You mean to tell me, if God revolutionized the human species: you would prefer Evolution first

if you spend any time studying DNA and the complexity of the codes it is impossible for gradual change and also impossible for sudden change. So all things were created as they were that is man and beast. over time you can see variations within a species but always through the loss of information rather than more complex form arriving we see less complex forms emerging. Now if you are getting fertility treatments they can tell the sex of newly fertilized egg. Every cell has a completer DNA blueprint to make another you if cloned. This is not something that is random and subject to change.

Gottservant said:

You mean to tell me...

Click to expand...

No, Gottservant. A lot of people here have been trying for years to tell you what Evolution is, what it does, how it happens, what it entails, and what it does not mean.

You never listen. You never learn.

Knowing what you have revealed about yourself over the years, I won't blame you. But you might really fare better if you realized that all your problems with this topic are based on your fundamental misunderstandings, not on the topic itself.

Gottservant said:

Hi there,

So this has got to be the simplest argument I have come up with yet: if God revolutionized the human species, you would deny the choice in favour of Evolution?

I think technically I need to provide you with a way out, so that my argument can be seen as an exercise of logic, so let me be clear God would not revolutionize the human species as greatly as Evolution could change from it (to something else).

The point I am trying to make, is that as a standard of evaluation: Evolution does not preclude having to think about greater choice - we are supposed to have more choices, in Creation, than variations that do not justify life (let alone, survival, as though that strengthened anything).

My thinking is that, if God revolutionized the human species, you would quickly adopt that revolution and say that it was Evolution that did it, but I have been wrong before...

Click to expand...

Working on the assumption that this revolution happens over a short period of time, if a god were to make huge changes to humans it would be so contrary to ToE that nobody would claim "evolution did it".

So of course it's a simple argument - if God showed himself to be real nobody could deny it. Why has nobody thought of that before?

Evolution, God?

It's all about Quantum Matter.

Gottservant said:

Hi there,

So this has got to be the simplest argument I have come up with yet: if God revolutionized the human species, you would deny the choice in favour of Evolution?

I think technically I need to provide you with a way out, so that my argument can be seen as an exercise of logic, so let me be clear God would not revolutionize the human species as greatly as Evolution could change from it (to something else).

The point I am trying to make, is that as a standard of evaluation: Evolution does not preclude having to think about greater choice - we are supposed to have more choices, in Creation, than variations that do not justify life (let alone, survival, as though that strengthened anything).

My thinking is that, if God revolutionized the human species, you would quickly adopt that revolution and say that it was Evolution that did it, but I have been wrong before...

Click to expand...

And why couldn't God revolutionize the human species through evolution? What's stopping God doing that?

Gottservant said:

Hi there,

So this has got to be the simplest argument I have come up with yet: if God revolutionized the human species, you would deny the choice in favour of Evolution?

I think technically I need to provide you with a way out, so that my argument can be seen as an exercise of logic, so let me be clear God would not revolutionize the human species as greatly as Evolution could change from it (to something else).

The point I am trying to make, is that as a standard of evaluation: Evolution does not preclude having to think about greater choice - we are supposed to have more choices, in Creation, than variations that do not justify life (let alone, survival, as though that strengthened anything).

My thinking is that, if God revolutionized the human species, you would quickly adopt that revolution and say that it was Evolution that did it, but I have been wrong before...

Click to expand...

Evolution can't explain a sudden change to the whole species. So it wouldn't be a good explanation for a miracle modification.

Also, evolution is the conclusion that best fits the evidence, not a preference.

Personally, I'd prefer to live in a supernatural world filled with miracles... I just haven't been presented with any convincing evidence for it.

Gottservant said:

Hi there,

So this has got to be the simplest argument I have come up with yet: if God revolutionized the human species, you would deny the choice in favour of Evolution?

I think technically I need to provide you with a way out, so that my argument can be seen as an exercise of logic, so let me be clear God would not revolutionize the human species as greatly as Evolution could change from it (to something else).

The point I am trying to make, is that as a standard of evaluation: Evolution does not preclude having to think about greater choice - we are supposed to have more choices, in Creation, than variations that do not justify life (let alone, survival, as though that strengthened anything).

My thinking is that, if God revolutionized the human species, you would quickly adopt that revolution and say that it was Evolution that did it, but I have been wrong before...

Click to expand...

If God did it in a way that is quick, and maybe to the individual, it would not be evolution. And we would accept it as something else, maybe God if it shows itself at that time. Super powers that break the laws of physics would be a good example.

As has been stated before, evolution is based on observation of the world, not a dogma.

SamsonXX said:

Evolution, God?

It's all about Quantum Matter.

Click to expand...

we do have evidence for design in nature (see my signanture link for instance).

Paulos23 said:

As has been stated before, evolution is based on observation of the world,.

Click to expand...

but we never seen a creature evolving into a different creature. so evolution never been realy observed. think also about this analogy: say that we had a self replicating car. can such a car evolve into an airplane? if not it c ant happen in creatures too.

xianghua said:

but we never seen a creature evolving into a different creature. so evolution never been realy observed. think also about this analogy: say that we had a self replicating car. can such a car evolve into an airplane? if not it c ant happen in creatures too.

Click to expand...

We have plenty of observations. Your example is silly in the extreme and shows a lack of understanding.

https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Paulos23 said:

We have plenty of observations. Your example is silly in the extreme and shows a lack of understanding.

https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Click to expand...

non of the animals in your link evolved into a different creature. so non of them are evidence for evolution. its only a variation of the same creature ( a different variation of a moth for instance). and can you show me why my analogy isnt good?

xianghua said:

non of the animals in your link evolved into a different creature. so non of them are evidence for evolution. its only a variation of the same creature ( a different variation of a moth for instance). and can you show me why my analogy isnt good?

Click to expand...

Because argument solely by analogy are never any good in science.

xianghua said:

non of the animals in your link evolved into a different creature. so non of them are evidence for evolution. its only a variation of the same creature ( a different variation of a moth for instance). and can you show me why my analogy isnt good?

Click to expand...

First, your analogy is with human made objects. There is no gradual change between 'generations' with these objects. In fact, there are no generations. The second point is that cars and planes are like different family branches, they come from different places.

It would have been better to say a two door hatchback became a four door sedan. Still to fast to happen in a generation in biological terms, but that is more what you should be going for.

That said, many of those examples are clear changes to speices over generations. I know you are calling it adaptation, but that is glossing over the changes that had to be selected for by natural selection. That is to say, those populations with changes that help them survive to reproduce grew in number in the population, while those that didn't shrunk, and those that where neutral stayed ruffly the same.

That you don't see these changes as evolution in action tells me you don't have a good understanding of evolution, and that you don't want to have one at all.

xianghua said:

we do have evidence for design in nature (see my signanture link for instance).

Click to expand...

Except you have none, as has been pointed out to you possibly a hundred times by now.

xianghua said:

but we never seen a creature evolving into a different creature. so evolution never been realy observed. think also about this analogy: say that we had a self replicating car. can such a car evolve into an airplane? if not it c ant happen in creatures too.

Click to expand...

Troll

Paulos23 said:

First, your analogy is with human made objects. There is no gradual change between 'generations' with these objects.

Click to expand...

but its also true for animals. there is is no gradual change between them. so unless you can prove otherwise the same conclusion should be apply to both living things and non living things.

Paulos23 said:

In fact, there are no generations.

Click to expand...

true. this is why i talked about a self replicating car. it means that it can produce more cars ( like a living thing). so can you prove that a self replicating car can evolve into even a flying car?

Paulos23 said:

That you don't see these changes as evolution in action tells me you don't have a good understanding of evolution, and that you don't want to have one at all.

Click to expand...

if you consider any change (in the population) as evolution then i will agree. but remember that in this case evolution is true even if creationism is true.

xianghua said:

but its also true for animals. there is is no gradual change between them.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is.

true. this is why i talked about a self replicating car. it means that it can produce more cars ( like a living thing). so can you prove that a self replicating car can evolve into even a flying car?

Click to expand...

You mean just like a small ground-dwelling mammal can evolve into a bat?

if you consider any change (in the population) as evolution then i will agree. but remember that in this case evolution is true even if creationism is true.

Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by "creationism." If you mean that evolution is true and God is ultimate author of all, then yes. If you mean by "creationism" that individual species poofed into existence with no precursors, then evolution is true and creationism is false.