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

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
I did another thought experiment recently - seeing if I could budge "Evolution" in some way.

It goes like this: say I come along and I start killing off a species. The theory is, the more I kill off of this species, the more likely it will develop a mutation, that in turn will adapt to my killing. But I did not say "I will start killing off a species predictably", I said "I will start killing, by implication, at random" so that there is no way of telling how to adapt. The problem then is that the species has every reason to kill me, but no means.

However, if as I begin killing this species, that species learns to communicate - not specifically, but generically - that species will learn to mitigate the randomness, by singling my efforts out, by identifying me. Identifying me is not something that can be passed down to future generations, it is not an adaptation, as such. No creature of the species will wake up one day and say to itself "I must learn to identify a predator X" - far from it, the creature will wake up rejoicing that it can communicate and with instinct will associate higher levels of stress with a need to express the source of that stress. This is not random, it is design.

Parts of design then, work against my killing the species - as the example goes. At no point does the species start having to take chances with what kills it and what doesn't, it simply internalizes the problem and develops a behaviour that most of its species can benefit from, within the parameters possible, due to their shared design. My predation becomes a behavioural quirk of something outside of the species, that no amount of adapting on my part can perfect. I have been identified in relation to the design of the species, the species that now escapes me.

What has happened here is that the species has identified an adaptation, that it does not want to have evolved. It is "unevolution". The adaptation that fed me the species, becomes a precursor, by design, that then singles me out, from specie killing in that way. It does not cause my adaptation to succeed, that I have been singled out, rather, my design as a predator fails, as long as I am attached to it: I must give up the adaptation, to survive.

Combined with the advantages of multiplying an adaptation and finding a mate, the more unique their number becomes, there is no way for a predator to secure a hold. Quite simply: design creates safety in numbers.

[a thought goes out to all those suffering in the fires in Queensland, Australia - pray they manage to escape what the fire had in store, in Jesus Name Amen]
 
Upvote 0

solid_core

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
2,695
1,579
Vienna
✟50,919.00
Country
Austria
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I did another thought experiment recently - seeing if I could budge "Evolution" in some way.

It goes like this: say I come along and I start killing off a species. The theory is, the more I kill off of this species, the more likely it will develop a mutation, that in turn will adapt to my killing. But I did not say "I will start killing off a species predictably", I said "I will start killing, by implication, at random" so that there is no way of telling how to adapt.

Of course there is and a very simple one - to run before you. Thats why animals on isolated island have no fear of people, but animals that have been already hunted by people are running away and hiding.

The more efficient smelling, hearing, seeing, running/hiding will be the evolution' force for the survival of species in your theoretical case.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I did another thought experiment recently - seeing if I could budge "Evolution" in some way.

It goes like this: say I come along and I start killing off a species. The theory is, the more I kill off of this species, the more likely it will develop a mutation, that in turn will adapt to my killing. But I did not say "I will start killing off a species predictably", I said "I will start killing, by implication, at random" so that there is no way of telling how to adapt. The problem then is that the species has every reason to kill me, but no means.

However, if as I begin killing this species, that species learns to communicate - not specifically, but generically - that species will learn to mitigate the randomness, by singling my efforts out, by identifying me. Identifying me is not something that can be passed down to future generations, it is not an adaptation, as such. No creature of the species will wake up one day and say to itself "I must learn to identify a predator X" - far from it, the creature will wake up rejoicing that it can communicate and with instinct will associate higher levels of stress with a need to express the source of that stress. This is not random, it is design.

Parts of design then, work against my killing the species - as the example goes. At no point does the species start having to take chances with what kills it and what doesn't, it simply internalizes the problem and develops a behaviour that most of its species can benefit from, within the parameters possible, due to their shared design. My predation becomes a behavioural quirk of something outside of the species, that no amount of adapting on my part can perfect. I have been identified in relation to the design of the species, the species that now escapes me.

What has happened here is that the species has identified an adaptation, that it does not want to have evolved. It is "unevolution". The adaptation that fed me the species, becomes a precursor, by design, that then singles me out, from specie killing in that way. It does not cause my adaptation to succeed, that I have been singled out, rather, my design as a predator fails, as long as I am attached to it: I must give up the adaptation, to survive.

Combined with the advantages of multiplying an adaptation and finding a mate, the more unique their number becomes, there is no way for a predator to secure a hold. Quite simply: design creates safety in numbers.

[a thought goes out to all those suffering in the fires in Queensland, Australia - pray they manage to escape what the fire had in store, in Jesus Name Amen]

ummm you got it backwards, selection pressure doesn't cause mutations, mutations are already there, the selection pressure just determines which already existing mutations are selected for.

reason why the mutations go in a direction is, if X animal goes 45-55 miles per hour and the predator shows is 50 miles per hour, the animal won't have much pressure, but if now it goes 53 miles per hour, only those near the top will survive pushing the average to 50-57 or such, because now there is pressure for them to go faster so those that are in the 55 range have a pressure and oportunity to gain mutations.

Remember part of it is that it's a give and take, it may have been that before those that went beyond 55 lost some of their agility, or moved too far from the herd and were picked off that way, maybe they were more proned to tripping, so there was a constraint on going faster, but now the predator creates the pressure allowing for the mutations that might help them to appear and not get lost in the average.

it's part of why punctuated equilibrium was proposed, that when there is no pressure the animals regress to the mean, when there is pressure, it pushes them forward.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
You reason, like I speak.

But logic seems to escape us both.

I know you make a nice point about the variation in the predator's ability and you link it nicely to punctuated equilibriums: but if I can't say in no uncertain terms, that I have a choice when it comes to "Evolution", even the most perfectly finessed construction (of Evolution and progress),, is going to leave me wanting "more".
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You reason, like I speak.

But logic seems to escape us both.

I know you make a nice point about the variation in the predator's ability and you link it nicely to punctuated equilibriums: but if I can't say in no uncertain terms, that I have a choice when it comes to "Evolution", even the most perfectly finessed construction (of Evolution and progress),, is going to leave me wanting "more".

what construction? Thats the basis of natural selection and evolution, it's the bases of how nature works. Now obviously in the real world it's not lion vs zebra, it's zebra vs lion, lion vs hyena, hyena vs zebra, zebra vs other zebra herds, zebra vs gazelle and such.

There is this quote I love from Christopher McDougall:


“Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up, it knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're the lion or a gazelle-when the sun comes up, you'd better be running.”
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
is it me or is the site messing up quotes recently?

On topic, no it's directed at creationists and intelligent design proponents that in their hubris and arrogance about evolution cry from the rooftops that it's false, and it's wrong, and that the bible must be taken literally. Anyone with a high school knowledge of evolution will look at those statements and go, "Whelp then Christianity is false." the holding to the dogma of creationism and rejecting science and reality is what causes harm. Because I'm educated and know enough about evolution to know it isn't wrong.

Well I did not say what you quoted so maybe it is!
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
is it me or is the site messing up quotes recently?

On topic, no it's directed at creationists and intelligent design proponents that in their hubris and arrogance about evolution cry from the rooftops that it's false, and it's wrong, and that the bible must be taken literally. Anyone with a high school knowledge of evolution will look at those statements and go, "Whelp then Christianity is false." the holding to the dogma of creationism and rejecting science and reality is what causes harm. Because I'm educated and know enough about evolution to know it isn't wrong.

Well what is sad is you just simply aping evolutionary thought without really investigating it!

Evolution is impossible based on all we know of biology! I am talkin g evolution on the macro scale or microbes to man! It goes against teh laws of science and has never been tested, repeated, observed or repeated sao is outside the scientific method and is a philosophy of science and not empirical science.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
. Dogs understand language. They understand the concept of language and they’ll try to use it . Since they can’t speak the way a human can the fact that they’ll try to mimic those sounds to communicate and can understand them in the first place is indicative of common descent . The speech pathologist in the video used that fact to get the dog to press a button to make the spoken words . Unlike my dog who tried (and did a pretty good job ) imitating the sounds of words which he understood the meaning of very well.
If the dog didn’t understand the concept of using sounds to communicate they wouldn’t listen to you. Sit!

You are so wrong you don't know just how wrong!

Dogs learn behavior and associate the sounds wit3h teh reward/punishment we train them with. dogs do not have understanding as people do. They know punishment/reward and when we say "sit" and they do and they are rewarded with love or treats then they associate it. Not with anysense of cognitive understanding.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
all humans have melanin suppression genes . It’s why dark skinned Africans have lighter palms , white eyes and all humans lose tans out of the sun. Uncontrolled melanin production is not good for the skin cells as that can cause cancer under some conditions. Melanin is also used in the inner ear to aid in hearing . The more melanin you have there, the better your hearing . Having melanin suppressed light skin, blue eyes, or light hair is a mixed blessing in humans because it also affects how well you hear

There are also different types of melanin genes . You’re just familiar with the most common one . The pigment that causes red hair in primates and grey skin in elephants are also types of melanin .

Well melanin is locked in the different types of humans. And it is blacks they hypothesize hear better because of melanin. More study needs to be done on that though!

Uncontrolled production of almost everything our bodies produce can cause cancer so that is a moot point!
 
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

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
that’s actually your straw man version of evolution. Having a species split into different populations in different environments will cause that if it happens continually and repeatedly over a long time . Most species only live for about a million years. after that they either evolve into other species or they go extinct

Well that is the hypotheses of macro evolution--but physically proving it is where the evolutionists are lacking by a % of 100%

Evolutionists cannot even prove new information added to a genome through random mutations and evolution requires trillions X trillions X trillions X trillions of mutations over time to go from microbes to man! What is the strawe man in this discussion is that evolution is even granted theory status! It has never been observed, tested, repeated etc.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well what is sad is you just simply aping evolutionary thought without really investigating it!

Evolution is impossible based on all we know of biology! I am talkin g evolution on the macro scale or microbes to man! It goes against teh laws of science and has never been tested, repeated, observed or repeated sao is outside the scientific method and is a philosophy of science and not empirical science.


....what laws of science make macro evolution impossible? and remember scientific laws are math equations.

Also you do realize repleatable refers to the tests done not the event right? We can't repeat pompei but the tests done to show what happened can be repeated. That is all the science requires, that if I discover X evoled from Y that I can show my methods and someone else can verify it. Oh and guess what you don't get to tell what is or isn't science, the scientists do and they know otherwise.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
....what laws of science make macro evolution impossible? and remember scientific laws are math equations.

Also you do realize repleatable refers to the tests done not the event right? We can't repeat pompei but the tests done to show what happened can be repeated. That is all the science requires, that if I discover X evoled from Y that I can show my methods and someone else can verify it. Oh and guess what you don't get to tell what is or isn't science, the scientists do and they know otherwise.

No scientific laws are laws! they have been called laws because something produces the same result every time over and over and over and over and over and over again. Math just describes the working of the law!

Event is test. Newton dropped apples over and over again and discovered gravity! If you want to test the second law of thermodynamics, just leave that same apple on a table and come back in two weeks!

Your pompeii example is wrong. That is a one time event. And we can study the results of that event. That is not a law. A law will produce the same results for every event (unless another law is inplay).

And you hit the nail on the head with SHOWING methods! You have to demonstrate in the real world that your formulas or hypothesis actually does what it says! Darwinian evolution has failed to do that. They build on assumptions based on observing minor genetic changes and then extrapolating backwards in massive scales without empirical testing!

Scientists do not get to determine what is or isn't science. They only discover what is and isn't science!
They do not get to decide what is the law of gravity- Gravity is with or without their input!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Well what is sad is you just simply aping evolutionary thought without really investigating it!

Evolution is impossible based on all we know of biology! I am talkin g evolution on the macro scale or microbes to man!

It's directly observed to happen. No point in denying the fact. You've confused evolution with a consequence of evolution. Man didn't evolve from microbes. We evolved from other primates. So you've gotten that mixed up, too.

It goes against teh laws of science

Perhaps the fact that almost all scientists acknowledge the fact of evolution, and people with little knowledge of science are more likely to not acknowledge it, is an important clue for you.

and has never been tested,

Undergraduates test it every year. it's not that hard to do. Perhaps you should spend some time, learning about science; it would help you immensely in this subject.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The evolutionist argument of the fossil record holds no water, because neither they nor we believers know how or when they got there.

No,that's false. For example, we know the fossils in the Burgess Shale were quickly buried in an underwater landslide. We know that the first known fossil of Archaeopteryx was fossilzed falling into shallow anoxic water, and being slowly covered silt. And so on.

The lack of transitional fossils in this record

Well, let's test your assumption. Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise says;
Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
DR KURT P. WISE
...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.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by 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.

Dr. Wise knows what you don't.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
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

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's directly observed to happen. No point in denying the fact. You've confused evolution with a consequence of evolution. Man didn't evolve from microbes. We evolved from other primates. So you've gotten that mixed up, too.



Perhaps the fact that almost all scientists acknowledge the fact of evolution, and people with little knowledge of science are more likely to not acknowledge it, is an important clue for you.



Undergraduates test it every year. it's not that hard to do. Perhaps you should spend some time, learning about science; it would help you immensely in this subject.

And you still love playing with peoples words!

We have not seen what is called "macro" evolution ever happening! m Man did evovle from microbes- through the whole chain you evolutionists made up!

Well if you could prove evolution through random mutations preserved by natural selection- people would believe you! But the fact that scientists for the nearly unanimous part have been indoctrinated in evolutionary thinking makes that a no brainer why they think something they cannot validate by the scientific method a "fact".

Perhaps you should stop playing word games- and demonstrate scales to feather via unplanned unengineered by man and just happening in nature all by itself!

Taking the genetic code for feathers froma chick embryo and transplanting it into a croc embryo and getting a mix betwqeen a scute and a frayed scale is not evolution- but intelligent design! Maybe you should go back to the drawing board!
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
And you still love playing with peoples words!

We have not seen what is called "macro" evolution ever happening!

No, that's wrong, too. Even many creationist organizations admit that speciation is a fact. Perhaps you don't know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is speciation. And as you have learned, most creationists now admit new species, genera, families, and sometimes orders. (I was surprised at that last, but AIG does that)

m Man did evovle from microbes-

No. From primates. You've confused evolutionary theory with the fairy tales creationist websites tell you.

through the whole chain you evolutionists made up!

You just learned that even informed YE creationists admit a very large number of transitional forms, which one of your fellow YE creationists admits to be "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like to see that, again?

Well if you could prove evolution through random mutations preserved by natural selection- people would believe you!

That's why most people do. Pretty much the only doubters are because of their new religious ideas.

But the fact that scientists for the nearly unanimous part have been indoctrinated in evolutionary thinking makes that a no brainer why they think something they cannot validate by the scientific method a "fact".

As you learned, it's directly observed. And yes, speciation has also been observed. it's why sites like AIG openly admit it.

Perhaps you should stop playing word games- and demonstrate scales to feather via unplanned unengineered by man

You should have faith in God, not man. God creates. And it turns out that evolution works better than design for complex problems. It's why engineers don't use design when they can copy evolutionary processes. Should I show you that, again?

Taking the genetic code for feathers froma chick embryo and transplanting it into a croc embryo and getting a mix betwqeen a scute and a frayed scale is not evolution

It merely shows the evolutionary relationship. Scutes seem to have evolved from feathers. Want to see the evidence for that?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, that's wrong, too. Even many creationist organizations admit that speciation is a fact. Perhaps you don't know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is speciation. And as you have learned, most creationists now admit new species, genera, families, and sometimes orders. (I was surprised at that last, but AIG does that)

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌmakrō-evəˈlo͞oSHən,-ˌēvə-/
Learn to pronounce
noun
BIOLOGY
  1. major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.
You are wrong again! also I would like the link saying AIG believes in evolution of new orders.

Most creationists accept the variation in species, genus and to a very limited degree family have yet to see a biblical creationist accept changes in orders

No. From primates. You've confused evolutionary theory with the fairy tales creationist websites tell you.

Everything started from th at first microbe! It worked its way up supposedly. Without that first whatever you wouldn't be here!!!

That's why most people do. Pretty much the only doubters are because of their new religious ideas.

Well I gave yo your shot and you failed miserably. That could be the reason why ID and creationism is making a comeback in America! Evolutionists can talk all the fancy talk, but after that all they can do is assume, guess, suppose, think and say something indicates that sometehing could have happened!

As you learned, it's directly observed. And yes, speciation has also been observed. it's why sites like AIG openly admit it.

But we are not talking speciation, and you know that! Just another one of the many games you play to muddy the conversation.

You should have faith in God, not man. God creates. And it turns out that evolution works better than design for complex problems. It's why engineers don't use design when they can copy evolutionary processes. Should I show you that, again?

I do have faith in God and His Word! And it will be a hoot buy go ahead show us an example! But please make it better than your "proof" of scales to feathers.

It merely shows the evolutionary relationship. Scutes seem to have evolved from feathers. Want to see the evidence for that?

We have been there and done that and you failed. Don't need to revisit your fantasy again.
 
Upvote 0

Mattin91

Active Member
Nov 19, 2019
120
54
64
Midwest
✟1,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm seeing the same thing I've read elsewhere. The same words I've read for years. Let's remove the Bible from this for a minute.

There are problems with long ages. A particular fish has survived after going missing for 400 million years. Then it was caught in a net.

A particular tree was missing for 200 million years but was found alive. You can buy one. It has features unlike a modern tree.

Over those millions of years, local catastrophes, changes in weather patterns and even large meteor strikes, but somehow - and that part remains unexplained - they survived.

There are photos of fossil trees that go through many layers of rock. When I post such photos, there is always no explanation for these fossils, but an accusation. I'm a Creationist or Young Earth Creationist. But how can a tree go through different layers, or strata, of rock and not rot away?

And today, if scientists were told evolution was not true, would it affect their work? It wouldn't.

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
 
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

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm seeing the same thing I've read elsewhere. The same words I've read for years. Let's remove the Bible from this for a minute.

There are problems with long ages. A particular fish has survived after going missing for 400 million years. Then it was caught in a net.

A particular tree was missing for 200 million years but was found alive. You can buy one. It has features unlike a modern tree.

Over those millions of years, local catastrophes, changes in weather patterns and even large meteor strikes, but somehow - and that part remains unexplained - they survived.

There are photos of fossil trees that go through many layers of rock. When I post such photos, there is always no explanation for these fossils, but an accusation. I'm a Creationist or Young Earth Creationist. But how can a tree go through different layers, or strata, of rock and not rot away?

And today, if scientists were told evolution was not true, would it affect their work? It wouldn't.

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?

ummm the ceolcanth that was found isn't found in the fossil record, in fact ceolcanth isn't a species, it's a family of simular fish. Finding a long thought extinct thing doesn't prove that long ages are wrong thats just stupid.

Those trees is wrong and not what creationists claim.
 
Upvote 0