Does learning about evolution make you uncomfortable?

[loveofourlord]

Wolves were bred to be dogs though.

might want to look up creationist ideas, it's how they explain all the species getting on the ark, they only took kinds, AKA 1 dog, so the original dog kind evolved into all other canines.

Either way the european is a better analogy, the ancestral group doesn't have to go extinct for the descendants to become something different. There is no goal in evolution, so there is no reason for all moinkeys to evolve into apes, and then humans. And wolves were likly not bred into dogs, it was probably some type of co-evolution where they domesticated us as much as them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wolves were bred to be dogs though.

The last I heard they are considered two different species.

Did dogs really evolve from wolves? New evidence suggests otherwise.

Evolution of facial muscle anatomy in dogs

 

[LoricaLady]

The last I heard they are considered two different species.

Did dogs really evolve from wolves? New evidence suggests otherwise.

Evolution of facial muscle anatomy in dogs

I agree with your general stance but dogs and wolves are the same species and interbreed freely.

Btw in nature I believe "kinds" in the Bible refers to the taxonomic grouping called families.
And as opposed to what we are told happened by Darwin and evolutionary peer reviews - about the invisible, undocumented and unverifiable misty, murky past - we never see any life forms moving beyond the level of a new species into a new taxonomic family. Cats' and lions' offspring etc. stay in the same Felidae family. Dogs' and wolves' and coyotes' offspring stay in the same taxonomic family Canis, and so on. We never see new families "evolving" to become different families, much less any new developing/"evolving" genus, family, order, phylum or kingdom. This matches what the Bible says about creation now being halted.

In real time we see hundreds of species of beetles staying beetles, thousands and thousands of species of bees, fleas, trees, geckos, fish, birds, bacteria, etc. etc. changing and changing. But! They stay bees, fleas, trees, geckos, fish, birds, bacteria, etc. etc. Just like apes stay apes and people stay people. Every time. No matter how much they change.

In fossil time they can point to some fossil and say new families, new phyla and so on were developed but that is not supported by any data whatsoever. They point to a fossil but they cannot point to a descendant that was in any way significantly different from it. In fact they can't show any life form was a descendant of any other life form at all. They rely, as always, on the Presuming Omniscience and Correlation Does Not Imply Correlation logical fallacies and present faith as fact by saying, "See! Fossil A has some similarities to Fossil B and C" Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy "And even though we can't show any descendants changing for Fossil A we are going to tell you as gawd's truth scientific fact that Fossil A turned into B and C and eventually into you!" Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. But all of evolutionism is built on logical fallacies, not just those two.

The real evidence staring them in the face, that bees are staying bees, dogs are staying dogs, tulips are staying tulips etc. etc. is considered irrelevant. In evolutionism theories, "must have...could have...likely...probably...millions of evidence-free years ago...." logical fallacies and speculations are what count.

Most people can't tell logical fallacies from a hole in the ground - like myself in the past. My experience has been that when these are pointed out to evolution believers that they don't take them seriously and just ignore them. But science, to be real science, must be logical. Pseudo science is always illogical.

 

[LoricaLady]

P.S. I will demonstrate how in evolutionism theories, with no evidence, are believed over actual scientific data, with the darling of evolutionism, Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins teaches that everything comes from nothing. This defies common sense and universal experience, not to mention the laws of physics and thermodynamics. Again, in evolutionism you ignore actual data and make up stories from the unverifiable and conveniently invisible past. Here is another example of that approach...

Richard Dawkins also teaches that you came from bacteria. Link this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mhX2Kas558 Now we have a world overflowing with data on bacteria. It has been observed since 1670, ancient fossilized examples have been found, and for centuries it has been studied around the clock, around the world. What does the data show - you know, data, what real science uses? it shows that no matter how much bacteria change, they stay bacteria in their bacterial domain.

Where is the data showing that you came from bacteria, then? Well, it doesn't exist. Yet you are led to believe it does exist, and is gawd's truth scientific fact. But hey, if you are willing to believe everything came from nothing, I guess you'll buy it that you're nothing but a bacteria update, too.

On this web page you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, and other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. These Quotes Reveal The Credulity Of Evolutionists

 

[Speedwell]

P.S. I will demonstrate how in evolutionism theories, with no evidence, are believed over actual scientific data, with the darling of evolutionism, Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins teaches that everything comes from nothing. This defies common sense and universal experience, not to mention the laws of physics and thermodynamics. Again, in evolutionism you ignore actual data and make up stories from the unverifiable and conveniently invisible past. Here is another example of that approach...

Really? But what does that have to do with biological evolution?

Richard Dawkins also teaches that you came from bacteria. Link this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mhX2Kas558 Now we have a world overflowing with data on bacteria. It has been observed since 1670, ancient fossilized examples have been found, and for centuries it has been studied around the clock, around the world. What does the data show - you know, data, what real science uses? it shows that no matter how much bacteria change, they stay bacteria in their bacterial domain.

Where is the data showing that you came from bacteria, then? Well, it doesn't exist. Yet you are led to believe it does exist, and is gawd's truth scientific fact. But hey, if you are willing to believe everything came from nothing, I guess you'll buy it that you're nothing but a bacteria update, too.

Haven't we dealt with this already?

On this web page you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, and other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. These Quotes Reveal The Credulity Of Evolutionists

Ah, a quote mine. Are you selling shares?[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[LoricaLady]

"Let those see who have eyes to see."

 

[LoricaLady]

Really? But what does that have to do with biological evolution?

Haven't we dealt with this already?

Ah, a quote mine. Are you selling shares?

Can you give me some observable scientific data to show you are a bacterial update as Richard Dawkins claims? The use of Presuming Omniscience and Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and other appeals to what is invisible, untestable and unverifiable, will not be considered observable, scientific data.

I've got evidence! Bacteria always stay bacteria in their bacterial domain. Every time.

 

[Speedwell]

Can you give me some observable scientific data to show you are a bacterial update as Richard Dawkins claims? The use of Presuming Omniscience and Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and other appeals to what is invisible, untestable and unverifiable, will not be considered observable, scientific data.

I've got evidence! Bacteria always stay bacteria in their bacterial domain. Every time.

Except way back, when some of them developed enclosed nuclei and became eukaryotes and formed a new domain.

 

[LoricaLady]

Except way back, when some of them developed enclosed nuclei and became eukaryotes and formed a new domain.

"Way back?" You mean in the purely theoretical, invisible, untestable and unverifiable misty, murky, past? I asked for data, Speedwell, not dodges.

 

[loveofourlord]

The last I heard they are considered two different species.

Did dogs really evolve from wolves? New evidence suggests otherwise.

Evolution of facial muscle anatomy in dogs

given that dogs can breed with wolves, it's a given they have some kind of common ancestry most likly with each other.

 

[LoricaLady]

Except way back, when some of them developed enclosed nuclei and became eukaryotes and formed a new domain.

P.S. I also did ask you to not use the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Again, real science is real logical and presents data. Pseudo science relies on logical fallacies and speculation presented as facts.

 

[Speedwell]

"Way back?" You mean in the purely theoretical, invisible, untestable and unverifiable misty, murky, past? I asked for data, Speedwell, not dodges.

There is some, having to do with gene sequences, but I'm not a biologist and am not the one to explain it to you.

What am I dodging?

 

[Speedwell]

P.S. I also did ask you to not use the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Again, real science is real logical and presents data. Pseudo science relies on logical fallacies and speculation presented as facts.

I'm not presuming omniscience. I'm just telling you as I understand it. It's necessary to make a claim in order to be guilty of that fallacy.

 

[April_Rose]

given that dogs can breed with wolves, it's a given they have some kind of common ancestry most likly with each other.

Thanks for pointing this out as I was literally going to say something like this.

 

[LoricaLady]

I'm not presuming omniscience. I'm just telling you as I understand it. It's necessary to make a claim in order to be guilty of that fallacy.

If your claim is just a claim about the past, and has no supporting data, then yes you are surely committing that fallacy. Study the logical fallacies. If you get to the point where you truly understand them and reject them, you will reject evolutionism because it is built on them.

But there is also common sense. If observable scientific data shows that bacteria stay bacteria in their bacteria domain with no exceptions whatever on that no matter how they may change, and evolutionary theory says no, they turned into you, with no data whatsoever to back that up, what is evolution showing? It is showing (and this is constantly true) that it is pseudo science with an agenda to support its narrative. It just makes sense what is science and what is not.

Because evolutioinism is constantly presenting theories that defy actual evidence, as facts, and is based on .... faith ... in something that happened in the invisible and unverifiable past instead, that is why creationism considers it to be a religion. And btw Richard Dawkins is one of its high priests.

My experience - from my own self innumerable times - is that people frequently can't see the obvious. I believe that it often takes the Holy Spirit to see the obvious. I have prayed He will open your eyes to see the obvious and that you reject people like Richard Dawkins who lead you away from The Father of Mercies.

I no way expect you to now say "Oh I see the Light." But with time, if you really love the truth, He will lead you to see it clearly.

 

[LoricaLady]

There is some, having to do with gene sequences, but I'm not a biologist and am not the one to explain it to you.

What am I dodging?

Their "gene sequences" is just another example of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. "Look! We see some similarities here and there under our microscope. Ignore all the actual evidence out there that dogs are staying dogs, mold is staying mold, mollusks are staying mollusks and so on and on. Ignore that nothing is seen to move out of its taxonomic family. We are going to tell you based on some minutia and sophistry, with Presuming Omniscience, all about what happened in the past to prove that you are nothing but a bacterial, or ape type, or whatever, update."

Religion based on faith, not evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

If your claim is just a claim about the past, and has no supporting data, then yes you are surely committing that fallacy. Study the logical fallacies. If you get to the point where you truly understand them and reject them, you will reject evolutionism because it is built on them.

But there is also common sense. If observable scientific data shows that bacteria stay bacteria in their bacteria domain with no exceptions whatever on that no matter how they may change, and evolutionary theory says no, they turned into you, with no data whatsoever to back that up, what is evolution showing? It is showing (and this is constantly true) that it is pseudo science with an agenda to support its narrative. It just makes sense what is science and what is not.

Strictly speaking, the theory does not require that bacteria change into anything else. At some point, a sub-population of prokaryotes developed enclosed cell nuclei and formed the eukaryotic domain. Since then the prokaryotes and the eukaryotes have remained in their respective domains. Why would you expect anything different? Notice that I am not claiming anything. That's just the theory as I understand it. It seems plausible and it might even be true but, as you point out, it was a long time ago and scientific theories are only ever accepted provisionally anyway.

Because evolutioinism is constantly presenting theories that defy actual evidence, as facts, and is based on .... faith ... in something that happened in the invisible and unverifiable past instead, that is why creationism considers it to be a religion. And btw Richard Dawkins is one of its high priests.

My experience - from my own self innumerable times - is that people frequently can't see the obvious. I believe that it often takes the Holy Spirit to see the obvious. I have prayed He will open your eyes to see the obvious and that you reject people like Richard Dawkins who lead you away from The Father of Mercies.

I no way expect you to now say "Oh I see the Light." But with time, if you really love the truth, He will lead you to see it clearly.

Thanks, but don't feel obliged to pray for me. I've got Jesus and don't need your magical interpretation of Scripture.

 

[April_Rose]

One other quick thing that I was going to point out is that I believe both monkeys and humans were created even though I also believe that God set evolution in place. However, although I believe that dogs were a part of God's plan, the animals themselves are completely man-made since they wouldn't exist without human breeding. Just like I do believe the domestic house cat comes from the African Wildcat. Nobody bred monkeys to be humans, they just share common similarities.

 

[LoricaLady]

Strictly speaking, the theory does not require that bacteria change into anything else. At some point, a sub-population of prokaryotes developed enclosed cell nuclei and formed the eukaryotic domain. Since then the prokaryotes and the eukaryotes have remained in their respective domains. Why would you expect anything different? Notice that I am not claiming anything. That's just the theory as I understand it. It seems plausible and it might even be true but, as you point out, it was a long time ago and scientific theories are only ever accepted provisionally anyway.

Thanks, but don't feel obliged to pray for me. I've got Jesus and don't need your magical interpretation of Scripture.

Too late. I already did pray for you.

"That's just theory...I am not claiming anything...It seems plausible...." That is exactly how evolution works. Ignore the real data, even defy it, and give a bunch of logical fallacies and data-free theories to replace the actual facts with "plausible...maybe....probably....could be....we infer....millions and millions of data free and totally unverifiable years ago....."

Again, there actually is real, observable, data. Bacteria stay bacteria in their bacterial domain. There is no evidence whatsoever that, as Dawkins claims, they turned into you. Friend, it is his religion that is based on the "magical". And notice how often, how very, very often, his and others' theories are presented not as theories but as scientific fact!

If you don't see what I have already said, then at least for now nothing else I say to you will be accepted, so why waste anymore of your time and mine?

Blessings and bye!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nobody bred monkeys to be humans, they just share common similarities.

Also humans didn't evolve from monkeys.