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

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
As you have seen, the fossil transitionals predicted by Darwin have turned up one by one. As you might know, a theory is a hypothesis for which its predictions have been repeatedly confirmed.

No we haven't. The missing links are still missing and you know that! We see fossils that by interpretation and agreement by like minded evolutionists are considered "transitionals" but that is opinion and not empirical science.

Much empirical science like that are paleontologogists drilling blow holes, or sanding down bone to make it fi the pre conceived idea, or a land walker with four legs being the precursor to whales.

As you learned, the family tree of organisms first discovered by Linnaeus, has been repeatedly confirmed, first by predicted transitional forms in the fossil record, and then by genetic analyses. And we know DNA confirmation works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

DNA can only test extant DNA. It cannot determine the relationship between a living creature and a long dead one that has no DNA- that is all interpretation and opinion.


Sorry, you've misunderstood the creationist literature. For example, one of the first creationists to admit limited common descent (John Woodmorappe) confirmed to me in an email exchange that his concept was new species, genera, and families, but not much beyond that. His opinion has been supported by the Institute for Creation Research which published his paper Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study.

AIG:
"We know that there is a big variety of cats. They probably all came from the original kind of cat that God created on Day 6."

So let's take a look at that. So In this case, we see it extend to a suborder. The order carnivora is divided into two suborders, the Feliforma (cat kind) and the Caniforma (dog kind).

So there is that. I think Woodmorappe was more aware of the evidence that you are.

Back to your mystery e-mail again? As that thougt does not appear in any of his literature (as a matter of fact he denies evolution to the family level) Sorry but that is in admissable as empirical data. Just like your crocka duck.
 
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
You've been badly misled about that. A very large number of predictions of evolutionary theory have since been validated. I once showed you small part of that. I could do it again, if you'd like to see it again.

Because evolutionary theory made testable predictions that have been tested and verified, it is scientifically verified. It is true that YE creationism is a modern religious belief, but lacking any testible claims, it cannot qualify as a scientific hypothesis.

How you love mixing words to make your case seem plausible. If it was your crock a duck- ou and the testing failed miserably.

Some things of evolutionary hypotheses have been verified (as they would have been verified by creationist theory as well)

Well when they can create anew genus or family or order and repeat it again and again, give me a buzz! Until then please don't pretend that evolutionary hypotheses has passed the scientific method of validation!

Well I am off for a week to see my son, his wife and my precious grandchildren. I am sure we will pick up on another thread!
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
How you love mixing words to make your case seem plausible.

It comes down to facts. And the facts show that numerous predictions of Darwinian theory have been confirmed. Would you like me to show you some of them, again?

Some things of evolutionary hypotheses have been verified

Many, many of them. Would you like me to show you some of them, again?

(as they would have been verified by creationist theory as well)

The problem for your doctrine of creationism, is that it makes no predictions that haven't already been confirmed. The obvious "me-tooism" of creationism is of no scientific worth at all. On the other hand, as you know, the basic points of Darwinian theory have been repeatedly confirmed to be true.

Well when they can create anew genus or family or order and repeat it again and again,

So we should tell meteorologists that they don't have a science until they can repeat a hurricane again and again? Do you seriously think anyone takes your claim seriously?

Until then please don't pretend that evolutionary hypotheses has passed the scientific method of validation!

Let's see...
  • Darwin's claim that natural selection tends to increase fitness in a population. Confirmed.
  • Darwin's claim that humans would have first appeared in Africa. Confirmed.
  • Huxley's claim that there should have been transitional forms between birds and dinosaurs. Confirmed.
  • Darwin's prediction that the fossil record would show many transitional forms. Confirmed
  • Morgan's prediction that genetic analysis would some day confirm the phylogeny of life first discovered by Linnaeus (who didn't even know about evolution) confirmed.
  • Horner's prediction that dinosaurs would be biochemically more like birds than like other reptiles. Confirmed
  • Darwin's prediction that a well-fitted population in a relatively constant environment would evolve very little or not at all. Confirmed
How many more would you like to see?
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
As you have seen, the fossil transitionals predicted by Darwin have turned up one by one. As you might know, a theory is a hypothesis for which its predictions have been repeatedly confirmed.

No we haven't. The missing links are still missing and you know that!

Even honest creationists admit the fact:

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.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

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.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood

The truth about evolution

DNA can only test extant DNA.

So it can, for example, test birds and crocodiles to see if all archosaurs have a common ancestor. (dinosaurs are also archosaurs). Turns out that they do. And we know it works, because we can test the method on organisms of known descent.

Even more interesting, when a bit of heme (fragment of hemoglobin) was found in a T. rex, it turned out to be more like that of birds than like that of other reptiles. A shock to creationists, but predicted by evolutionary theory.

Back to your mystery e-mail again? As that thougt does not appear in any of his literature (as a matter of fact he denies evolution to the family level)

Show us that. Checkable source, or it's just like your crocka duck. Besides, as you learned, Woodmorappe admits that all feliformes evolved from a single "kind" which includes families and one infraorder.

Seems unlikely that he'd change his mind, given the attachment he has to a literal reading of Genesis.

Rock and a hard place, um?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Technical papers” published by AIG , ICR and CRS. Surely you jest !?!?! Those essays are essentially worthless because they contain very little factual information and a lot of fantasy. I stopped reading their disinformation filled ,pseudoscience nonsense decades ago because my eyes were too tired of rolling:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Technical papers” published by AIG , ICR and CRS.

There is some stuff that's worth reading in some of those journals:

MOON DUST AND THE AGE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
Dear Editor,We appreciate the efforts by Dr Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush1in assembling a much more thorough listing of the technical literature on the topic of meteoritic dust on the moon than the representative sample of that literature that we cited in chapter 4, ‘Foot- prints on the dusty moon’, in Science Held Hostage (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1988). They have come to the same conclusion that we reached, namely, that the accumulation of meteoritic dust on the moon does not provide valid evidence in support of the claim that the solar system is young.2

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j08_2/j08_2_152-153.pdf

And the brilliant, but hardly parsimonious "virtual history" hypothesis of Gerald Aardsma:

Actually, I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flaura and fauna)---again, in virtual history. Note that the Bible does not say that biological evolution CAN NOT happen; it says that biological evolution DID NOT happen. That is, the Bible clearly teaches that we got here by CREATION, not by EVOLUTION. "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth", not "In the beginning God EVOLVED the heavens and the earth." But none of this excludes the possibility of biological evolution in virtual history. In fact, the teaching in Romans 8:20, that the creation was subjected to futility at the time of the Fall, meshes rather well with evolution being the thing seen in the virtual history data, for the hallmark of evolution is not purpose, but random chance and meaninglessness.


The Grand Canyon should also be understood just as the standard scientists describe its formation. It too is a virtual history phenomenon.


Virtual history is not a hard idea. Just think about what it means to actually CREATE something. Creating a story is a helpful analogy. Take "The Hobbit" as an example of a created entity. Now step into the book with Bilbo on page one and begin to examine the world around you. Everything you see and examine around you has already, on page one, an extensive built-in virtual history. Bilbo is in his 50's as I recall. So he has a virtual history. His house has been dug back into the hill, implying someone did some digging. If you examine the tunnels you can no doubt find tool marks left by the workmen. His front door is made of wood, implying trees grown, sawn into planks, planed, and fastened together by craftsmen, all before the story begins. And on and on it goes...Bilbo's clothing with all those stitches, and the soil in his yard and garden with humus from long-dead leaves, ...


We are living in a CREATION. The creation we are living in is a story of God's making. It opens on page one 5176+/-26 B.C. (by my best reckoning so far). The story moves from Creation to Fall to Flood to Exodus to Birth of Christ to Crucifixion to Redemption to ultimate Restoration of all things. This story is our reality, but it is not ultimate reality. (God is ultimate reality---He transcends the story just as any author transcends their created story.) And like any story, it has, necessarily, a virtual history built in from page one onward.


The big take-home point is that evidence of virtual history---of even millions or billions of years of this or that process operating in the past---does not and cannot falsify the fact of creation in a created entity. So we can let the virtual history data about the Grand Canyon or the ice ages or whatever else speak for itself and say whatever it seems to say. We do not have to resort to foolishness (e.g., denying the validity of tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon dates) to try to wipe out every trace of any natural process prior to the biblical date of Creation. We understand virtual history to be part and parcel of any created thing, so evidences of such processes do not threaten our faith or falsify the Bible's claim that we got here by supernatural creation just over 7000 years ago.
BC Correspondence: Virtual History

The canard that all creationists duck the facts is not true (pun intended). Some of them readily admit the evidence indicates long ages and evolution, and come up with ways in which they can reconcile the facts with their religious beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I’m still skeptical that creationist pseudoscience papers have much accurate info. Honestly I really don’t care if science facts confirms the Bible or not as I’m not really inclined to worry about it. I leave that angels dancing on the head of a pin stuff to theologians.
 
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
I feel responsible to post the full thing, somewhere Evolutionists can have at it: but i just wanted to say that it has occurred to me that the life between cells and mammals, might actually be informative about the transition made between them - that is, the insect life.

The gist of it is this: if the centipede evolved, why doesn't it change the pattern of its hundred odd legs? if the caterpillar is evolved, why does it not emerge from the cocoon as something other than a butterfly?

The point being, that nature refuses to do certain things, that Evolution would say were open opportunities.

I think if the argument can be made, that survival is more enhanced by restraint than liberty, we might be on the edge of understanding, not only why do things adopt a particular Creation,, but why they express that Creation in a particular way?

I will let you know how it goes - knowing that I have the hope of the faithful out there, helps me a lot: God bless you guys.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I feel responsible to post the full thing, somewhere Evolutionists can have at it: but i just wanted to say that it has occurred to me that the life between cells and mammals, might actually be informative about the transition made between them - that is, the insect life.

Insects are not transitional to mammals; the common ancestor of insects and mammals is very ancient, and the arthropods (jointed legged organisms with exoskeletons) and chordates (organisms with a notochord/backbone) diverged into two separate lines very early.

The gist of it is this: if the centipede evolved, why doesn't it change the pattern of its hundred odd legs? if the caterpillar is evolved, why does it not emerge from the cocoon as something other than a butterfly?

The reduction/modification of body segments in arthropods is called "tagmosis", and it happens in different lines of arthropids. The legs of those segments are often modified into things like mouthparts of insects.
26307_orig.jpg


The point being, that nature refuses to do certain things, that Evolution would say were open opportunities.

As Darwin pointed out, no modification is possible where the intermediate stages are not useful to the organism in some way. So many "opportunities" are not possible.

I think if the argument can be made, that survival is more enhanced by restraint than liberty, we might be on the edge of understanding, not only why do things adopt a particular Creation,, but why they express that Creation in a particular way?

Only those changes that somehow aid survival of the individual organism long enough for it to reproduce are favored by natural selection.

I will let you know how it goes - knowing that I have the hope of the faithful out there, helps me a lot: God bless you guys.

I like the approach. Yes, let us know.
 
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
The point (for the centipede) is that a mutation could produce an anomaly in one of the legs, causing it to move erratically - all it would take is for a female centipede to confuse this move with dancing and its reproductive success would sky-rocket.

Or again (for the caterpillar) a mutation could cause the caterpillar to go back to being a caterpillar but a larger one, so that when it has found a bountiful food supply, the larger caterpillar could take advantage of it.

These are one step changes, to the genome - with one problem: they violate the integrity of the species, as it has been designed.

So for something to be designed and still in danger of "evolving", there must be a reason that created things don't (evolve)? Like every second that ticks by, things are not evolving - racking up the case against Evolution, not Creation?
 
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

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The point (for the centipede) is that a mutation could produce an anomaly in one of the legs, causing it to move erratically - all it would take is for a female centipede to confuse this move with dancing and its reproductive success would sky-rocket.

Sure. If a mutation happened to change an individual so that females were more likely to chose it to mate, then that mutation would tend to become common in the population.

Or again (for the caterpillar) a mutation could cause the caterpillar to go back to being a caterpillar but a larger one, so that when it has found a bountiful food supply, the larger caterpillar could take advantage of it.

That's a common theme in evolution. It's called "paedomorphosis", the retention of juvenile traits in a sexually mature adult. Humans are like that. We retain many traits found in juvenile apes, such as small face, large cranium, and the opening to the spinal cord under the skull instead of at the rear of it. Human skulls change relatively little in maturation, compared to those of apes:
Transformation-grids-for-the-chimpanzee-left-and-human-right-skull-during-growth.png



These are one step changes, to the genome

Can be.

with one problem: they violate the integrity of the species, as it has been designed.

Unless God gave living things the built-in capacity to evolve.

So for something to be designed and still in danger of "evolving", there must be a reason that created things don't (evolve)?

They observably do.
 
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
. I first became aware that humans belong in Clade Animalia when I was 8 back in the early 60s I WASNT told anything about evolution neither were my contemporaries and that lasted until I was in college. So why do I accept evolution? Because of the slow trickle of evidence I was exposed to. I’m a houseplant fiend and will cheerfully admit to having too many . A lot of the aroids are houseplants and that’s a huge family . Snake plants , Pothos, dieffenbachias, philodendrons , syngoniums, Chinese evergreen etc , all different species in different genera but obviously close relatives . That’s macroevolution btw! By the age of 11 I was aware that mammals and birds had the same bones but they were just different shapes . As a biology major in college I learned about biochemical and genetic similarities. On the creationist side I found impossible situations like birds turning into crocodiles ( and vice versa) . Or outright lying . I specifically do not accept creationism because 1 they’ve never put out any verifiable evidence for separate creation 2 they misunderstand or twist into incomprehensibility the teeny bit of actual evidence they showcase and 3 outright lying about long confirmed scientific realities.4 they’ve never demonstrated nor have any evidence of that so called barrier between “kinds”

Well in case you didn't know, flora follow differing rules about cross species breeding than fauna does.

Well I have seen lots of people accuse the Creation Scientists of twiosting science and outright lying, but still am awaiting actual evidence of them doing so. And please do not cite some unknown hack on you tube that is just posting on his own. But please feel free to cite from ICR< AIG or CRS scientists and the tens of thousands of technical papers or even their articles for the common fo;k!
 
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
I've shown you that it's directly observed. As we showed you earlier, you've confused evolution (which is observed every day), with a consequence of evolution (common descent).

And you've also been shown that most YE creationist organizations now admit to a limited amount of common descent. Would you like me to show you that, again?

Empirical, testable scientific facts show that evolution is an observed phenomenon.



As you also learned, evolutionary theory isn't bout the big bang or the origin of life, or many other things that upset you. It's just about living populations and how they change over time.

If you could remember that, most of your problems with science would be solved.

Still waiting for you r observed direct evidence that one family or order evolved into another through random mutations preserved by natural selection over time!

Well microbes to man is the Big E evolution theory. Common descent is a provable theory, but once again what has not been ruled out is natural variation within the genus or some families. They cannot prove that the various ascents of new species or even genus with in the KIND or family was not through natural variation found within the genome of the creature. YOu know Mendels Law? Just like familes that have been caucasian for 35-40 generations all of a sudden have a pitch black baby!
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Still waiting for you r observed direct evidence that one family or order evolved into another through random mutations preserved by natural selection over time!

So the creationist says to the geologist, "Still waiting for your observed direct evidence that high mountains can be eroded down to low hills." And celebrates, actually thinking he's come up with a good argument against erosion, since no human would live long enough to actually observe such a thing.

But of course, his own fellow creationists admit that the fossil record is "very good evidence" for macroevolution.

ell microbes to man is the Big E evolution theory.

That's another common creationist superstition about evolutionary theory. As you learned, humans evolved from other primates, not microbes. Remember what the definition of evolution is: "Change in allele frequency in a population over time." You're not criticizing evolutionary theory, you're criticizing a consequence of the phenomenon of evolution. Which, as I mentioned, even honest creationists admit there is much evidence to support it.

YOu know Mendels Law? Just like familes that have been caucasian for 35-40 generations all of a sudden have a pitch black baby!

I have bad news for you; that actually is not the case. It's possible, although very rare for siblings to have very different "racial" characteristics, but if you don't have the genes for such characteristics, they won't appear. It's not one or even a few alleles that do this.

Someone's putting something over on someone if that's the story.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Well in case you didn't know, flora follow differing rules about cross species breeding than fauna does.

Show us those rules. I'd sure like to see them. I've got only one class in plant genetics, but just the same, I'd like to see your rules.
 
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

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The thing for me, is that I just want to explode!

I want to say to Evolutionists "let go! do something that is not theory!"

You know?

You mean like verifying the prediction that dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than they are to other reptiles?

“We thought maybe some of the dinosaurs would have lungs more like birds, and some would be less similar. But basically everything just looked like the birds,” says Brocklehurst. “I was a bit surprised at quite how similar to birds some of the early dinosaurs were.”

If even the very first dinosaurs to evolve had bird-like lungs, this may help explain why dinosaurs became so successful.
Bird-like lungs may have helped dinosaurs rule the world


Birds and dinosaurs: High-performance breathing in bones

Origin of unique respiratory system of birds and dinosaurs
Birds and dinosaurs: High-performance breathing in bones: Origin of unique respiratory system of birds and dinosaurs


An adolescent female Tyrannosaurus rex died 68 million years ago, but its bones still contain intact soft tissue, including the oldest preserved proteins ever found, scientists say.

And a comparison of the protein's chemical structure to a slew of other species showed an evolutionary link between T. rex and chickens, bolstering the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

T. Rex Related to Chickens | Live Science

Would you like to see some more?
 
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
I have progressed a little in my argument with Evolution; I have started to be a little comforted, about the difference between one person's interpretation and another.

Fundamentally, the concept of Evolution hinges on species mating in a predictable fashion - "you are an ape, I am an ape: let's mate"; "you are a butterfly, I am a butterfly: let's mate". The thing is, this is actually disingenuous: species don't regard themselves as identical copies of one another; species fundamentally appreciate the differences between every individual in the species.

What does this (differences in identification) mean? It means that no one actually lines up as an exact copy of the species' best - "I am an ape, like you, but not exactly: do you want to mate?"; "I am a butterfly, like you, but not exactly: do you want to mate?" sort of thing. The point is that there are similarities and differences either way, in the relationship,, it is a struggle to get the members of the couple to reflect the union of the differences that they want it to be - alternatively, to get the members of the couple to reflect the union of the similarities that they want it to be. The point is, Evolution tries to pull the wool over your eyes and say "every member of the couple has the same perspective".

Evolution may say each member of a couple has the same perspective, therefore Evolution is inevitable,, but the reality is that the mating process attempts to encapsulate the greatest possible union of each couple and this is far from "inevitable". The reality is that it never works without faith and it is faith that is in a sense "inevitable", indeed it is more like "absolute". As soon as you find unwavering repetition, sure, you can make a case for Evolution - but it just does not exist, except at the microscopic level - no one has ever said it can't happen at the microscopic level, it's just that this does not translate to the macroscopic, different rules apply - the two can even co-exist for a time, but not forever.

I am actually pretty comfortable with this new insight, so much so that I said to the Lord "Lord, you tell me, if and when I should actually share this" - I really do not have an agenda of my own, in terms of one-up-manship with Evolution, so it will play out the way it does, I guess.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Fundamentally, the concept of Evolution hinges on species mating in a predictable fashion - "you are an ape, I am an ape: let's mate"; "you are a butterfly, I am a butterfly: let's mate".

No. The concept of evolution hinges on four facts, first proposed by Darwin:
1. More are born than can survive long enough to reproduce.
2. Offspring are always slightly different than their parents.
3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival.
4. The favorable ones tend to accumulate and the unfavorable ones tend to disappear.

The point is, Evolution tries to pull the wool over your eyes and say "every member of the couple has the same perspective".

No. In fact, the phenomenon of evolution depends on differences, as you just learned.

Evolution may say each member of a couple has the same perspective, therefore Evolution is inevitable

No. In fact, males and females almost always have different optimal evolutionary strategies.

In the real world, we constantly see evolution happening, as environments change, and populations change with them.
 
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

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
[...]

In the real world, we constantly see evolution happening, as environments change, and populations change with them.

That's your perspective.

Mates may evolve, but you still call them "mate".

For you to suggest my mates aren't really my mate, is disingenuous.
 
Upvote 0