Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process
- Thread starter justlookinla
- Start date
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
Humans are perfectly designed? Why do we have a vestigial tail? Is this some sort of joke from this alleged creator? Why is our night vision terrible compared to other species? Why do we have an appendix? People who have had it removed don't seem to miss it. Why do males have nipples? They have no use. Again, is this a joke? Why do people have wisdom teeth? Our jaws are much too small for them to grow in properly. How is this "design" intelligent?
Upvote
0
I've pointed out the various types of views of evolution...that evolution isn't a monolithic term. Theistic evolutionists tend to not take a literal view of Genesis, but reject the Dariwnist view of evolution concerning the how/process. Other Christians embrace the literal view of Genesis and also embrace micro-evolution's how/process. I know of no Christian who embraces the literal view of Darwinism which in essence promotes a Godless view of how/process.
The fact is, not a single solitary example of evidence, based on the scientific method, has been offered for the Darwinist view of how/the process. Darwinism is simply a 'creationist' view which is faith-based.
I've also experienced hundreds of posts of ducking and dodging for Darwinist to preserve the deeply held atheistic beliefs.
Upvote
0
Just because you don't know what they are for, doesn't mean they don't have a purpose. They are finding the appendix is used in the immunity system.
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
Yes, the appendix has been seen to show some purpose. I could still have it removed and not impact me in a bad way. What is the point of vestigial tails? (Hint: it's left over from our ancestors), why is our night vision terrible? Why do males have nipples? Why do we have wisdom teeth that have to be removed since our jaws are too small to support them?
Upvote
0
Let me say it again with emphasis this time....Just because YOU don't know what they are for does not mean they are useless. Nipples have sexual benefits. The tail has nerves in it, there is still a purpose, we don't use night vision the way other animals need it, logical explanations and I didn't even have to try. It is interesting to me how Evolutionists discount other possibilities.
I'm glad you asked that - it's called sin. There has been a long time since the original creation. Not millions of years mind you, but a long time.
This has allowed "mutations" to occur and sin on our bodies which has damaged the original design. Not improved, don't get me wrong, damaged. People used to live 900 years in my belief in a much purer environment. Cause and effect. Order to chaos.
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
Let me say it again with emphasis this time....Just because YOU don't know what they are for does not mean they are useless. The tail has nerves in it, there is still a purpose, we don't use night vision the way other animals need it, logical explanations and I didn't even have to try. It is interesting to me how Evolutionists discount other possibilities.
I'm glad you asked that - it's called sin. There has been a long time since the original creation. Not millions of years mind you, but a long time.
Would this mean, people who sin less, have fewer issues with disease?
Any evidence to support this?
You actually believe people used to live for 900 years? Wow!
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's designed. That is an argument from personal incredulity.
Also still waiting for you to demonstrate you know how to use the scientific method.
It doesn't mean they are designed either.
There are whales that have vestigial legs. These essentially useless extras are evidence for evolution, not design.
I'm glad you asked that - it's called sin. There has been a long time since the original creation. Not millions of years mind you, but a long time.
Ah so innocent children who get cancer is because of sin? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense
What about children who develop Anencephaly (Underdeveloped skull) in the womb? So sin is the reason this child only gets to live up to a week outside the womb and the entirety of the short life span is unimaginable pain and suffering. This is because of sin? What a ridiculous rationalization for something so horrible.
Nope.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It's not sin as you think of sin, like the 10 commandments. It's the effects of sin on our world. I realize this is a foreign concept for you guys, but hear me out. It is a "Christian forum" after all.
Ok so in my belief....
Gen. 1:31 "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good."
Here are the "pre flood" ages of recorded men from the bible.
Patriarch Age Bible Reference
1 Adam 930 Genesis 5:4
2 Seth 912 Genesis 5:8
3 Enosh 905 Genesis 5:11
4 Cainan 910 Genesis 5:14
5 Mahalalel 895 Genesis 5:17
6 Jared 962 Genesis 5:20
7 Enoch 365 (translated) Genesis 5:23
8 Methuselah 969 Genesis 5:27
9 Lamech 777 Genesis 5:31
10 Noah 950 Genesis 9:29
God judged the world because of sin. “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” The level of sin and corruption among the human population was staggering: people thought about doing evil “all the time.” Gen. 6:5
There is evidence that the atmosphere enveloping the early earth was very different than it is today. At one time the entire earth enjoyed a warm tropical environment and there was enhanced oxygen in the atmosphere. Organisms grew larger and lived longer as a result.
Many creationists have attributed this to a water vapor canopy that was created by God on the second day, the “waters above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7). This theory holds that a “vast blanket of invisible water vapor, translucent to the light of the stars but productive of a marvelous greenhouse effect which maintained mild temperatures from pole to pole, thus preventing air-mass circulation and the resultant rainfall (Genesis 2:5). It would certainly have had the further effect of efficiently filtering harmful radiation from space, markedly reducing the rate of somatic mutations in living cells, and, as a consequence, drastically decreasing the rate of aging and death.”(Morris, Henry, Scientific Creationism, 1984, p. 211.) Citing evidence of denser atmosphere in the past, Morris postulated that this vapor layer could have dramatically increased the atmospheric pressure on the surface of the early earth, again contributing to a healthier environment (like a natural hyperbaric chamber). Later the canopy would have collapsed in the form of rain (the “windows of heaven” in Genesis 7:11), contributing to the Flood water, and resulting in the dramatic drop-off in longevity after the deluge.
Ok so in my belief....
Gen. 1:31 "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good."
Here are the "pre flood" ages of recorded men from the bible.
Patriarch Age Bible Reference
1 Adam 930 Genesis 5:4
2 Seth 912 Genesis 5:8
3 Enosh 905 Genesis 5:11
4 Cainan 910 Genesis 5:14
5 Mahalalel 895 Genesis 5:17
6 Jared 962 Genesis 5:20
7 Enoch 365 (translated) Genesis 5:23
8 Methuselah 969 Genesis 5:27
9 Lamech 777 Genesis 5:31
10 Noah 950 Genesis 9:29
God judged the world because of sin. “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” The level of sin and corruption among the human population was staggering: people thought about doing evil “all the time.” Gen. 6:5
There is evidence that the atmosphere enveloping the early earth was very different than it is today. At one time the entire earth enjoyed a warm tropical environment and there was enhanced oxygen in the atmosphere. Organisms grew larger and lived longer as a result.
Many creationists have attributed this to a water vapor canopy that was created by God on the second day, the “waters above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7). This theory holds that a “vast blanket of invisible water vapor, translucent to the light of the stars but productive of a marvelous greenhouse effect which maintained mild temperatures from pole to pole, thus preventing air-mass circulation and the resultant rainfall (Genesis 2:5). It would certainly have had the further effect of efficiently filtering harmful radiation from space, markedly reducing the rate of somatic mutations in living cells, and, as a consequence, drastically decreasing the rate of aging and death.”(Morris, Henry, Scientific Creationism, 1984, p. 211.) Citing evidence of denser atmosphere in the past, Morris postulated that this vapor layer could have dramatically increased the atmospheric pressure on the surface of the early earth, again contributing to a healthier environment (like a natural hyperbaric chamber). Later the canopy would have collapsed in the form of rain (the “windows of heaven” in Genesis 7:11), contributing to the Flood water, and resulting in the dramatic drop-off in longevity after the deluge.
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
This is taking the thread entirely off topic. I have a lot to say about it but you should open a new thread and PM me where it's posted if you want to discuss it
Upvote
0
ecco:↑
ecco:↑
Please show where any of the people you referenced deny evolution. If you are going to present links, please quote from those links and show exactly where they deny evolution. And, this time, put the quotes in context.
So what tactic do creationists use? They try to poke holes in evolution and demand "proofs".
I didn't say they were. I was referring to you. Oh wait, you are not a creationist. You don't know what you are.
ecco:↑
And when the proofs are presented, they do not accept them (remember irreducible complexity?). Moreover, they cannot accept them.
Please show where any of the people you referenced deny evolution. If you are going to present links, please quote from those links and show exactly where they deny evolution. And, this time, put the quotes in context.
- Some people (usually creationists [even those who deny they are creationists]), intentionally quote mine out of context.
- Science marches on. We know more than we did 200 or even 20 years ago. Some of the details of evolution have changed and been improved over the years. But the basics of common descent have not.
Upvote
0
I did not make a case for anything. I asked a question. But judging from your response, I'll put you into the category of Creationist. But, then, we already knew that.
I'm glad you believe I am a perfectly designed creature. Thank you.
Upvote
0
ecco
And I have already pointed out that you do not get to define evolution. Belief in just micro evolution is not a belief in evolution. Even the folks at your referenced Boilogos believe in evolution as man and trees coming from a far distant common ancestor. You say they disagree with the "how", but you haven't shown any evidence for that. But, the bottom line is, you do not agree with Biologos.
No. What you have gotten is posts trying to explain evolution to you. You do not / will not believe in common descent regardless of the source. Even if that source is a very Christian organization like Biologos. Maybe I'm wrong. Do you agree with the Biologos concept of the existence of humans? And, if not, what is your "theory" to explain the presence of humans?
Oh wait, you refuse to answer that question as evidenced by your previous replies:
Well, It does matter. So, come on, make a positive statement for your convictions.
Of course it matters. If you have a fundamentalist view of genesis, you cannot believe in evolution. We've been through that discussion.
And I have already pointed out that you do not get to define evolution. Belief in just micro evolution is not a belief in evolution. Even the folks at your referenced Boilogos believe in evolution as man and trees coming from a far distant common ancestor. You say they disagree with the "how", but you haven't shown any evidence for that. But, the bottom line is, you do not agree with Biologos.
No. What you have gotten is posts trying to explain evolution to you. You do not / will not believe in common descent regardless of the source. Even if that source is a very Christian organization like Biologos. Maybe I'm wrong. Do you agree with the Biologos concept of the existence of humans? And, if not, what is your "theory" to explain the presence of humans?
Oh wait, you refuse to answer that question as evidenced by your previous replies:
- Translation: Let's try to change the focus
- Anything to take the focus
- I may believe we were hatched from eggs
- Doesn't matter what I believe
Well, It does matter. So, come on, make a positive statement for your convictions.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Upvote
0
No, it's an argument using the scientific method.
The graphic makes it very simple for you.
Upvote
0
What one cannot do is have a theistic view of evolution and embrace all the guesses and supositions of Darwinism.
And as I pointed out, and gave examples for, there's more than one view of the particulars of evolution. For example, I accept evolution....but I don't accept evolution.
Of course it is. Simply because one accepts micro-evolution, which is based on the scientific method, doesn't mean that one has to accept the pseudo-science of Darwinistic evolution.
Yet BioLogos rejects scienceism, the Godless view of evolution.
I've shown the disagreement with the how of Darwinist evolution several times. I don't mind showing it again.
"We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years."
"We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God."
https://biologos.org/about-us/
https://biologos.org/about-us/
All I've got is posts attempting to change the issue to anything other than the issue.....the how/process whereby pine trees and humans proceeded from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.
This isn't about common descent. I'm sure I've pointed that out over 200 times how
Irrelevant for the issue at hand. Darwinism claims the how/process but without evidence based on the scientific method.
What matters is the issue of how/the process and that being based on the scientific method. I've said my view is faith-based, but so are Darwinism's claims.
No, not until you finally recognize that Darwinism's suppositions and guesses are faith-based.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
My favorite imagined story is the entire globe was one organism and various systems in the "creature" evolved into various forms of life. At least it rules out the common origin dumb and dummer song.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
LOL. No. It's a logical fallacy. "I don't understand this and don't have the imagination to think anything other than a creator is responsible" That is personal incredulity. It's not using the scientific method. If you think it does, follow your favorite chart to demonstrate that you are using it to come to your conclusion.
Yes, I know how to use it. You don't. It's quite clear you don't know how to use it as you continue to avoid someone asking you to demonstrate it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
