35 year evolution experiment *FAIL*

[Assyrian]

To try to breed flies that develop more quickly.

Is that wise?

Fruit flies that can take over you banana faster than you can eat it...

 

[juvenissun]

To try to breed flies that develop more quickly. Read the OP.

And to see if it changes?
Does that assume a prediction?

I want to breed cows that develop more quickly. Would this project be supported? Why not? Because "I probably would not get anything". Is that a prediction?

Evolution predicts.

 

[Mallon]

And to see if it changes?
Does that assume a prediction?

I want to breed cows that develop more quickly. Would this project be supported? Why not? Because "I probably would not get anything". Is that a prediction?

Evolution predicts.

Like always, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[pastorkevin73]

The answer was in the question - just because the Bible doesn't talk about something doesn't mean that it's not true or existent.

Nice try, but try again.

 

[Cabal]

Nice try, but try again.

Or perhaps you could just accept the obvious point my statement made and not be obtuse about it - or at the very least, justify why evolution simply MUST be supported by the Bible to whatever arbitrary standard it is you're holding, instead of presume that we all have to go along with it

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

No reason to presume that there isn't.



I'm well aware of how illogical creationism is.

This makes me chuckle, when you think of it, everything about God is illogical. The double standards by which TE operates is phenomenal, as it is okay for God to part the seas, walk on water, turn water to wine, yet when it comes to creation He is forced to adhere to rigidly, naturalistic laws and work in conjunction with what our "logic" dictates.

By the way, creationism does not demand God creating all things by blinking them into existence. Yes, let's take one definition and apply it across the board...shall we?

I lament over the fact that this term "creationism" has been stigmatized by those who attempt to rationalize away the super-natural with science, both of which are not compatible with each other. Truthfully, TE's should be considered "creation"-ists as well, as they (along with every other believer) hold to the truth that God created, they just differ in their beliefs as to how.

Creationism can also simply represent other methods or mechanisms of creation God used to create all things, but of which cannot be known or defined by man. And seeing how God consistently acts in the super-natural throughout all of scripture, it is a much more fitting ideal.

 

[gluadys]

This makes me chuckle, when you think of it, everything about God is illogical. The double standards by which TE operates is phenomenal, as it is okay for God to part the seas, walk on water, turn water to wine, yet when it comes to creation He is forced to adhere to rigidly, naturalistic laws and work in conjunction with what our "logic" dictates.

No one forces God to do anything. It is we who are forced, by the evidence God put in creation, to acknowledge how God created. And in the case of living species, the evidence forces us to conclude that God used a method of evolution.

Truthfully, TE's should be considered "creation"-ists as well, as they (along with every other believer) hold to the truth that God created, they just differ in their beliefs as to how.

Quite right. That is why many of us prefer the term "evolutionary creationist" to "theistic evolutionist".

 

[Jig]

And in the case of living species, the evidence forces us to conclude that God used a method of evolution.

And in the case of walking on water, the evidence forces us to conclude that Jesus was walking on a sandbar.

 

[gluadys]

And in the case of walking on water, the evidence forces us to conclude that Jesus was walking on a sandbar.

There is plenty of evidence of evolution.

I have never seen evidence which indicates Jesus was walking on a sandbar. Have you?

 

[Jig]

There is plenty of evidence of evolution.

I have never seen evidence which indicates Jesus was walking on a sandbar. Have you?

No? What about the abundance of evidence saying it is impossible for a human to walk on water?

 

[Assyrian]

No? What about the abundance of evidence saying it is impossible for a human to walk on water?

Are you saying Jesus was just human?

 

[Jig]

Are you saying Jesus was just human?

You obviously weren't following the conversation. Go back and read the last few posts.

 

[Assyrian]

You obviously weren't following the conversation. Go back and read the last few posts.

I have been. There is no scientific evidence Jesus didn't walk on water. There is evidence human beings don't normally do that, but people knew that in the first century too, which is why his followers concluded Jesus wasn't just a normal human being.

 

[Jig]

I have been. There is no scientific evidence Jesus didn't walk on water. There is evidence human beings don't normally do that, but people knew that in the first century too, which is why his followers concluded Jesus wasn't just a normal human being.

There is evidence the Earth couldn't have naturally come to be 7000 years ago, but people knew that in the first century too, which is why early Christians believed in a supernatural creation.

 

[Assyrian]

There is evidence the Earth couldn't have naturally come to be 7000 years ago, but people knew that in the first century too, which is why early Christians believed in a supernatural creation.

The only evidence available to the early church that the earth was more than 4000 years old came from pagan texts with king lists giving much longer chronologies. This wasn't scientific evidence and the Christians did not particularly trust the source. There was also a philosphical argument that matter can't create itself and so must be eternal, ex nihilo nihil fit, noting comes from nothing. Of course the other option is that it was created. But simply being created does not mean it is 4000 years old. There was no scientific evidence back then about the age of the earth, just the two possibilities that matter was either eternal or created at some time. However we now know from scientific evidence how old the earth is and it isn't just 6,000 years old.

 

[Jig]

The only evidence available to the early church that the earth was more than 4000 years old came from pagan texts with king lists giving much longer chronologies. This wasn't scientific evidence and the Christians did not particularly trust the source. There was also a philosphical argument that matter can't create itself and so must be eternal, ex nihilo nihil fit, noting comes from nothing. Of course the other option is that it was created. But simply being created does not mean it is 4000 years old. There was no scientific evidence back then about the age of the earth, just the two possibilities that matter was either eternal or created at some time. However we now know from scientific evidence how old the earth is and it isn't just 6,000 years old.

We know how old the Earth might be if it matured through a natural process. This doesn't matter to me since I believe God created with maturity ingrained (just as we see with Adam). I believe this maturity we see is mixture of supernatural spontaneous creation, natural and supernatural catastrophic events, and natural uniform progression.

Side note: my recent previous comments have been very tongue in cheek. You apparently are too serious.

 

[Assyrian]

We know how old the Earth might be if it matured through a natural process. This doesn't matter to me since I believe God created with maturity ingrained (just as we see with Adam). I believe this maturity we see is mixture of supernatural spontaneous creation, natural and supernatural catastrophic events, and natural uniform progression.

Why would creating life mature involve creating it to look as though it had evolved from a common ancestor? Unless God's idea of maturity is highly evolved, in which case why do creationist have such a problem with evolution? I don't see how you can use global catastrophism to explain the evidence when there isn't any evidence for the global catastrophe. There is no reason either why layers of sedimentary rock laid down over a very short period in a global would show such radically different radiometric date with deeper layers having the older dates, nor is ther evidence the rates of radioactive decay changed over the last few thousand years as creationists claim must have happened. In fact the evidence shows the rates of decay haven't changed significantly over billion of years.

Here is the difference, science has studied the earth and the rock it is made up of, it tells us the earth is billions of years old, it does not tell us Jesus didn't walk on water or rise form the dead. It could only do that by recording what happened as Jesus stepped onto the water or by examining his corpse in the grave and identifying it as Jesus of Nazareth.

Side note: my recent previous comments have been very tongue in cheek. You apparently are too serious.

You have two tongues? Because one of them was definitely blowing a raspberry I realised it was tongue in cheek, but you raised an interesting point because it was an issue the early church actually faced.

 

[Jig]

Why would creating life mature involve creating it to look as though it had evolved from a common ancestor? Unless God's idea of maturity is highly evolved, in which case why do creationist have such a problem with evolution?

I'm sure you saw this rebuttal coming. Homology is not an absolute indication of common ancestry but certainly points to a common designer.

I don't see how you can use global catastrophism to explain the evidence when there isn't any evidence for the global catastrophe.

You mean there is no evidence you can interpret as a global catastrophe (such as the Flood in Genesis) because your philosophical assumptions about how the Earth aged won't allow for it.

There is no reason either why layers of sedimentary rock laid down over a very short period in a global would show such radically different radiometric date with deeper layers having the older dates, nor is ther evidence the rates of radioactive decay changed over the last few thousand years as creationists claim must have happened. In fact the evidence shows the rates of decay haven't changed significantly over billion of years.

You must first assume the Earth had billions of years of actual past history for this radioactive decay to take place. If this time was not available, then another interpretation of the evidence is required.

Here is the difference, science has studied the earth and the rock it is made up of, it tells us the earth is billions of years old, it does not tell us Jesus didn't walk on water or rise form the dead. It could only do that by recording what happened as Jesus stepped onto the water or by examining his corpse in the grave and identifying it as Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes, science is limited in not being able to acknowledge when supernatural events occurred in the unobserved past.

 

[Papias]

Jig, welcome back! Here is a link to that other thread in case it is hard to find. http://www.christianforums.com/t7492626-27/

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

I'm sure you saw this rebuttal coming. Homology is not an absolute indication of common ancestry but certainly points to a common designer.

It isn't the homology that is the issue but the pattern of the homology. It is the difference between descent with modification and design. Descent with modification produces a nested hierarchy as variations branch out and branch again. On the other hand there is absolutely no reason for a designer to produce designs that fit a nested heirarchy. Descent with modification can adapt to different environments, but only by through modified features of the immediate ancestor. Good design will pick and choose the bests parts to fit each environment regardless of where else in the range they are also found. Descent with modification predits the existence of transitional forms, and finds them in the fossil record, when there is absolutely no reason for a designer to have created these transitionals. How could evolution have predicted without seeing the fossils that God had created creatures like homo habilis and australopithecus? It sounds like evolution understands more about the Creator's designs than creationist

You mean there is no evidence you can interpret as a global catastrophe (such as the Flood in Genesis) because your philosophical assumptions about how the Earth aged won't allow for it.

No, simply that there is no evidence indicating a global flood. floods are catastrophic events that leave a trail of destruction debris and sediment behind them. Floods are easy to see in the geological record, but they are all localised, occuring at different places and different strata.

You must first assume the Earth had billions of years of actual past history for this radioactive decay to take place. If this time was not available, then another interpretation of the evidence is required.

No the radioactive decay tells us the earth is billion of years old. In fact before radioactivity was discovered they thought the earth was only a few hundred thousand years old. It was the evidence that told us the earth was billion of years old. However your argument is a good description of the creationist position, you assume the earth is a few thousand years old and try to find another way to explain the evidence, even though there is no basis for the reintepretation. Science simply follows the evidence.

Yes, science is limited in not being able to acknowledge when supernatural events occurred in the unobserved past.

Not quite. Science simply isn't able to explain supernatural event or recognise them as supernatural. But it is perfectly capable of studying the results of a supernatural event. If God created a planet 6,000 years ago science would be able to date the rock to 6,000 ± 50 years ago. If two kinds were created separately science would be able to examine the DNA and show they were completely unrelated. Science wouldn't be able to explain it, but it could say if it was so. If the world was covered by a global flood science would be able to tell you it happened, though not why it happened if God used completely supernatural means. If God used natural means (as the text suggests) then science might even be able to figure that out too. Science just wouldn't be able to say it was God who sent the flood.