Evolution - and their take over/destruction of science

[Heissonear]

- Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are particularly suitable for asking evolutionary questions about adaptation and the multiplication of species: how these processes happen and how to interpret them. Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are particularly suitable for asking evolutionary questions about adaptation and the multiplication of species: how these processes happen and how to interpret them. All 14 species of Darwin's finches are closely related, having been derived from a common ancestor 2 million to 3 million years ago.

You see, right there, telling humans how to interpret animals after their own kind, and then they add after 2 to 3 million years those finches have turned into anything, .. like a flying lizard for instance, and then point to fossil record to prove it.

Yes, good observation Mr. Darwin: "All 14 species of finches are closely related!" you have found 14 finches "after their kind", .. very good. But what you didn't observe is: "having been derived from a common ancestor 2 million to 3 million years ago" That part comes from your Religion Mr. Darwin.

You hit the nail on the head. What you present has been a devious work of darkness.

Like Darwin, many of our day see a variety of creatures that speciation (Biblical Kind) are able to produce, but then state they are part of a lineage of life which changes over time by mutation, adaptation, and natural selection (a naturalistic doctrine called evolution).

Meanwhile the fossil record only proves Speciation. There are zero transition fossils out of billions of fossils unearthed.

The evolution doctrine produced by darkness has infiltrated our Modern Society, and is taught from grade school up as Reality. Creationism has been stiff armed and pushed out of the door of Science.

Evolution is a calamity yet to be fully exposed. It is having its day. In each generation there have been false prophets and doctrines to avoid.

May God bless your walk in this Creation, to glorify Him in times to come.

 

[chilehed]

Faith - a belief set backed by no evidence.

That's not faith, that's credulity.

 

[Speedwell]

That's not faith, that's credulity.

The problem here is that the Christian contingent in thei forum is heavily dominated by fundamentalist Protestants, for whom "faith" is defined as nothing more or less than rational acceptance of the infallible doctrines of Protestant theology. It kind of skews the conversation.

 

[chilehed]

The problem here is that the Christian contingent in thei forum is heavily dominated by fundamentalist Protestants, for whom "faith" is defined as nothing more or less than rational acceptance of the infallible doctrines of Protestant theology. It kind of skews the conversation.

And the correct response is to promulgate false definitions of terms? I ain't seeing it.

 

[Speedwell]

And the correct response is to promulgate false definitions of terms? I ain't seeing it.

So what is faith to you? Is there no emotional content to it? Do you not embrace things which you don't understand very well, or that are inherently mysteries?

 

[xianghua]

That is a new one to me, and I had to look it up.

This article indicates that that definition of kinds is based on a misunderstanding of how science works.

https://www.quora.com/With-regards-...m-one-order-or-class-or-even-genus-to-another

To sum it up, a change in family does not happen all at once, it happens slowly and requires a die off of the connecting species. So you won't see a species change into an existing family, but it is possible for it to change into a whole new family, over time.

i actually never said that we need to show one family change into another in real time. i well aware that it will need many millions of years. but this is the problem: we cant prove it since its just a belief that required millions of years.

 

[chilehed]

So what is faith to you?

To me? That's a really strange way to ask; if I told you that marshmallows are not steel, would you ask what steel is "to me" as if the true definition of steel is a matter of my personal preference?

In any case, faith is "an act of the will by which one adheres to another who is known". The definition you posited is a false one conjured up by EnDarkenment philosophers such as Bertrand Russell, and is totally incompatible with the etymology of the term and the way it's always been used.

 

[xianghua]

So what would a change at the level of family look like?

Start with a species. That species evolves into two species, by speciation. Now you have two species--and you can create a genus. Keep that process going until you have so many and such a variety of species that one genus isn't enough and so you classify your species into two genera. If you have two or more genera you can create a family. More speciation and more genera and one family isn't enough so you classify your genera into two families. If you have two or more familes you can create an order. All this happens just through repeated speciation. I don't even understand what "change at the level of family would look like. Clearly it is impossible for a species to change from one existing family to another existing family. The only way a species can move to a different family is if that family is created de novo.

actually the correct logic will be as dog stay as dog+ variations over time= a different version of a dog. but its still a dog so its not evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

The definition you posited is a false one conjured up by EnDarkenment philosophers such as Bertrand Russell.

And the definition most often insisted on by our creationist colleagues.

 

[klutedavid]

Science doesn't claim at all that the energy of the universe is infinite.

Gravitational singularities are mainly considered within general relativity, where density apparently becomes infinite at the center of a black hole, and within astrophysics and cosmology as the earliest state of the universe during the Big Bang. (wikipedia)

 

[klutedavid]

The big bang theory makes scientific predictions that can be tested.

Not at the singularity.

The use of only general relativity to predict what happened in the beginnings of the Universe has been heavily criticized, as quantum mechanics becomes a significant factor in the high-energy environment of the earliest Universe, and general relativity on its own fails to make accurate predictions. In response to the inaccuracy of considering only general relativity, as in the traditional model of the Big Bang, alternative theoretical formulations for the beginning of the Universe have been proposed, including a string theory-based model. (wikipedia)

 

[klutedavid]

Science doesn't claim at all that the energy of the universe is infinite.

Actually DH, science may never know whether the universe is finite or infinite.

 

[Speedwell]

actually the correct logic will be as dog stay as dog+ variations over time= a different version of a dog. but its still a dog so its not evolution.

Suppose one line of the family Canidae developed modified forelegs similar to bat's wings and acquired the ability to fly. It would still be a member of the family Canidae like all other dogs. Would that be "evolution?"

 

[klutedavid]

The big bang theory makes scientific predictions that can be tested.

We do not know what was before the Big Bang, unknown.

We do not know anything about the singularity, unknown.

We do not even know why the inflation event even occurred, unknown.

Science extrapolates back from the present understanding of the Universe, to reach the concept of a singularity.

 

[Strathos]

i actually never said that we need to show one family change into another in real time. i well aware that it will need many millions of years. but this is the problem: we cant prove it since its just a belief that required millions of years.

Do you believe in plate tectonics? What about radioactive decay? The rotation of the galaxy? All processes that take millions of years, yet have been observed.

 

[klutedavid]

Do you believe in plate tectonics? What about radioactive decay? The rotation of the galaxy? All processes that take millions of years, yet have been observed.

Yes in theory, though I am reluctant to push too far back in time.

The assumption of a uniformity in the nature of events, through deep time may not be valid.

 

[Arius]

You originally said scientists hadn’t found examples of speciation, I demonstrated that this is not the case. Your answer shows that you don’t actually know what speciation actually means so maybe these debates aren’t really suitable for you if your level of understanding is so poor.

Your post also utterly fails to address the empirical evidence presented, mere hand waving only demonstrates your ignorance of what those papers show and why.

My level of understanding is so poor?

Speciation: the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

What part of 'distinct' don't you understand? You think a chimp with green eyes is a 'distinct' species from other chimps?

I have shown you guys about a hundred different examples of the same point, your; "evolution is a slow process" hand waving, which I knew all along was a diversion technique. I believe the clearest example even a child could understand was the train arriving at the station, slowly, .. over four billion years yet never actually arriving.

The bottom line is that we both creationist and evolutionist admit that: "Evolution/speciation of one species into another distinct species NEVER HAPPENS"

Thank you. Now if you want to understand how life really began, why, and where we are headed, .. you know, the 'Big Picture' I would be more than happy to help you with that.

 

[Arius]

A) that’s what the links I gave showed.
B) this debate was settled over 100 years ago. Your ignorance of science is your own responsibility, maybe try reading proper scientific literature rather than creationist propaganda sites if you are genuinely interested in learning.

A) No it didn't, .. as I have pointed it out.
B) Over 100 years ago? Just like the resistance of the RCC (the inventors of BB-Evolution) Trinity-gods was settled 1,700 years ago, yet here I am bearing his name Arius, and fighting yet another misconception, lie; the Evolution story.
The trinity was to hide who God is, and now this Evolution story is to hide His creation. Not on my watch, not as long as there is breath in my lungs.

My ignorance of science?

OK, .. it's part of my life bearing the Cross of Christ. Sure it gets annoying, even difficult at times, but when I stop and think about it, I am grateful and humbled, it's more honor than I deserve.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The apostle Paul said, there were more than five hundred witnesses of the risen Christ, that is not evidence?

It's clearly hearsay; and if 500 people witnessed something that amazing, why is there no documentary corroboration? There were news gatherers and disseminators (i.e. media) in those days.

There are lots of difficulties with reconciling the different biblical accounts after the death of Jesus, and a good case to be made that Paul uses language more consistent with a spiritual arising than a physical one. Also interesting how the accounts become increasingly miraculous and fantastical over time - classic legend-making.

 

[Arius]

The irony is strong in this post.

2 words: cdesign proponentsists

- Attempts to have ID taught in public schools have been defeated in court, and science papers proposing a "designer" usually cannot get past peer review — although not for reasons of prejudice against the subject matter. Intelligent design has been widely criticised for its failure to state what mechanism drives it, its lack of falsifiability, and many other problems that leave it lacking as a scientific theory

Isn't that interesting; Intelligent design has been widely criticized for its failure to state what mechanism drives it?

I mean what demented human mind would think of something like; Intelligent Design, as if an animal, an evolving ape ever Intelligently Designed anything, .. right!?
Or, what mechanism could drive a Creationist to sit down, plan, and Intelligently Design a self replicating robot, or a computer brain that could think for itself? Obviously Creationists don't understand what "science" means, they probably think science means that they have to take a rock apart, and make something from the minerals found in them? Silly Creationists, when science has proven that things, like stars, planets, rocks, and amoeba from rocks evolve.

-its lack of falsifiability

Ah, the Atheists/Evolutionist got us there! I mean how could anyone test Intelligent Design, .. what mechanism could possibly be applied to disprove Creation by Intelligent Design?

Well, we could put a rock in water and wait for life to pop out into it? (Something Kent Hovind is working on, and for years, nothing, no sign of life) but yeah, it takes time to get life out of a rock, like millions and billions of Carl Sagan years as scientists have observed.

In this discussion, I ask Darwinians, who support and proselytize their BB-Evolution doctrines to;
1. prove that either biological or cosmological Evolution is based on "science"?

Pick up a scientific journal.

You mean a BB-Evolution journal. No scientist has ever observed a species speciate into another distinct species, .. like gorilla to human.

It doesn't.
It only does when you prefix it with "religious". As in: religious faith.

In the colloquial, every-day, use of the word, it can also mean "trust" (which is evidence-based).

"Religious faith", is not evidence based. It is "faith based". Faith based beliefs are not based on evidence by definition. Making it blind.

Nobody uses the prefix, not even dictionaries.
You know well that both the word Evolution by chaotic environmental effects has been changed to mean science, and Intelligent Design has been turned to mean 'blind faith'.