Bible and science?

[sfs]

Yeah, none of that actually supports the primary claims of the theory of evolution.

Somehow I doubt you have the deep technical knowledge of these fields needed to judge their value as evidence for common ancestry. But let's see. . .

I think Hawaiian honeycreepers are a nice little piece of evidence for evolution. Honeycreepers are a diverse group of birds (lots of different species, at least 15 different genera) that are native to the Hawaiian islands. Genetically, the birds are all closely related; every honeycreeper is more closely related to all of the other honeycreepers than it is to any other bird species, and they're all closely related to rosefinches. Common ancestry explains this pattern very nicely: one species of finch flew to Hawaii and there diversified into a wide range of species. What's the alternative explanation?

Or this set of genetic data. Why isn't that evidence for evolution?

 

[Justified112]

Somehow I doubt you have the deep technical knowledge of these fields needed to judge their value as evidence for common ancestry. But let's see. . .

I think Hawaiian honeycreepers are a nice little piece of evidence for evolution. Honeycreepers are a diverse group of birds (lots of different species, at least 15 different genera) that are native to the Hawaiian islands. Genetically, the birds are all closely related; every honeycreeper is more closely related to all of the other honeycreepers than it is to any other bird species, and they're all closely related to rosefinches. Common ancestry explains this pattern very nicely: one species of finch flew to Hawaii and there diversified into a wide range of species. What's the alternative explanation?

Or this set of genetic data. Why isn't that evidence for evolution?

That's still microevolution. A particular kind of finch turning into another kind of finch isn't evidence for what I am talking about. That's not the same as the claim of Evolutionists that argue that birds evolved from lizards, or that humans evolved from a common ancestor they share with apes.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's still microevolution. A particular kind of finch turning into another kind of finch isn't evidence for what I am talking about.

No. "Microevolution" is evolution within a species. "Macroevolution" is speciation. The only real difference is, one results in new kinds of organisms, as you said.

That's not the same as the claim of Evolutionists that argue that birds evolved from lizards

If you knew what evolution is, you wouldn't be claiming that "evolutionists" think birds evolved from lizards.

I asked you to tell us what you think the primary claims of evolutionary theory are:

Justified112 said: ↑
Yeah, none of that actually supports the primary claims of the theory of evolution.

I predicted you'd either not answer, or come up with something completely wrong. Is this where you want to leave it?

 

[The Barbarian]

I think Hawaiian honeycreepers are a nice little piece of evidence for evolution. Honeycreepers are a diverse group of birds (lots of different species, at least 15 different genera) that are native to the Hawaiian islands. Genetically, the birds are all closely related; every honeycreeper is more closely related to all of the other honeycreepers than it is to any other bird species, and they're all closely related to rosefinches. Common ancestry explains this pattern very nicely: one species of finch flew to Hawaii and there diversified into a wide range of species. What's the alternative explanation?

You see the same thing in Hawaiian diptera. A huge percent of the world's species of fruit flies are found in Hawaii. Genetic evidence shows that they all evolved from two different species that somehow made it to the Island.

Extended a little, Madagascar has the same thing. As that island separated from Africa before advanced primates evolved, we see all sorts of prosimian analogues of monkeys and apes and sloths. There was even a prosimian "gorilla" there, possibly into historical times.

Australia is an even great example, with marsupial analogues of bats, moles, cats, lions, ungulates, etc. Until humans crossed Wallace's line, no eutherians made it to Australia. (edit: other than bats)

Or this set of genetic data. Why isn't that evidence for evolution?

Brilliant argument. It's like the evidence in transitionals; the most convincing part is, we don't see any transitionals where the theory says there shouldn't be any.

 

[sfs]

That's still microevolution. A particular kind of finch turning into another kind of finch isn't evidence for what I am talking about.

These finches are more different from one another, genetically and morphologically, than humans and chimpanzees. And no, it's very much not microevolution -- that's why I noted that the divergence extends well beyond evolution within a species (which is what "microevolution" means).

That's not the same as the claim of Evolutionists that argue that birds evolved from lizards, or that humans evolved from a common ancestor they share with apes.

Did you skip the link I provided about genetic evidence? That was about human's sharing a common ancestor with (other) apes.

 

[sfs]

By the way, here are beak (top) and tongue (bottom) shapes for some of the Hawaiian honeycreepers. That's a heck of a lot of change for "microevolution".

 

[Justified112]

These finches are more different from one another, genetically and morphologically, than humans and chimpanzees. And no, it's very much not microevolution -- that's why I noted that the divergence extends well beyond evolution within a species (which is what "microevolution" means).

Finches are finches, even if they are different finches. That is not proof of molecules to man Evolution.

Did you skip the link I provided about genetic evidence? That was about human's sharing a common ancestor with (other) apes.

Humans do not share a common ancestor with apes. Man was created by God from the dust of the earth, completely separate from the animal kingdom.

 

[sfs]

Finches are finches, even if they are different finches. That is not proof of molecules to man Evolution.

First, remember what you said: that when asked for evidence of macroevolution, "evolutionists" (which aren't really a thing, by the way) offer up microevolution. What we're talking about here is macroevolution, not microevolution, so your original claim was simply wrong. Do you understand that?
Second, of course they're still finches. They're also still tetrapods, and they're still vertebrates. So what? Humans are still primates and we're still mammals. What this shows is that in a few million years, species can change, and change a lot. That is evidence for evolution.

Humans do not share a common ancestor with apes. Man was created by God from the dust of the earth, completely separate from the animal kingdom.

Did someone just press some kind of auto-response button here? We're talking about whether scientists offer evidence for evolution, not your religious beliefs. I offered you evidence, evidence you claim doesn't exist. Did you read it or not?

Now, if you actually want to deal with the evidence, that would be great. But what I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is that the evidence exists. I'm not asking you to accept evolution -- I'm asking you to stop making blatantly false statements about science and scientists.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, I guess we're not going to get an answer as to what justified thinks are the "primary claims of evolutionary theory."

As predicted.

 

[FEZZILLA]

I have absolutely no problem accepting science and the Bible. My views on YEC harmonize with both science and Scripture. I see no such harmony with OEC or TE.

 

[The Barbarian]

The "life ex nihilo" beliefs of YE creationism are incompatible with scripture. And of course, YE creationism is completely unable to explain the genetic data, transitional fossil data, or observed speciation.

It cannot explain the evidence showing a very old Earth, Radioisotope dating, or ancient structures like the Grand Canyon.

There's more, if you'd like to see more.

 

[trophy33]

Humans do not share a common ancestor with apes. Man was created by God from the dust of the earth, completely separate from the animal kingdom.

Genesis says that animals are of the earth. Therefore, if man is also of the earth, then they have a common ancestor, whatever "the earth" can contain.

The special work of God regarding man is not about his body (which is 99% same as of other animals), but about his self-awareness, connection to God, lets say its about his "spirit".

 

[FEZZILLA]

The "life ex nihilo" beliefs of YE creationism are incompatible with scripture. And of course, YE creationism is completely unable to explain the genetic data, transitional fossil data, or observed speciation.

It cannot explain the evidence showing a very old Earth, Radioisotope dating, or ancient structures like the Grand Canyon.

There's more, if you'd like to see more.

I have a library of YEC books that says otherwise. YEC is a pure Biblical read with no fear of evolutionists. Evolutionists are moral relativists so why should anybody trust analysis from anyone who believes lying is not a sin?

YEC explains everything you mentioned much better than evolutionists. I believe you just need to overcome your fear of evolutionists and look at the other side -- the real science vs. the pseudoscience of evolutionists who reject all Biblical morality.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have a library of YEC books that says otherwise.

They often deny it when called out on it. That's normal behavior...

Creationism affirms that God created all things, including life ex nihilo, meaning out of nothing.
Genesis and Creationism

Creationists have always rested their arguments on the notion that science could not explain the fundamental creation of life ex nihilo.
Science and “The Question”

The Bible is straight forward in Genesis, that God created life ex nihilo.
Evolution – Tarsier Renevelations

Since God created life ex nihilo, He “doesn’t need women to have babies…” but that is the framework mechanism in which He apparently has chosen to work.
And-a one, and-a two, and-a three

He is the sole life giver who has the authority to produce life ex nihilo.
Creation and Christology

YEC is a pure Biblical read with no fear of evolutionists.

YEC is a modern revison of God's word, no older than the last century.

Evolutionists are moral relativists

If you say so, then you believe a lie is O.K. if it's for a "good cause", or you're very, very brainwashed.

so why should anybody trust analysis from anyone who believes lying is not a sin?

Which is why YECs aren't believed by others. In this case, false witness does your beliefs great damage.

YEC explains everything you mentioned much better than evolutionists.

Here's your chance. Show us. I believe you just need to overcome your fear of evolutionists and look at the other side -- the real science vs. the false doctrines of YECs, who reject all Biblical morality. (granted, you guys don't represent all YECs, most of whom will readily admit that "evolutionists" are also ethical people)

 

[FEZZILLA]

They often deny it when called out on it. That's normal behavior...

Creationism affirms that God created all things, including life ex nihilo, meaning out of nothing.
Genesis and Creationism

Creationists have always rested their arguments on the notion that science could not explain the fundamental creation of life ex nihilo.
Science and “The Question”

The Bible is straight forward in Genesis, that God created life ex nihilo.
Evolution – Tarsier Renevelations

Since God created life ex nihilo, He “doesn’t need women to have babies…” but that is the framework mechanism in which He apparently has chosen to work.
And-a one, and-a two, and-a three

He is the sole life giver who has the authority to produce life ex nihilo.
Creation and Christology



YEC is a modern revison of God's word, no older than the last century.



If you say so, then you believe a lie is O.K. if it's for a "good cause", or you're very, very brainwashed.



Which is why YECs aren't believed by others. In this case, false witness does your beliefs great damage.



Here's your chance. Show us. I believe you just need to overcome your fear of evolutionists and look at the other side -- the real science vs. the false doctrines of YECs, who reject all Biblical morality. (granted, you guys don't represent all YECs, most of whom will readily admit that "evolutionists" are also ethical people)

How many official publications of YEC material have you read?

OEC has led many Christians to slowly accept evolution and the flat earth.

YEC is Biblical creationism and the age of the earth is just one out of many issues covered. I personally do not see why God could not have created the earth within the time frame of the Genesis account. I'd rather place my faith in God over the mad rantings of evolutionists who have completely abandoned morality.

Modern science was firmly established by Christian morality. Remove the morality...remove the discipline. That's the full removal of modern science. So do we place our faith in God or do we place our faith in the hollow an empty teachings of men who had no faith in God, but place their faith in themselves. They made themselves into idols, pretending to be the source of knowledge nobody can disagree with without upsetting the gods, that is...mortal men.

 

[The Barbarian]

How many official publications of YEC material have you read?

Acts and Facts (ICR)
Answers Research Journal (Answers in Genesis)
Ex Nihilo (ICR)
Journal of Creation (Creation Ministries International)
Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms (Kurt Wise}
Darwin on Trial (Philip Johnson)
Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study (John Woodmorappe)
ICR Impact (ICR)
Icons of Evolution (Jonathan Wells)

Not a complete list, but this comes to mind.

OEC has led many Christians to slowly accept evolution and the flat earth.

"Evolution and a round earth" is the accurate statement:

Flat-Earth Creationism

Flat-Earth creationism states that the Earth is flat, immobile and the center of the universe. It is covered by a solid, dome-like sky, most likely referring to the second day of creation, when "God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament ... And God called the firmament Heaven" (Genesis 1:7-1:8). The stars, sun and moon are embedded in this rigid dome.
How Creationism Works

YEC is Biblical creationism and the age of the earth is just one out of many issues covered. I personally do not see why God could not have created the earth within the time frame of the Genesis account.

All things are possible with God. However, that does not mean that He has done everything that is possible for Him.

Since the Bible is consistent with evolution, I'd rather place my faith in God over the mad rantings of creationists and flat-earthers, some of whom who have completely abandoned morality.

Modern science was firmly established by Christian morality.

That would be odd, since it was established by pagan Greeks, and Muslims. Only later, did Europeans pick up that system.

Remove the morality...remove the discipline. That's the full removal of modern science.

Remove the morality...remove the discipline. That's the full removal of modern plumbing. I don't think thats science or plumbing is a good way to get one's morals. If your faith in God won't do it, science and plumbing can't help you.

So do we place our faith in God or do we place our faith in the hollow an empty teachings of YECs who had no faith in God, but place their faith in themselves. They made themselves into idols, pretending to be the source of knowledge nobody can disagree with without upsetting the gods, that is...mortal men.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Acts and Facts (ICR)
Answers Research Journal (Answers in Genesis)
Ex Nihilo (ICR)
Journal of Creation (Creation Ministries International)
Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms (Kurt Wise}
Darwin on Trial (Philip Johnson)
Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study (John Woodmorappe)
ICR Impact (ICR)
Icons of Evolution (Jonathan Wells)

Not a complete list, but this comes to mind.

I don't think Philip Johnson was YEC. You also listed books without an author. All books have an author. No book exist online. A book is something considered an official publication. Online books are pseudo-books

"Evolution and a round earth" is the accurate statement:

Flat-Earth Creationism

Flat-Earth creationism states that the Earth is flat, immobile and the center of the universe. It is covered by a solid, dome-like sky, most likely referring to the second day of creation, when "God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament ... And God called the firmament Heaven" (Genesis 1:7-1:8). The stars, sun and moon are embedded in this rigid dome.
How Creationism Works

https://people.howstuffworks.com/creationism1.htm

There is no such thing as flat earth creationism nor is the a legal Institution for such a claim. YEC is a legit research Institution. FE is evolution theory dressed up as creationism. The Flat Earth Society is led by an evolutionist.
Flat earth leader is an evolutionist - creation.com

All things are possible with God. However, that does not mean that He has done everything that is possible for Him.

Since the Bible is consistent with evolution, I'd rather place my faith in God over the mad rantings of creationists and flat-earthers, some of whom who have completely abandoned morality.

How does the Bible support Darwinian evolution? Gen.1:1 says God created...not random chance. Are you saying God is a random force of chance?

Remove the morality...remove the discipline. That's the full removal of modern plumbing. I don't think thats science or plumbing is a good way to get one's morals. If your faith in God won't do it, science and plumbing can't help you.

If there is no morality in science then we've returned to the tyranny of mysticism.

"And if natural Philosophy in all its Parts, by pursuing this Method, shall at length be perfected, the Bounds of Moral Philosophy will also be enlarged. For so far as we can know by natural Philosophy what is the first Cause, what Power he has over us, and what Benefits we receive from him, so far our Duty towards him, as well as that towards one another, will appear to us by the Light of Nature. And no doubt, if the Worship of false Gods had not blinded the Heathen, their moral Philosophy would have gone farther than to the four Cardinal Virtues; and instead of teaching the Transmigration of Souls, and to worship the Sun and Moon, and dead Heroes, they would have taught us to worship our true Author and Benefactor, as their Ancestors did under the Government of Noah and his Sons before they corrupted themselves." ~ Isaac Newton, "Opticks" (closing statement).

So what Newton is saying here is that you have to abide by Christian morality in order to maintain the discipline of modern science. Once that morality is broken its back to paganism again.

So do we place our faith in God or do we place our faith in the hollow an empty teachings of YECs who had no faith in God, but place their faith in themselves. They made themselves into idols, pretending to be the source of knowledge nobody can disagree with without upsetting the gods, that is...mortal men.

I saw a report a couple of days ago that showed how people are leaving the Christian faith in mass droves and churches are closing down in an alarming number. But most of this apostasy, as I have seen, is coming from OEC churches. Meanwhile YEC churches remain strong and apostasy is rare.

I judge a church by how many apostates there are. If the church produces too many apostates then their message saved nobody. Where I live there are church closings everywhere. Now not all closings are for the reason of apostasy. Though most of them are. Not any of the YEC churches have closed.

Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. I truly believe this and live by it. If the church produces bad fruit, there will be a high rate of apostasy. Every OEC friend I have has either become apostate or a flat earther on their way to apostasy. Its all sad but its true.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think Philip Johnson was YEC.

You haven't read Darwin on Trial, have you?

You also listed books without an author. All books have an author. No book exist online. A book is something considered an official publication. Online books are pseudo-books

Those are journals. They have papers from many authors. I cited the publisher of those journals. I thought you knew. Haven't read any of them either, um?

There is no such thing as flat earth creationism

They are are rather common. Would you like me to show you?

nor is the a legal Institution for such a claim. YEC is a legit research Institution.

No. It's a modern religious doctrine, invented in the last century.

How does the Bible support Darwinian evolution?

It's consistent with evolution. As you learned, it's not consistent with YE creationism.

Gen.1:1 says God created...not random chance.

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. Thought you knew.

Are you saying God is a random force of chance?

Hmm...

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skillful: but time and chance in all.

God says that chance is a factor in the world He created, but He doesn't say that chance is all there is. Think about it.

If there is no morality in science then we've returned to the tyranny of mysticism.

There's no morality in plumbing, either. That's not what it's for. If your faith isn't good enough to make you moral, science and plumbing won't help you.

So what Newton is saying here is that you have to abide by Christian morality in order to maintain the discipline of modern science.

Newton also said that Jesus was not God. So there is that to consider.

Once that morality is broken its back to paganism again.

Arianism, actually.

 

[FEZZILLA]

You haven't read Darwin on Trial, have you?



Those are journals. They have papers from many authors. I cited the publisher of those journals. I thought you knew. Haven't read any of them either, um?



They are are rather common. Would you like me to show you?



No. It's a modern religious doctrine, invented in the last century.



It's consistent with evolution. As you learned, it's not consistent with YE creationism.



Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. Thought you knew.



Hmm...

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skillful: but time and chance in all.

God says that chance is a factor in the world He created, but He doesn't say that chance is all there is. Think about it.



There's no morality in plumbing, either. That's not what it's for. If your faith isn't good enough to make you moral, science and plumbing won't help you.



Newton also said that Jesus was not God. So there is that to consider.



Arianism, actually.

I guess if I am to accept your word for it I also have to believe Isaac Newton knew nothing about science.

 

[FEZZILLA]

You haven't read Darwin on Trial, have you?

A long time ago. I remember it was a good read. I still have the book. I have lots of YEC classics. But most of those books are ICR or by AnswersInGenesis authors. I prefer ICR as Henry Morris has many good books on creationism. But like Newton, you have to overlook his Calvinism. Both Newton and Morris on occasion would creep in their Calvinist views. This hurt Morris more than it did Newton, but Morris seldom drifted away into Calvinist views and is one of the very few Christian writers accepted by all denominations. Not many modern authors have achieved such an enjoyed status.