Answering Key Issues Against the Theory of Darwinian Evolution

[Job 33:6]

And @Deborah D if you would like me to point out more contradictions in their works, feel free to ask.

If not, at the very least, just be aware that such sources should be viewed with skepticism, rather than sort of...initially assumed as correct.

All the best with your sleep schedule. With love and peace.

 

[Job 33:6]

I should also note that the person who wrote the article of discussion, she is not a biologist. She appears to be some sort of medical doctor.

Number of Estimated Species Reaches 8.7 Million
Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell

https://health.usnews.com/doctors/elizabeth-mitchell-866201

Looks like she works in OB/GYN, so im sure she is the woman to speak to if you are in labor. She is probably very intelligent and may even be a nice person. But she's probably not the best person to discuss taxonomy with, and especially not prehistoric taxonomy as it pertains to paleontology and geology.

 

[Deborah D]

The thing about AIG is, they regularly contradict themselves. And it isn't just here. I've read their geology and paleo articles on a handful of occasions and they consistently state information that is contradictory. I have emailed them as well, and they never address me.

Other scientists here on these forums can vouch. This isn't shocking to us, rather it is commonly known that AIG doesn't have the most technically correct information (to put it lightly). And while you are tired of people criticizing AIG, I am tired of AIG misleading our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, who aren't always familiar with the subject matter.

I am sorry if this bothers you, but in my opinion, AIG is scientifically dishonest.

This results in people consistently repeating the same contradictory information without understanding it. Sometimes AIG even criticizes our work as geologists in dishonest ways. Which on occasion we might put down our rock collections for 2 seconds and may respond.

This is why I came down a bit hard on this one, because, this isn't the first time AIG has been quoted in a scenario in which the quote doesn't make sense.

and you don't have to trust or accept my opinion.

Some people deny that the moon landings happened, unfortunately. Just the same, some people deny things like plate tectonics. But we will keep advancing none the less, despite the presence of deniers and nay sayers.

It would have been helpful to me if you had explained all of this when AIG was first mentioned. I'm a stickler for detail and getting things right (when my brain allows), and I think that creationists need to get it right. Since English is my area of expertise, I try not to cringe too much when I see all of the bad grammar and problems with punctuation on a forum.... Imagine if I implied that you were ignorant because your grammar was incorrect. I'm tempted to do that when people put me down, but I restrain myself because put downs get in the way of having a good discussion.

 

[Deborah D]

Thanks, blessings to you too!

 

[Deborah D]

And @Deborah D if you would like me to point out more contradictions in their works, feel free to ask.

If not, at the very least, just be aware that such sources should be viewed with skepticism, rather than sort of...initially assumed as correct.

All the best with your sleep schedule. With love and peace.

Koma..., I've been thinking about what you said about AIG. The only insight I have to offer is that everyone gets things wrong sometimes. Maybe, they have, but like we've established, I'm not a scientist. Who am I to judge one way or the other when it comes to manmade systems such as the taxonomy where there's so much disagreement even among scientists.

What matters the most to me is that AIG gets it right about the origin of the universe. They rightly agree with God's Word. They may miss a few "trees" along the way, but they see the "forest" for what God said it is--His creation. However, evolutionists can't see the forest for the trees. They miss the big picture of God's awesome creation because they can't (or won't) believe the supernatural miracle of creation.

So many arenas of society have been tainted by evolutionist lies. When I was growing up, doctors routinely removed patients' tonsils and appendixes, believing the lie that they were merely leftovers from evolution. How many died at the hands of these well meaning physicians who didn't even question whether these "vestigial" organs should be removed? Now, we know! God made these organs for a reason; they serve a purpose in the human body!

How many young children have been lied to by science teachers who didn't question the deliberate hoaxes in the textbooks? I remember Piltdown Man, Java Man, and Neanderthal Man (to name a few)! It's my understanding that Haechel's fallacious embryo drawings are still included in some science textbooks today. I remember the sole explanation for the Grand Canyon's formation as the Colorado River slowly cutting through the layers over millions and millions of years. However, Mount St. Helens has clearly shown that it could have happened quickly, but my science teachers didn't even consider that as a possibility because it didn't fit the millions and millions of years required by Darwinian evolution.

How many children have turned away from God because the scientific explanations (complete with all the official-sounding jargon) convinced them that the Bible couldn't possibly be true??? Evolution, or "goo to you," or Darwinism, or whatever you want to call it, is one of the most harmful lies in the history of mankind. And it isn't the creationists who are promoting this lie.

Recently, I read about the possibility of volcanic activity in the Northeast. Based on the assumption that the earth is millions of years old, scientists are saying that any possible eruption is a long way off. BUT what if that assumption is wrong! (Oh my, I can't be suggesting such a stupid and ignorant idea!)

Assumptions and lies, big ones, are the foundation of this devilish idea long ago dreamed up by foolish men who rejected God as their Creator! I earnestly pray for all Christians and for all the lost souls who are fooled by this fallacy of fallacies masquerading as science. May God take the blinders off their eyes!

For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.
(Romans 1:18-20, HCSB)​

 

[Job 33:6]

Koma..., I've been thinking about what you said about AIG. The only insight I have to offer is that everyone gets things wrong sometimes. Maybe, they have, but like we've established, I'm not a scientist. Who am I to judge one way or the other when it comes to manmade systems such as the taxonomy where there's so much disagreement even among scientists.

What matters the most to me is that AIG gets it right about the origin of the universe. They rightly agree with God's Word. They may miss a few "trees" along the way, but they see the "forest" for what God said it is--His creation. However, evolutionists can't see the forest for the trees. They miss the big picture of God's awesome creation because they can't (or won't) believe the supernatural miracle of creation.

So many arenas of society have been tainted by evolutionist lies. When I was growing up, doctors routinely removed patients' tonsils and appendixes, believing the lie that they were merely leftovers from evolution. How many died at the hands of these well meaning physicians who didn't even question whether these "vestigial" organs should be removed? Now, we know! God made these organs for a reason; they serve a purpose in the human body!

How many young children have been lied to by science teachers who didn't question the deliberate hoaxes in the textbooks? I remember Piltdown Man, Java Man, and Neanderthal Man (to name a few)! It's my understanding that Haechel's fallacious embryo drawings are still included in some science textbooks today. I remember the sole explanation for the Grand Canyon's formation as the Colorado River slowly cutting through the layers over millions and millions of years. However, Mount St. Helens has clearly shown that it could have happened quickly, but my science teachers didn't even consider that as a possibility because it didn't fit the millions and millions of years required by Darwinian evolution.

How many children have turned away from God because the scientific explanations (complete with all the official-sounding jargon) convinced them that the Bible couldn't possibly be true??? Evolution, or "goo to you," or Darwinism, or whatever you want to call it, is one of the most harmful lies in the history of mankind. And it isn't the creationists who are promoting this lie.

Recently, I read about the possibility of volcanic activity in the Northeast. Based on the assumption that the earth is millions of years old, scientists are saying that any possible eruption is a long way off. BUT what if that assumption is wrong! (Oh my, I can't be suggesting such a stupid and ignorant idea!)

Assumptions and lies, big ones, are the foundation of this devilish idea long ago dreamed up by foolish men who rejected God as their Creator! I earnestly pray for all Christians and for all the lost souls who are fooled by this fallacy of fallacies masquerading as science. May God take the blinders off their eyes!

For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.
(Romans 1:18-20, HCSB)​

Would you like a technical response?

If not, then it is fine that you have your opinions. Thanks for sharing.

All the best,

 

[Deborah D]

Would you like a technical response?

If not, then it is fine that you have your opinions. Thanks for sharing.

All the best,

If AIG has presented contradictory information concerning the taxonomy, it's of no eternal consequence. But if you're rejecting the truth about something so basic as how God created the universe, this is serious. Do you not see this? I urge you to seek God about this, and I'm praying for you.

 

[Job 33:6]

If AIG has presented contradictory information concerning the taxonomy, it's of no eternal consequence. But if you're rejecting the truth about something so basic as how God created the universe, this is serious. Do you not see this? I urge you to seek God about this, and I'm praying for you.

If you can't discern whether or not AIG is providing truthful information, then you shouldn't be quoting them. And no I'm not rejecting God as creator of the universe.

 

[Deborah D]

If you can't discern whether or not AIG is providing truthful information, then you shouldn't be quoting them. And no I'm not rejecting God as creator of the universe.

I quoted 2 AIG articles to show what they have said about the taxa and how they view the taxonomy in general. Obviously, they don’t view the classifications as evolutionists do, but you can’t seem to accept that there are different ways to view the classifications even though evolutionists have made changes to the overall classification system based on their belief in evolution.

Plus, I didn’t say that you were rejecting God as the Creator. Read what I actually said!

 

[Job 33:6]

But if you're rejecting the truth about something so basic as how God created the universe, this is serious.

Why would you say the above if not to imply that I reject God?

 

[Deborah D]

But if you're rejecting the truth about something so basic as how God created the universe, this is serious.

Why would you say the above if not to imply that I reject God?

Rejecting the truth about HOW God created the universe is NOT the same thing as rejecting God in general. It was not my intent to imply that. I know that some born-again Christians have been fooled by evolutionist rhetoric. Perhaps, at some point, Billy Graham was fooled by it as sfs has alleged. But I would't say or imply that Graham rejected God!

 

[Job 33:6]

Rejecting the truth about HOW God created the universe is NOT the same thing as rejecting God in general. It was not my intent to imply that. I know that some born-again Christians have been fooled by evolutionist rhetoric. Perhaps, at some point, Billy Graham was fooled by it as sfs has alleged. But I would't say or imply that Graham rejected God!

?

I asked if you wanted a technical response and you randomly brought up rejection of God creating the universe. I have no idea why you're bringing this up.

All I did was ask if you wanted a technical response. If not, that's fine. You're welcome to your opinion.

 

[Deborah D]

?

I asked if you wanted a technical response and you randomly brought up rejection of God creating the universe. I have no idea why you're bringing this up.

All I did was ask if you wanted a technical response. If not, that's fine. You're welcome to your opinion.

Actually, I explained why a technical response is not necessary because AIG (and some other creationists, for that matter) look at the taxonomy from a biblical perspective. I agree with them about this.

I brought up rejecting the biblical account of creation because I think it's a big deal when Christians do this. If the Bible doesn't get it right about something so basic as how the universe came to be, then how can we trust that anything in the Bible is right or true? Do you see why this is so important?

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually, I explained why a technical response is not necessary because AIG (and some other creationists, for that matter) look at the taxonomy from a biblical perspective. I agree with them about this.

I brought up rejecting the biblical account of creation because I think it's a big deal when Christians do this. If the Bible doesn't get it right about something so basic as how the universe came to be, then how can we trust that anything in the Bible is right or true? Do you see why this is so important?

Nobody was talking about the origins of the universe. It seems random that you've brought it up. It's not a topic that I'm particularly interested in, not that there is anything wrong with the topic though.

And if you aren't interested in my opinion on aigs works, then I'll just be on my way.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, you can't reply to what I wrote; you have to put me down because I copied and pasted a portion of an article from AIG's website. That's a weak argument, wouldn't you say?

AIG lost all their credibility when they edited the words of two astronomers to make it appear that they believed things they did not.

They will lie to you, if they think they can get away with it.

 

[Deborah D]

AIG lost all their credibility when they edited the words of two astronomers to make it appear that they believed things they did not.

They will lie to you, if they think they can get away with it.

Hi, Bar, how you doing? I hadn't talked to you in a while.

I hadn't heard about AIG misrepresenting what some astronomers said. If AIG did this, of course, they shouldn't have. But that doesn't even compare with all the lying evolutionists have done. So, if you're concerned about telling the the truth, then perhaps you should rethink associating with evolutionists. Just saying.

 

[The Barbarian]

I hadn't heard about AIG misrepresenting what some astronomers said. If AIG did this, of course, they shouldn't have. But that doesn't even compare with all the lying evolutionists have done.

Scientists don't usually lie, because if they report a finding that can't be reproduced, it's usually the end of their careers. There are some examples, but they never turn out well for the scientist involved. I can't think of one world-class biologist who has done so.

So, if you're concerned about telling the the truth, then perhaps you should rethink associating with evolutionists.

Can you think of something as egregious as that which AIG has done? Me neither.

 

[Deborah D]

Scientists don't usually lie, because if they report a finding that can't be reproduced, it's usually the end of their careers. There are some examples, but they never turn out well for the scientist involved. I can't think of one world-class biologist who has done so.



Can you think of something as egregious as that which AIG has done? Me neither.

I'm doing fine. Thanks for asking. Actually, there's a pesky hurricane in my state, but not to worry. God is protecting me and my family.

So, scientists don't lie??? How about the prominent scientist who said that science is his savior? That’s almost as egregious as it gets.

 

[loveofourlord]

For me this does not make sense. For nearly 3 billion years we have microorganisms who are way more sucessful at surviving than multicelled life. Then multicelled life which is less viable evolves shells to defend themselves from other soft bodied creatures that dont really pose a problem. The idea that new forms are always evolved through preditation and natural selection doesn't stand up.

less viable? Funny how many single celled organism eitehr get bigger such as Gromia sphaerica which I think could be a possible precursor to multicelluar, and whose ancestors may have left some of the oldest trace fossils, to certain algae, bacteria and other single celled organisms that form colonies and such in response to predation as they are too big for other single celled organisms to attack easily.

 

[loveofourlord]

This is a huge problem for creationists, who say that wolves,dogs, foxes, etc. all came from a "dog kind." But there is far more genetic variation between canids than there is between humans and chimpanzees. So it's a rock and a hard place for them.

Also creationists like to talk about evolution can't create new features, but between humans and other apes what are the massive differences? most of the bigger changes are just modifying how existing features are, like limb shape and size and such, others are changing proteins that exist, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't little to no new proteins and such that were modified.