thunder and the flash of lightning. Soon large drops of rain began to fall. The world had never witnessed anything like this, and the hearts of men were struck with fear. All were secretly inquiring, “Can it be that Noah was in the right, and that the world is doomed to destruction?” Darker and darker grew the heavens, and faster came the falling rain. The beasts were roaming about in the wildest terror, and their discordant cries seemed to moan out their own destiny and the fate of man. Then “the fountains of the great deep” were “broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” Water appeared to come from the clouds in mighty cataracts. Rivers broke away from their boundaries, and overflowed the valleys. Jets of water burst from the earth with indescribable force, throwing massive rocks hundreds of feet into the air, and these, in falling, buried themselves deep in the ground. "(PP 99.1)

Could be a description of what happened to form Cloud Creek and others. I mean, the forces at work at that time were so indescribably powerful that "Satan himself feared for his very existence".

 

[sfs]

Hold on - before you continue with the "mountain of evidence" argument, please broaden your scope and find out why so many in the atheistic scientific community are pointing to things like Panspermia and saying commonly accepted ideas about evolutionary development are impossible.

Well, I'd do that if there really were any significant number of people in the scientific community (atheists or not -- I rarely know the religious beliefs of other scientists) who were embracing panspermia or saying that commonly accepted ideas about evolution were impossible. I've been doing genetics for about a quarter century. In that time, I have worked with hundreds of biologists, often on subjects involving evolution, and have been exposed to the views on evolution of many more. In all of those interactions, I have encountered precisely zero members of the 'atheistic scientific community' who hold the views you suggest are common.

Where are you getting your information about the views of scientists? From creationists, perhaps? Have you ever tried just asking a scientist what scientists think about evolution and why? Like now, for instance -- I'm a Christian and a geneticist who works in a secular research environment. Why not try to learn something from me instead of lecturing me on a subject I know far better than you do?

>Are you aware of the evolutionary mathematical improbabilities which may as well be impossibilities?

I've seen some extremely bad attempts at calculating mathematical probabilities when it comes to evolution. I've yet to see anything that displayed any understanding of the actual issues.

>How the molecules for life had to form under completely different atmospheric conditions where each condition restricts the formation of other molecules which require their own specialized conditions?

What does the origin of life have to do with common descent? Are you unaware that you've just changed the subject completely?

>How could selection of only right hand amino acids take place without any mechanism for it, and how could enzymes (proteins) form these amino acids into the first protein if enzymes (proteins) didn't yet exist?

Again, you're talking origin of life while I was talking about common descent. Your calculation also makes no sense. You're calculating the probability of randomly creating a single, specific protein, which no one has ever suggested was required for anything in the history of life. Further, you're ignoring the multitude of ways even a single protein can vary in amino acid sequence and (even more) in DNA sequence. This is, in short, the kind of irrelevant, baseless attempt at calculating probabilities that I've seen so many times from creationists.

Please consider the mountain of evidence against evolutionary thinking,

I've been considering that 'mountain' for decades. I've yet to see anything even as big as an ant hill when I looked closely. Do you have any actual evidence against common descent?

the infallibility of Scripture which says God did it in 6 literal days and invites us to rest with Him every 7th day.

I'd suggest you learn more about the history of Christian thought -- in its full breadth -- about the Bible and how it can be interpreted.

 

[The Barbarian]

That is the Seventh Day Adventist "prophetess" Ellen G. White's personal revision of scripture.

Nope.

Yep. Her revision, not God's word.

However, the greatest revision of all "revision of Scripture" has to be your "theistic evolution".

The Bible takes no stand on evolution at all. Theistic evolutionists are merely theists who accept God's creation as it is. The Bible can't help you with that, but fortunately the Bible is not the only authoritative source of information about creation:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hold on - before you continue with the "mountain of evidence" argument, please broaden your scope and find out why so many in the atheistic scientific community are pointing to things like Panspermia and saying commonly accepted ideas about evolutionary development are impossible.

Here you've confused the origin of life with evolution. The latter we can only infer; the former we directly observe happening all around us.

But perhaps you should provide some links to the literature in which these guys report such findings. What do you have?

******PROBABILITY OF A SIMPLE PROTEIN COMING INTO EXISTENCE BY CHANCE*******

******PROBABILITY OF A SHUFFLED DECK OF CARDS COMING INTO EXISTENCE BY RANDOM SHUFFLING******
Take a deck of cards and shuffle it completely.
Draw out the cards one at a time, writing down the order.
The likelihood of that result is 1/52! or about:
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001239
And yet it happens every time. How can this be? It gets worse. The likelihood of you, given the genes of your great, great, grandparents is even more unlikely.
So now you've "proven" that you, card games and protiens are too unlikely to exist. How can this be? Think it over.

Likewise the YE creationist interpretation of the Creation story is an assumption that the story is a literal history, not a figurative account as the text tells us.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Well, I'd do that if there really were any significant number of people in the scientific community (atheists or not -- I rarely know the religious beliefs of other scientists) who were embracing panspermia or saying that commonly accepted ideas about evolution were impossible.

Please consider the following:

I've been doing genetics for about a quarter century. In that time, I have worked with hundreds of biologists, often on subjects involving evolution, and have been exposed to the views on evolution of many more. In all of those interactions, I have encountered precisely zero members of the 'atheistic scientific community' who hold the views you suggest are common.

Have you ever seen "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"? Let's not pretend there aren't a lot of experts who would never admit to the many problems with evolution for fear of losing their careers.

Where are you getting your information about the views of scientists? From creationists, perhaps?

Yes, I watch lectures by Creationists who hold BS, MBA, and PhD degrees and read materials from ICR, RATE, and correspond by email with individuals associated with these issues.

Have you ever tried just asking a scientist what scientists think about evolution and why?

Who needs to ask? Are we not force fed the opinions of those who subscribe to the lie of evolution by virtue of the fact they're served up for breakfast, lunch, and dinner from before a child even enters school to the postgraduate level and beyond, as well as in movies, documentaries, museums, etc?

Have you tried comparing notes with those who reject evolutionary time table and hold to the Biblical model of Creation?

Like now, for instance -- I'm a Christian and a geneticist who works in a secular research environment. Why not try to learn something from me instead of lecturing me on a subject I know far better than you do?

Sorry, friend, but anyone who rejects Creationism is no Christian - because the Founder of Christianity taught Creationism before dying for the sins of those who deny it.

All your credentials prove (if accurate) is that you've got 25 years experience of misapplication empirical data, sir.

I've seen some extremely bad attempts at calculating mathematical probabilities when it comes to evolution. I've yet to see anything that displayed any understanding of the actual issues.

As a Geneticist, you know:

• takes 3 nucleotides to code for one amino acid
• a simple 100 amino acid protein requires 300 nucleotides to line up in perfect sequence
• the probability of that happening is one chance in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Is that what you believe happened, sir? The mathematical equivalent of a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 is how life began? That ain't science, it's science fiction.

What does the origin of life have to do with common descent? Are you unaware that you've just changed the subject completely?

What proof is there of "common descent"? Homology? Fossil record? Artifact Hypothesis? The facts discount all that.

Again, you're talking origin of life while I was talking about common descent.

But, there's so much error across evolutionary theoretical landscape - why limit the scope?

Your calculation also makes no sense. You're calculating the probability of randomly creating a single, specific protein, which no one has ever suggested was required for anything in the history of life.

How else did the first protein come into existence, if not by random undirected forces? Are you suggesting the only other alternative which is Intelligent Design?

Further, you're ignoring the multitude of ways even a single protein can vary in amino acid sequence and (even more) in DNA sequence. This is, in short, the kind of irrelevant, baseless attempt at calculating probabilities that I've seen so many times from creationists.

All of which still results in probabilities that are still so remote they might as well not exist which is the antithesis of "baseless" and "irrelevant".

I've been considering that 'mountain' for decades. I've yet to see anything even as big as an ant hill when I looked closely.

How sad your bigoted views, like those who nonbelievers, cause you to relegate evidence to the recycle bin. Reminds me of that scientist who boldly declared there will "never be enough evidence" to convince him evolution is wrong.

Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue in "millions of years" old dino bones but others "can't duplicate" her work? Not if they want to continue suckling the evolutionary cash cow, right? Living bacteria was found in the abdomen of an insect trapped in amber, but that was "laboratory contamination", right? Sure, there's no scientific agenda against the Bible at all.

Do you have any actual evidence against common descent?

Yes - ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? Professor JY Chen of the Nanjing Institute says the fossil record demonstrates no "evolutionary tree" but a "reverse cone shape" resembling an "evolutionary lawn" due to the disappearance of so many species.

Evolution's doing such a good job that soon they'll be nothing left.

Stephen J. Gould said "the evolutionary trees which adorn our textbooks (are based on) inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils".

I'd suggest you learn more about the history of Christian thought -- in its full breadth -- about the Bible and how it can be interpreted.

How did Jesus, Peter, and Paul interpret Genesis and should we listen to them, or contort their ideas so they line up with ours? Reminds me of papist John Eck whom Tyndale told Paul the Apostle to seek out and "learn a new way" of thinking regarding the issue of the resurrection.

In 2006, I was fired from a $10K/month job for refusing to work on the Sabbath and when they were found guilty of wrongful termination two years later they had to pay - I just celebrated 25 years while those who tried to destroy my career are all gone. How about you? Do you sincerely believe Theistic Evolution or is it a coping mechanism to quiet your conscience because you fear losing a career by bolding standing for the truth?

 

[Phoneman-777]

That is the Seventh Day Adventist "prophetess" Ellen G. White's personal revision of scripture.

Yep. Her revision, not God's word.

Why do you keep using "revision"? Her prophetic vision merely "magnifies" the Genesis account, which is wholly separate from the prohibition to "add to" Scripture, which refers to extra-Biblical ideas like "purgatory" and "immaculate conception" and "ascension of our lady", etc.

The Bible takes no stand on evolution at all. Theistic evolutionists are merely theists who accept God's creation as it is. The Bible can't help you with that, but fortunately the Bible is not the only authoritative source of information about creation:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I think Jesus, Paul, Peter, the Psalmists - basically, anyone who had anything to say about the subject - are all firmly on the side of Creation Week.

"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made,
and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
For He spake, and it was done,
He commanded and it stood fast".

But, somehow when it comes down to little 'ol us, He had to spend millions and millions of years, right?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Here you've confused the origin of life with evolution. The latter we can only infer; the former we directly observe happening all around us.

But perhaps you should provide some links to the literature in which these guys report such findings. What do you have?


******PROBABILITY OF A SHUFFLED DECK OF CARDS COMING INTO EXISTENCE BY RANDOM SHUFFLING******
Take a deck of cards and shuffle it completely.
Draw out the cards one at a time, writing down the order.
The likelihood of that result is 1/52! or about:
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001239
And yet it happens every time. How can this be? It gets worse. The likelihood of you, given the genes of your great, great, grandparents is even more unlikely.
So now you've "proven" that you, card games and protiens are too unlikely to exist. How can this be? Think it over.

Likewise the YE creationist interpretation of the Creation story is an assumption that the story is a literal history, not a figurative account as the text tells us.

You need to study Dembsky to see why this counterargument holds no water:

Intelligence as a causative factor is determined by observing two things at work: improbability and specification. e.g.: SETI recognizes that a radio signal containing a repeating order of prime numbers as in "Contact" represents an improbable yet specified pattern - the causative factor intelligent alien life.

A random shuffle of cards produces an improbable order of cards but specification of nothing.

An improbable arrangement of nucleotides which produces a specific molecule for life is precisely the kind of evidence for Intelligent Design which compelled Crick to insist "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved".

 

[The Barbarian]

You need to study Dembsky to see why this counterargument holds no water:

Sorry, any argument that says shuffled decks of cards are impossible is a non-starter for me.

Intelligence as a causative factor is determined by observing two things at work: improbability and specification

If so, the argument goes way back from the first living things. The constructal law shows that all sorts of "specified complexity" arises from very simple physical processes. You've confused evolution and abiogenesis. Dembsky's fellow IDer, Michael Denton, argues that evolution is the result of "front-loading" the rules of the universe which was also front-loaded to produce life, which is a natural process like everything else. Darwin himself supposed that God just created the first living things.

A random shuffle of cards produces an improbable order of cards but specification of nothing.

An improbable arrangement of nucleotides which produces a specific molecule for life is precisely the kind of evidence for Intelligent Design

One could say the same thing about the shuffled deck. Now, if you could use your faith in ID to specify the outcome in advance, and then see it happen, that would be impressive. But all you're doing is finding an arrow stuck in a tree, and drawing a bulls-eye around it.

And the real kicker is that this has nothing whatever to do with Darwnian theory. If God had designed and poofed the first living things into existence instead of creating the Earth to bring them forth as He says in scripture, evolution would work exactly the same way we see it working now.

But there's a big hint in the findings of systems specialists. It turns out that evolutionary processes work better at solving complex problems than design. Engineers are now using genetic algorithms that mimic Darwinian processes to solve such problems:

Optimization of automotive diesel engine calibration using genetic algorithm techniques​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218311

As usual, God knew best.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why do you keep using "revision"?

Because White inserted all sorts of things that are not in scripture.

Her prophetic vision merely "magnifies" the Genesis account

By adding lots of imaginative details not found in Genesis.

I think Jesus, Paul, Peter, the Psalmists - basically, anyone who had anything to say about the subject - are all firmly on the side of Creation Week.

I don't see any of them telling us it was a literal history with no parable or figurative elements in it. You've just assumed that they agree with you, and then declared it so.

But, somehow when it comes down to little 'ol us, He had to spend millions and millions of years, right?

I assume He knows best. The same applies to your re-interpretation that He had to spend six literal days. Why not let Him be God and decide for Himself?

 

[The Barbarian]

Have you ever seen "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?

The title appears to have referred to the people producing the movie. ID crashed and burned because it couldn't explain the evidence. The Discovery Institute seems to have closed most of its functions and is now trying to restart. The Dover Trial, in which ID was found to be merely creationism in disguise, and the accidental release of the Wedge Document in which IDers admit their goal is to establish theism in science, were fatal blows to that charade.

Let's not pretend there aren't a lot of experts who would never admit to the many problems with evolution for fear of losing their careers.

Any science with no further problems to solve, is dead. But why not show us what you think the most significant problem with evolutionary thoery, and we'll talk about it?

Yes, I watch lectures by Creationists who hold BS, MBA, and PhD degrees and read materials from ICR, RATE, and correspond by email with individuals associated with these issues.

Let's find one of those and see what he says....

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.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

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.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Have you tried comparing notes with those who reject evolutionary time table and hold to the Biblical model of Creation?

That's what we're doing.

But, there's so much error across evolutionary theoretical landscape - why limit the scope?

Mostly because the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. And it wouldn't matter. If He had, evolution would work exactly the same way it does now.

How else did the first protein come into existence, if not by random undirected forces?

In reality, they've found short proteins in the Murchison meteorite, which shows that such things do form in the absence of living things. Would you like to learn about that?

All of which still results in probabilities that are still so remote they might as well not exist which is the antithesis of "baseless" and "irrelevant".

Reality beats anyone's reasoning.

What proof is there of "common descent"?

Let's ask a YE creationist familiar with the issue:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

But it's not just that. DNA analyses show the same pattern of common descent first noted by Linnaeus over 300 years ago, based on phenotype only. We know that method works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Even more convincing, we don't find any transitional forms where there shouldn't be any. No mammals with feathers. No whales with gills. Even though bats and whales would benefit from them.

Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue in "millions of years" old dino bones but others "can't duplicate" her work?

She never found "tissue" at all. She found fossils of blood cells, some of which had a little heme left (heme is a fragment of a hemoglobin molecule) The high iron content preserved a tiny amount of the protein. But here's the key;
The heme, when analyzed, turned out to be more like the heme of birds than the heme of other reptiles, once again confirming evolutionary theory. Would you like to learn about that?

(Asked about evidence against evolution)

Yes - ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion?

The assumed sudden appearance of animals in the Cambrian turned out to be an error. We find an entire fauna of animals in the Precambrian. The Ediacaran fauna includes a number of phyla, some of which survived into the Cambrian. The

Professor JY Chen of the Nanjing Institute says the fossil record demonstrates no "evolutionary tree" but a "reverse cone shape"

It's a typical pattern of mass extinction. Not ever the first. Chen recognizes this. I assume you never read his paper?

nt. J. Dev. Biol. 53: 733-751 (2009)
The sudden appearance of diverse animal body plans during the Cambrian explosion
JUN-YUAN CHEN*

ABSTRACT
Beautifully preserved organisms from the Lower Cambrian Maotianshan Shale in central Yunnan, southern China, document the sudden appearance of diverse metazoan body plans at phylum or subphylum levels, which were either short-lived or have continued to the present day. These 530 million year old fossil representatives of living animal groups provide us with unique insight into the foundations of living animal groups at their evolutionary roots.

Among these diverse animal groups, many are conservative, changing very little since the Early Cambrian. Others, especially Panarthropoda (superphylum), however, evolved rapidly, with origination of novel body plans representing different evolutionary stages one after another in a
very short geological period of Early Cambrian time. These nested body plans portray a novel big picture of pararthropod evolution as a progression of step-wise changes both in the head and the appendages. The evolution of the pararthropods displays how the head/trunk boundary progressively shifted to the posterior, and how the simple annulated soft uniramous appendages progressively changed into stalked eyes in the first head appendages, into whip-like sensorial and grasping organs in the second appendage, and into jointed and biramous bipartite limbs in the
post-antennal appendages.

Haikouella is one of most remarkable fossils representing the origin body plan of Cristozoa, or «crest animals» (procraniates+craniates). The anatomy of Early Cambrian crest animals, including Haikouella and Yunnanozoon, contributes to novel understanding and discussion for the origins of the vertebrate brain, neural crest cells, branchial system and vertebrae.

How did Jesus, Peter, and Paul interpret Genesis and should we listen to them, or contort their ideas so they line up with ours?

Most YE creationists simply assume that Jesus and His disciples agree with them, even though none of them actually said the creation story is a literal history of six 24 hour days.

 

[sfs]

Have you ever seen "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"? Let's not pretend there aren't a lot of experts who would never admit to the many problems with evolution for fear of losing their careers.

Are you familiar with the numerous criticisms of the film? No pretense required: the large number of experts you think are out there hiding their rejection of evolution do not exist. If scientists didn't really believe in common descent, they wouldn't keep using the concept in their work. You've spent too much time getting your information solely from creationist propaganda.

Yes, I watch lectures by Creationists who hold BS, MBA, and PhD degrees and read materials from ICR, RATE, and correspond by email with individuals associated with these issues.

So no, you stick to professional creationists (who almost without exception aren't doing any science) and ignore the much larger number of working Christian scientists. That's a good way to never have to test the truth of your beliefs.

Who needs to ask?

Anyone who wants to know the truth. The only ones who don't need to ask are the ones afraid of what they'll find out.

But, there's so much error across evolutionary theoretical landscape - why limit the scope?

I limited the scope to common descent because that's where we have so much evidence and because I work on evolution, not on the origin of life. You're the one that chose to attack my claim that there was a lot of evidence for common descent -- why do you keep trying to change the subject?

How else did the first protein come into existence, if not by random undirected forces? Are you suggesting the only other alternative which is Intelligent Design?

No, I'm saying that it doesn't matter how the first protein came into existence. If we could prove tomorrow beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first living cell was a direct, miraculous creation of God, it would have exactly zero effect on the evidence for common descent.

Yes - ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion?

Besides the scientific responses to this supposed problem (one of which you've already been given) -- what exactly is your argument here? I thought you were advancing young earth arguments. If so, there was no Cambrian explosion -- nothing happened 500 million years ago, because that's ten thousand times longer ago than the earth has existed. The fact that there was a Cambrian explosion (to the extent that there was one) means that YEC is wrong.

In 2006, I was fired from a $10K/month job for refusing to work on the Sabbath and when they were found guilty of wrongful termination two years later they had to pay - I just celebrated 25 years while those who tried to destroy my career are all gone. How about you? Do you sincerely believe Theistic Evolution or is it a coping mechanism to quiet your conscience because you fear losing a career by bolding standing for the truth?

Of course I sincerely believe that common descent is true -- why would I be here defending it if I didn't? Why would I have chosen a career that involved it if I didn't? Especially since I didn't start doing biology until I was almost 40. I could have any number of careers that had nothing to do with biology at all -- why would I choose the one I did? You actually think it's plausible that hundreds of thousands of mostly pretty intelligent people would devote their lives to studying and using something that they secretly knew wasn't true? All to avoid career damage from others who are in the same boat? Why? How does this not strike you as an insane idea? *This* is why you should spend some time talking to actual scientists rather than believing slanders about them.