Experimental Evolution

[The Barbarian]

I don’t think you actually read the Bible passages I gave you or your willingly ignoring it.

I actually read the Bible, so I know what they say. The important thing is, they don't say what you want them to say. This is why (for example) you changed God's word in Genesis 1 to say that animals reproduce after their kind. I had to show you that is not what He said.

The flood is being heavily mocked by unbelievers and believers alike, and a lot of believers ignore this like you folks are. Saying the flood was local and many say it was just legend, even believers.

As you now realize, the Bible does not say the flood was worldwide. That's man's adjustment of His word.

You should not scoff at God's word by changing it to fit your own desires:

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished

they are willingly ignoring the flood account like if it’s just a myth and not worldwide when the verse says “the world… being overflowed with water PERISHED”

The "world" used in Koine Greek was not the same as we use it. In Peter's time, it mean "the extent of the Roman Empire."

Luke 2:1 1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

This is from the KJV; more modern translations correctly list it as "the extent of the Roman Empire."

 

[Andre_b]

Andreb: “The definition of science is KNOWLEDGE.”

Science is a Greek word meaning knowledge but that isn’t the definition of modern science. Actually, there is no fully agreed definition of what modern science is, but here is the most common view. Science involves observing the actual world, then putting forward a testable hypothesis to understand it better. Then that hypothesis is tested against the facts, either by experiment or observation.

Andreb: “The flood would be mocked.”

No verse in the Bible says that belief in a worldwide flood would be mocked.

Typical play on words by folks
The original definition means knowledge. And yes science still means knowledge, and what we know. Now there are methods for attaining this knowledge by repeated experiments and observations. Yet there ate no repeated experiments of any animal (example cat turning into a non cat) ever. It is ALL IMPLIED, that it happened. That’s not science.

To reiterate, the original word was knowledge, but then we have these unbelievers and know it alls that think they are funny by using the word for something else, then making it popular, and then say wow look at these ignorant believers with their words that don’t mean what it says. now that is deceitful. Go look at a dictionary for when it was written aka concordance so that the deceivers cannot claim this nonsense.

 

[Andre_b]

Most creationists have wised up and no longer do that. They've finally figured out that humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees; both evolved from a common ancestor.



If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in huge trouble. Canids and felines have a common ancestor, but neither evolved from the other.



Humans are one type of primate, chimpanzees are another. Dogs are one type of carnivore, cats are another. "Type" isn't a scientific term in taxonomy. Informally, it means "identifiable grouping."

You keep giving these statements that “humans evolved from an ape/chimp common ancestor” yet provided no evidence. That’s a fable belief system. I can claim a bunch of statements play with words to make it sound true. This is exactly what the Bible said would happen. A falling away from the faith and scoffing at the scriptures like if it’s just a fairytale. You’re in that group clearly.

 

[The Barbarian]

Typical play on words by folks
The original definition means knowledge. And yes science still means knowledge, and what we know.

Not all knowledge is scientific. We can truly know God only by faith, but faith has no place in science, which is a method made by men.

Now there are methods for attaining this knowledge by repeated experiments and observations.

As you learned, evolution is constantly being confirmed. Remember what it is? "Change in allele frequencies in a population over time." Or as Darwin wrote in his theory, "descent with modification." Easy to show.

Yet there ate no repeated experiments of any animal (example cat turning into a non cat) ever. It is ALL IMPLIED, that it happened. That’s not science.

Even knowledgeable creationists disagree with you. Would you like me to show you that, again?

 

[The Barbarian]

You keep giving these statements that “humans evolved from an ape/chimp common ancestor” yet provided no evidence.

OK. Let's see what a YE creationist who is familar with the evidence says...

Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic fseries — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series. Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

But let's look a bit closer at the transitional forms for humans from other apes.

Here are hips femurs and feet of a chimpanzee, A. africanus, and an anatomically modern human. Notice that A. africanus is transitional between the two. Forest apes have a particular anatomy based on living mostly in trees. A. africanus was bipedal but retains forest ape-like characters. And humans are further evolved.

The reason for this is bipedalism. Forest apes have a straight angle to the hip/femur, while australopithecines and humans have a knock-kneed angle that makes for efficient walking on two legs.

Notice the transitional form from a forest ape (gorilla) to H. erectus to modern humans. The trend is toward a larger cranium, smaller jaws and teeth, and flatter face. In late H. sapiens, the smaller jaw required reinforcement on the outside to replace the "simian shelf" inside the mandible. Hence the human chin.

The genetic data supports this also. Genetically, humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape.

Here's the phylogeny of existing great apes based on DNA. And we know this works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

That’s a fable belief system.

You seem confused about the difference between belief and evidence.

I can claim a bunch of statements play with words to make it sound true.

That's the funny thing about reality; it doesn't care what we think about it. But evidence is what it is. You can deny it or you can accept it. But it remains. Creationists scoff at His creation, but it makes no difference

This is exactly what the Bible said would happen. A falling away from His word and changing scriptures to fit creationist doctrines like if it’s just a fairytale. You’re in that group clearly.

Not all creationists are:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
...
Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood. The Truth About Evolution

 

[Andre_b]

I actually read the Bible, so I know what they say. The important thing is, they don't say what you want them to say. This is why (for example) you changed God's word in Genesis 1 to say that animals reproduce after their kind. I had to show you that is not what He said.



As you now realize, the Bible does not say the flood was worldwide. That's man's adjustment of His word.

You should not scoff at God's word by changing it to fit your own desires:

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished



The "world" used in Koine Greek was not the same as we use it. In Peter's time, it mean "the extent of the Roman Empire."

Luke 2:1 1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

This is from the KJV; more modern translations correctly list it as "the extent of the Roman Empire."

You must be kidding: “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (Gen. 1:11, 25)

Just read it as it says. It’s simple but folks make it complicated because of their heart.

all the world would be taxed. Yep because they owned the majority of the world. The unimportant little groups here and there are not of importance. And how do you know he didn’t want to tax the entire world and all these other small pockets of individuals? This is literally what the system also wants to do, hence the digital identity etc etc.

plus it’s the arrogance of the Romans that was quoted. It’s not proof that every text meant this.

 

[Andre_b]

OK. Let's see what a YE creationist who is familar with the evidence says...

Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic fseries — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series. Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

But let's look a bit closer at the transitional forms for humans from other apes.

Here are hips femurs and feet of a chimpanzee, A. africanus, and an anatomically modern human. Notice that A. africanus is transitional between the two. Forest apes have a particular anatomy based on living mostly in trees. A. africanus was bipedal but retains forest ape-like characters. And humans are further evolved.

The reason for this is bipedalism. Forest apes have a straight angle to the hip/femur, while australopithecines and humans have a knock-kneed angle that makes for efficient walking on two legs.

Notice the transitional form from a forest ape (gorilla) to H. erectus to modern humans. The trend is toward a larger cranium, smaller jaws and teeth, and flatter face. In late H. sapiens, the smaller jaw required reinforcement on the outside to replace the "simian shelf" inside the mandible. Hence the human chin.

The genetic data supports this also. Genetically, humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape.

Here's the phylogeny of existing great apes based on DNA. And we know this works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.



You seem confused about the difference between belief and evidence.



That's the funny thing about reality; it doesn't care what we think about it. But evidence is what it is. You can deny it or you can accept it. But it remains. Creationists scoff at His creation, but it makes no difference

This is exactly what the Bible said would happen. A falling away from His word and changing scriptures to fit creationist doctrines like if it’s just a fairytale. You’re in that group clearly.

Not all creationists are:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
...
Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood. The Truth About Evolution

None of this is actually evidence. Putting things that look similar isn’t proof

incredible. I asked for observations of animals Producing something other than itself. Not similar parts

well I suppose you are related to a computer since it has code, it is made of iron, copper, silicone, carbon, zinc, etc etc. Therefore you are related through a common ancestor. The Sophia robot must be very closely related since it has, arms, eyes, a head, legs, a torso, etc etc. This is literally what the ridiculous fable is. Just imagine that it’s related just because God used similar parts. Oh right it’s proof of a common DESIGNER!

putting the names of the items and drawing lines between them stating it has a common animal isn’t proof nor does it make it true. Sad that people fall for fables just as much today as the Greeks, Romans, Egyptian myths. Probably because each of these still makes some sense really. If it wasn’t believable the majority wouldn’t believe it. Satan makes sure it sounds very plausible

 

[Andre_b]

OK. Let's see what a YE creationist who is familar with the evidence says...

Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic fseries — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series. Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

But let's look a bit closer at the transitional forms for humans from other apes.

Here are hips femurs and feet of a chimpanzee, A. africanus, and an anatomically modern human. Notice that A. africanus is transitional between the two. Forest apes have a particular anatomy based on living mostly in trees. A. africanus was bipedal but retains forest ape-like characters. And humans are further evolved.

The reason for this is bipedalism. Forest apes have a straight angle to the hip/femur, while australopithecines and humans have a knock-kneed angle that makes for efficient walking on two legs.

Notice the transitional form from a forest ape (gorilla) to H. erectus to modern humans. The trend is toward a larger cranium, smaller jaws and teeth, and flatter face. In late H. sapiens, the smaller jaw required reinforcement on the outside to replace the "simian shelf" inside the mandible. Hence the human chin.

The genetic data supports this also. Genetically, humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape.

Here's the phylogeny of existing great apes based on DNA. And we know this works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.



You seem confused about the difference between belief and evidence.



That's the funny thing about reality; it doesn't care what we think about it. But evidence is what it is. You can deny it or you can accept it. But it remains. Creationists scoff at His creation, but it makes no difference

This is exactly what the Bible said would happen. A falling away from His word and changing scriptures to fit creationist doctrines like if it’s just a fairytale. You’re in that group clearly.

Not all creationists are:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
...
Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood. The Truth About Evolution

Here just for you:

 

[Andre_b]

Here just for you:
View attachment 321461

 

[The Barbarian]

You must be kidding: “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (Gen. 1:11, 25)

As you now see, it doesn't say that living things reproduce according to their kind. Just read it as it says. It’s simple but folks make it complicated because of their heart.

 

[The Barbarian]

None of this is actually evidence. Putting things that look similar isn’t proof

Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you. But there's something they know that you don't. It's not about "look similar." You've confused analogy with homology. Insects and bird have wings. But they aren't derived from the same tissues or structures. They are analogous. On the other hand, the hands of humans, Australopithicenes and forest apes are homologous; they are the same structures, just modfiied. In a more extreme case, the leg of horses, fins of dolphins wings of bats and arms of primates are homologous, even though they don't look at all alike. Homologous organs show common descent. Analogous organs do not. Oh, and genetics verifies this; organisms with homologous structures are more closely related than organisms with analogous structures.

well I suppose you are related to a computer since it has code, it is made of iron, copper, silicone, carbon, zinc, etc etc.

Here, you're trying to show some kind of relationship because different things are made of atoms. The genes of all organisms on Earth are made of DNA, but that's not what shows relationships. It's the genes coded in the DNA that show relationships. No wonder you're confused.

The Sophia robot must be very closely related since it has, arms, eyes, a head, legs, a torso, etc etc.

Remember? Analogy doesn't show common descent. Homology does. Keep that in mind, and it will help you a lot. I'm sure you didn't realize what a ridiculous fable you had produced, which has no connection at all with the science that shows common descent.

Just imagine that it’s related just because God used similar parts.

That's the idea of the "great chain of being" of scientists before the discoveries of Darwin and Mendel.

Oh right it’s proof of a common DESIGNER!

That's the IDer notion that the "designer" just "might be a space alien." For Christians, God has no need to figure anything out. He is the omnipotent Creator. You should show Him more respect.

 

[The Barbarian]

And your quote by Ruse is the atheist position, which is the same as the creationist position. But it is easily refuted by pointing out that Darwin thought God created the first living things, by the numerous Christian biologists who accepted evolution, such as Dobzhansky, Miller, Collins, and many, many others.

Both creationists and atheists have an agenda to make science and Christianity mutually incompatible.

 

[Andre_b]

As you now see, it doesn't say that living things reproduce according to their kind. Just read it as it says. It’s simple but folks make it complicated because of their heart.

So the kind is useless according to you. To “bring forth” is also useless. So why even read that verse? Why even put the word kind when they are all the same things according to your theory. Everything is related. All it is is just a mix bag of non kinds.

 

[Andre_b]

And your quote by Ruse is the atheist position, which is the same as the creationist position. But it is easily refuted by pointing out that Darwin thought God created the first living things, by the numerous Christian biologists who accepted evolution, such as Dobzhansky, Miller, Collins, and many, many others.

Both creationists and atheists have an agenda to make science and Christianity mutually incompatible.

Not even close. Atheists and evolutionist dod this. What is wrong with you?! You’re the one that doesn’t trust what God said

 

[Andre_b]

Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you. But there's something they know that you don't. It's not about "look similar." You've confused analogy with homology. Insects and bird have wings. But they aren't derived from the same tissues or structures. They are analogous. On the other hand, the hands of humans, Australopithicenes and forest apes are homologous; they are the same structures, just modfiied. In a more extreme case, the leg of horses, fins of dolphins wings of bats and arms of primates are homologous, even though they don't look at all alike. Homologous organs show common descent. Analogous organs do not. Oh, and genetics verifies this; organisms with homologous structures are more closely related than organisms with analogous structures.



Here, you're trying to show some kind of relationship because different things are made of atoms. The genes of all organisms on Earth are made of DNA, but that's not what shows relationships. It's the genes coded in the DNA that show relationships. No wonder you're confused.



Remember? Analogy doesn't show common descent. Homology does. Keep that in mind, and it will help you a lot. I'm sure you didn't realize what a ridiculous fable you had produced, which has no connection at all with the science that shows common descent.



That's the idea of the "great chain of being" of scientists before the discoveries of Darwin and Mendel.



That's the IDer notion that the "designer" just "might be a space alien." For Christians, God has no need to figure anything out. He is the omnipotent Creator. You should show Him more respect.

Says the one that believes the atheists and their theories

 

[Andre_b]

Not all knowledge is scientific. We can truly know God only by faith, but faith has no place in science, which is a method made by men.



As you learned, evolution is constantly being confirmed. Remember what it is? "Change in allele frequencies in a population over time." Or as Darwin wrote in his theory, "descent with modification." Easy to show.



Even knowledgeable creationists disagree with you. Would you like me to show you that, again?

The atheists don’t have science. It’s only imaginations they have. I’ve been asking for evidence from the beginning. OBSERVABLE evidence. You haven’t provided it yet…

 

[Andre_b]

I actually read the Bible, so I know what they say. The important thing is, they don't say what you want them to say. This is why (for example) you changed God's word in Genesis 1 to say that animals reproduce after their kind. I had to show you that is not what He said.



As you now realize, the Bible does not say the flood was worldwide. That's man's adjustment of His word.

You should not scoff at God's word by changing it to fit your own desires:

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished



The "world" used in Koine Greek was not the same as we use it. In Peter's time, it mean "the extent of the Roman Empire."

Luke 2:1 1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

This is from the KJV; more modern translations correctly list it as "the extent of the Roman Empire."

Says the guy that claims the world doesn’t really mean the world.

 

[The Barbarian]

Says the guy that claims the world doesn’t really mean the world.

As you saw, the Bible said the "whole world" meant the Roman empire. So there is that.

Again, if you'd just be satisfied with having it God's way, this wouldn't be a problem for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

The atheists don’t have science.

That's what you keep stumbling over. Science requires no supernatural presuppositions or even a lack of them. So people of all faiths and even those of no faith at all, can do science.

I’ve been asking for evidence from the beginning. OBSERVABLE evidence.

When I presented the evidence, no one, even other creationists, expected you to acknowledge it. We all know you had to deny it.

As you see, even honest YE creationists admit there is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory, even "gobs and gobs of it."

 

[The Barbarian]

Says the one that believes the atheists and their theories

Darwin as you learned, thought God created the first living things. So you got that wrong, too. And you're the one touting the atheist who agrees with you about evolution being a religion. Some YE creationists and some militant atheists have a common agenda to make religion and science into enemies.

Not even close. Atheists and evolutionist dod this.

You posted evidence that atheists and YE creationists have a common agenda. However, it is true that many YE creationists and many atheists do not make such pretensions. I should not have suggested that all of them do.

If you would just trust God and take it as He says, you'd be no longer troubled by it.