Answering any questions on Evolution

[Herman Hedning]

Do you trust what Darwin had to say on evolution? You do know he wasn't any kind of scientist according to your all's standards these days- he was simply a seminary student! That's all he was, but somehow, every evolutionist believes he was absolutely infallible in his ideas, thoughts, and conclusions! Yet if a seminary student came forward today with a theory that went against good ol' Chuckie Darwin, no one would believe him/her because they "aren't real scientists". It's ironic you can't even see the irony in it all.

In Christ, GB

No, that is not the way it works. We trust (most) of Darwin's ideas because they have been verified again and again by independent research. Or do you really think everyone just puts On the Origin of Species on par with your Bible in terms of infallability? That's just silly.

 

[NailsII]

I don't know what "traditions" you refer to. I believe it as it reads. It clearly specifies a 6 day creation. That's not what my church teaches.

Then your church is wrong.
Open your mind and learn from another source.

The TOE doesn't not allow for any supernatural intervention. That is conflict.

Not true, it doesn't require one - just as well, because there is no ecidence for any such intervention.

The TOE requires that the strong shall live and weak shall die. That is in conflict.

Not true.
Those best adapted to their environment are more likely to have the most offspring, and pass on those advantageous traits.

The TOE says that all life formed on it's own power, based on it's natural properties. That's in conflict.

Again, you are mistaken. Evolution does not speculate on the origin of life.

The TOE teaches that everything is good, and that death is natural. That's in conflict.

Not quite, because good is relative.
Venom is good for snakes, but not good for other animals.

The TOE teaches that error and corruption are healthy and that death of the misfits is the path the righteous must trample on to achieve greatness. That is in conflict with the Biblical message.

It is consistant with the message of a large part of the OT, but it is certainly not healthy.
Whoever told you this needs to look again at the ninth commandment.

When you say there is no conflict, you speak not in Truth. Much worse actually.

When you say there is a conflict, you are mistaken in your opening premise.
Very much so in fact.

Do you trust what Darwin had to say on evolution? You do know he wasn't any kind of scientist according to your all's standards these days- he was simply a seminary student! That's all he was, but somehow, every evolutionist believes he was absolutely infallible in his ideas, thoughts, and conclusions! Yet if a seminary student came forward today with a theory that went against good ol' Chuckie Darwin, no one would believe him/her because they "aren't real scientists". It's ironic you can't even see the irony in it all.

I don't trust in Darwin, becasue he was completely ignorant of a lot of what we know today - such as the mechanism of inheritance.
150 years is a long time in science - and look how far we have come.
The main thing that stands today (for me anyway) from Darwin's work is natural selection.
The idea was not revealed to him, so he could have been wrong in light of new evidence.
Einstein wasn't a 'real scientist' when he wrote his seminal papers in 1905, and that has no bearing on their factual content.
Solar panels owe their existance to it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Then your church is wrong.
Open your mind and learn from another source.

OK, the church of my youth. I have never been a member of any church.

Those best adapted to their environment are more likely to have the most offspring, and pass on those advantageous traits.

In conflict with the scriptures. Those are most likely to not trust in God.

Again, you are mistaken. Evolution does not speculate on the origin of life.

Your argument is with science. I agree with them.
Molecular evolution of aminoacyl tRNA synthetase proteins in the early history of life.

I don't trust in Darwin, becasue he was completely ignorant of a lot of what we know today - such as the mechanism of inheritance.

Likely you don't trust him because he offered no scriptural support for evolution.

Darwin would be the best source for Theistic evolution ideas.....but he had nothing.

 

[USincognito]

I notice your objection is not from a scientific viewpoint but as always Ad-hominem.

"As always"? Yep, just ad homs, except for all these times I've been pointing out that the spontaneous and instantaneous formation of a unicellular organizm is what all these "unpossible" calculations are based on instead of what abiogenesis actually theorizes.

But stick with the narrative slick.

What is wrong with Harold J. Morowitz?

Thanks, I'm aware of his bio. Where did I say there was anything wrong with him? What I said was germane and factually correct.

Morowitz's calculation was a "spontaneously formed" say, bacteria, which isn't what abiogenesis hypothesises happening.

 

[USincognito]

Do you trust what Darwin had to say on evolution?

Oh where to begin... I guess I should just go with bullet points since lenghty explanatory paragraphs don't seem to be your thing.
- You do realize that Darwin was not some sort of scientific Moses, right?
- You do realize that Darwin proposed testable hypotheses and suggested future observations, right?
- You do realize that a lot of study with regard to evolution has occured in the last 150 years, right?
- You do realize that the vast majority of the observations made over those 150 years have continually validated Darwin's hypotheses and predictions, right?
- You do realize that one doesn't have to trust Darwin, one can study the science of evolution that has been conducted over the last 150 years and compare that with Darwin's predictions, right?
- You do realize that all of Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences were predicated on predictions Darwin made, rigth?

Of course you dont. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked such an insipid question.

You do know he wasn't any kind of scientist according to your all's standards these days- he was simply a seminary student!

When John Ankerberg goes on a 3 1/2 year mission as a ships naturalist, get back to me.

That's all he was, but somehow, every evolutionist believes he was absolutely infallible in his ideas, thoughts, and conclusions!

Your hyperbole would amuse me if it weren't so sad.

...good ol' Chuckie Darwin,

Stay classy San Diego.

It's ironic you can't even see the irony in it all.

I'm sure there's some dialogue between Blackadder and Baldrick where I could substitute "irony" for "clever" and it would be entirely appropriate for this comment.

 

[Zaius137]

"As always"? Yep, just ad homs, except for all these times I've been pointing out that the spontaneous and instantaneous formation of a unicellular organizm is what all these "unpossible" calculations are based on instead of what abiogenesis actually theorizes.

But stick with the narrative slick.



Thanks, I'm aware of his bio. Where did I say there was anything wrong with him? What I said was germane and factually correct.

That was Harold’s best estimation… I do not know what you are trying to imply but life had to function the first time and all at once, because all of the necessary components are short lived in nature.

Still no scientific argument.

 

[mkatzwork]

The TOE teaches that error and corruption are healthy and that death of the misfits is the path the righteous must trample on to achieve greatness. That is in conflict with the Biblical message.

I think X-Men and the Elephant Man have a lot to answer for in terms of people thinking the random genetic mutations that we know occur can be considered 'errors' or 'corruptions' and that they somehow create 'misfits' or 'mutants'.

Whilst some genetic mutations can cause conditions/syndromes etc. that are undeniably unpleasant, unbeneficial, and on our emotive level, sad - they are RANDOM.

Mutations in DNA can often be thoroughly healthy or entirely benign and never noticed, but chance plays a big part in that also.

If a genetic mutation occurred in particular skunk, such that he/she was immune to most diseases that skunks face, say; but they got ran over by a truck 3 days after being born - then you see why the TOE is observing the likelihood of the genetic information being passed on.

The notion that the random mutations that necessarily get introduced in the passing of genetic traits from parents to child and so on are frequently not bad. You may well be taking advantage of some right now.

The TOE simply says that organisms that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to have offspring, and therefore more likely to pass on their genetic information, especially any genetic mutation that has beneficial effects directly associated with survival.

If Mr Rabbit gets sick in the wild and has a random genetic mutation that makes him more susceptible to get a particular disease, he is more likely to be preyed upon and less likely to be knocking up Ms Rabbit in the future. Less likely - not excluded, misfit, outcast or whatever other emotive label you care to use - but less likely.

 

[Zaius137]

I think X-Men and the Elephant Man have a lot to answer for in terms of people thinking the random genetic mutations that we know occur can be considered 'errors' or 'corruptions' and that they somehow create 'misfits' or 'mutants'.

Whilst some genetic mutations can cause conditions/syndromes etc. that are undeniably unpleasant, unbeneficial, and on our emotive level, sad - they are RANDOM.

Mutations in DNA can often be thoroughly healthy or entirely benign and never noticed, but chance plays a big part in that also.

If a genetic mutation occurred in particular skunk, such that he/she was immune to most diseases that skunks face, say; but they got ran over by a truck 3 days after being born - then you see why the TOE is observing the likelihood of the genetic information being passed on.

The notion that the random mutations that necessarily get introduced in the passing of genetic traits from parents to child and so on are frequently not bad. You may well be taking advantage of some right now.

The TOE simply says that organisms that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to have offspring, and therefore more likely to pass on their genetic information, especially any genetic mutation that has beneficial effects directly associated with survival.

If Mr Rabbit gets sick in the wild and has a random genetic mutation that makes him more susceptible to get a particular disease, he is more likely to be preyed upon and less likely to be knocking up Ms Rabbit in the future. Less likely - not excluded, misfit, outcast or whatever other emotive label you care to use - but less likely.

These kind of fuzzy explanations are easily dispelled when you look at the details. No matter how fuzzy the description; Evolution faces too many problems that can just be over looked. Common descent between chimps and humans for instance lacks the basic number of mutations needed to support the 5 million year separation. Haldane’s dilemma is still unanswered. Fossil evidence for common descent is lacking. Real speciation is never observed except when the evolutionist redefines a species.


Fuzzy, Fuzzy, Fuzzy.



Even more so than Mr. Rabbit…

 

[Trogool]

Real speciation is never observed except when the evolutionist redefines a species.

You just go right on telling yourself that, Zaius.

Increasing evidence of the role of gene flow in animal evolution: hybrid speciation in the yellow-rumped warbler complex - JACOBSEN - 2011 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

 

[Zaius137]

You just go right on telling yourself that, Zaius.

Increasing evidence of the role of gene flow in animal evolution: hybrid speciation in the yellow-rumped warbler complex - JACOBSEN - 2011 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

You can carry this type of speciation to the extreme and say every offspring of two individuals is a new species and in the case of humans would differ from the parents by 60 mutations… This very thing just proves my point.

 

[Trogool]

You can carry this type of speciation to the extreme and say every offspring of two individuals is a new species and in the case of humans would differ from the parents by 60 mutations… This very thing just proves my point.

*bored*

Except that it demonstrated that you are categorically wrong.

 

[Zaius137]

*bored*

Except that it demonstrated that you are categorically wrong.

Quick question… do you believe in a theistic evolution?

 

[Trogool]

Quick question… do you believe in a theistic evolution?

Of course.

 

[Zaius137]

How do you reconcile the account in Genesis with that belief? God said he made man on the sixth day…

 

[Trogool]

How do you reconcile the account in Genesis with that belief? God said he made man on the sixth day…

Easily. It isn't literal.

 

[Zaius137]

What other books of the Bible are not literal?

 

[Trogool]

What other books of the Bible are not literal?

Books of the Bible that aren't literal? What are you talking about?

 

[Zaius137]

Books of the Bible that aren't literal? What are you talking about?

If you can discount Genesis then where do you draw a line?

You know Jesus quoted Genesis…

 

[Trogool]

If you can discount Genesis then where do you draw a line?

You know Jesus quoted Genesis…

I'm not discounting Genesis. Perhaps you'd like to re-read the thread and see what I actually said?

 

[Zaius137]

I'm not discounting Genesis. Perhaps you'd like to re-read the thread and see what I actually said?

No problem… just curious.