Consider This Article

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually I do.

Just not your kind.

There is no 'my kind' or 'your kind' of science. It's just science. And you just don't like what it tells you.

 

[pitabread]

The public school systems, general education, scientists who push agenda over fact, and pastors who decided to throw aside the book Genesis in order to submit to peer pressure instead of focusing on facts.

Are you suggesting a world-wide global conspiracy of some kind? Because those are always good for a laugh.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no 'my kind' or 'your kind' of science. It's just science. And you just don't like what it tells you.

Then it can take a hike.

I don't respect science that doesn't respect the word of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you suggesting a world-wide global conspiracy of some kind? Because those are always good for a laugh.

You've heard of a one-world government coming?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then it can take a hike.

I don't respect science that doesn't respect the word of God.

No, science respects God. It just doesn't respect your idol, the Bible.

 

[Strathos]

Then it can take a hike.

I don't respect science that doesn't respect the word of God.

Then you shouldn't respect heliocentrism or the earth being round, because those both contradict super-literal interpretations of the Bible.

 

[Invalidusername]

Are you suggesting a world-wide global conspiracy of some kind? Because those are always good for a laugh.

You know the devil exists don't you?

 

[Invalidusername]

Then you shouldn't respect heliocentrism or the earth being round, because those both contradict super-literal interpretations of the Bible.

Actually that's incorrect.

 

[Strathos]

Actually that's incorrect.

Not really. They may not contradict your interpretation or mine, but they certainly contradict many people's. Should I point you to all of the flat earthers we've had on this board?

 

[Invalidusername]

Not really. They may not contradict your interpretation or mine, but they certainly contradict many people's. Should I point you to all of the flat earthers we've had on this board?

Sure. I'm guessing we've had 1 or 2 flat eathers. I also know people who don't believe in the bible who believe in the flat earth. I would like you to quote me scripture that actually says the earth is flat.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you shouldn't respect heliocentrism or the earth being round, because those both contradict super-literal interpretations of the Bible.

Maybe instead, you should learn to respect figures of speech.

Psalm 91:4a He shall cover thee with his feathers,

A 'super-literal' interpretation says YES.

But as literal as I am with the word of God, I don't think even you would say I believe God has feathers.

 

[pitabread]

You know the devil exists don't you?

Like I said, it's good for a laugh.

 

[Strathos]

Sure. I'm guessing we've had 1 or 2 flat eathers. I also know people who don't believe in the bible who believe in the flat earth. I would like you to quote me scripture that actually says the earth is flat.

We've had more than that in just single threads.

Obviously I don't believe that scripture says the earth is flat, but many people do. Look at this blog, for instance:

Philip Stallings: The Biblical Flat Earth: The Teaching From Scripture

Maybe instead, you should learn to respect figures of speech.

Psalm 91:4a He shall cover thee with his feathers,

A 'super-literal' interpretation says YES.

But as literal as I am with the word of God, I don't think even you would say I believe God has feathers.

Exactly. Now apply that same reasoning to a literal 6-day creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. Now apply that same reasoning to a literal 6-day creation.

I would if I thought God started His autobiography off with a figure of speech; but the way Genesis 1 is written tells me it is literal.

For one thing, Genesis 1 would be one LONG figure of speech.

Too long, in my opinion.

For another, it uses ordinal numbers and specific terminology.

For another, the Bible always alerts the reader to something that isn't literal, and Genesis 1 has no references to it as being anything other that literal.

In the beginning. ≠ Once upon a time.

 

[bhsmte]

I hate to tell you but you've been brainwashed. I pity you.

Irony.

 

[Strathos]

I would if I thought God started His autobiography off with a figure of speech; but the way Genesis 1 is written tells me it is literal.

For one thing, Genesis 1 would be one LONG figure of speech.

Too long, in my opinion.

For another, it uses ordinal numbers and specific terminology.

For another, the Bible always alerts the reader to something that isn't literal, and Genesis 1 has no references to it as being anything other that literal.

In the beginning. ≠ Once upon a time.

Or maybe it's a history told with many figures of speech, in a way meant to convey spiritual truths rather than scientific accuracy?

 

[sfs]

So would anyone like to defend the conclusions of the article cited in the OP?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Ken Snow: As soon as you read "Darwin’s ‘Theory Of Evolution’" in a title you can suspect that it is probably a crank web page.
It the Theory of Evolution (no quotes). It is not "Darwin's" theory, it is the expanded theory formed by thousands of scientists. Darwin is important as the originator of the basis of the theory of evolution. That this is an ignorant crank page is obvious when we read "already-rotting coffin", etc. Followed by ET fantasies!

There is no "every single creature appears to have appeared all at once". The physical evidence is still that all creatures appeared over a period of billions of years and the current species appeared over a period of millions of years. The paper is that many species like human beings have mitochondrial uniformity during the last 200,00 years. That suggests a genetic bottleneck. Maybe the same conditions that reduced humans to a small population around that time, reduced other species to small populations.

You need to find a rational source like a biologist analyzing the paper.

ETA: A biologist writes about writing science articles using that paper and a bad article as an example.
Writing synopses of science articles is hard

Take this article in TechTimes, Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time. The title alone is creationist clickbait, and the author of the story clearly didn’t understand the article at all. She gets it all wrong.
...
It’s a bit like reading a statement that almost all people are less than 100 years old, and then wondering, publicly and in print, about what happened in 1918 to cause every human being on Earth to have been suddenly born in that year. That must have been some orgy to celebrate the end of the Great War.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No it doesn't at all.

Yes it does.

Here are some other "just" theories:
- atoms
- germs
- plate tectonics
- relativity
- …

You are just the blind who believe in every little piece of misinformation out there that goes in the direction of evolution. But none of it proves evolution.

No scientific theory is ever considered proven.
Learn how science works and what the jargon means. It will prevent you from saying such foolish things.

You want to know that God made things according to his semblance? That the fundamental nature of life is built up in Christ? The rainbow is the sign for the manifold wisdom of God in all its creation. The fact that life is similar to itself is NO premise for evolution but is rather the fingerprints of God and we are the top of the complexity order in the seamless transition of life that God has made. The seamlessness of the rainbow testifies to the immutable nature of creation that all of it works together and this is spiritually discerned but you will have none of it because you will not ask God for help when you know you need it. God is able to show you. Just tell me why it was that Christ wore a seamless tunic? What is the reason that he wore something without seams? This very thing points to the immutable seamless creation and you want to say that because life has no seams then it must have happened all by itself! When that very reason you make for evolution is the very pointing of the glory of God!

God made life seamless.

Preaching

 

[RealityCheck01]

And sadly the media and the scientific community will ignore this

That is wrong - the paper is was peer reviewed, published and the scientific community has read it. Some "media" basically lied about the paper which is not abut any problems with evolution. The paper is an analysis of how evolution produced new DNA variability within species during the last 200,00o years.

The physical fact is that GENDER is a spectrum.

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.[1][2][3] People who do not identify as men or women or with masculine or feminine gender pronouns are often grouped under the umbrella terms non-binary or genderqueer. Some cultures have specific gender roles that are distinct from "man" and "woman," such as the hijras of South Asia. These are often referred to as third genders.

You end with a couple of obvious errors. You need to learn about biology and evolution.
Most mutations are neutral. Mutations can produce new information or remove information. Selection and other mechanisms tend to select beneficial mutations thus DNA tends to gain information (you have about 100 mutations when compared to your parents).
Claim CB102: Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.

1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve.

Evolution has never been "proved" wrong even once. Over the last couple of centuries the evidence has increasingly supported evolution.
Theory of evolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent