God used Evolution to create man

[justlookinla]

Mmmmm stepping into this, start with either Adam and Eve or even Moses and tell me the names of all of your ancestors leading up to you.

Yours is the kind of question that comes from people with little or no knowledge of biology and how it is done. Sad.

Dizredux

Ok, I ain't go no formal learnin' in biology and I obviously need a bit of help.

How about first identifying the common life form from which a pine tree and human evolved. I mean, if you know and all. No guesses and suppositions, no faith based views, no 'might have beens' allowed.

 

[Dizredux]

Happened many times?

Yes from the two life forms sperm and egg. Happens all the time.


Just

We are talking about the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced a human and a pine tree from a single life form from long long ago, aren't we?

No your are and you appear to be the only one talking about it. Unfortunately for you, repetition does not equal truth. If it did you arguments would be accepted by the whole world instead of just yourself and perhaps one or two others most likely in your church.

Are you convinced of that viewpoint, and if so, why? If not, why not?

Why on earth should I defend a viewpoint that I don't have and have never expressed.

As far as answering your question, when 'maybes', 'could be's and 'we don't know for sure' pepper a particular viewpoint, that's a pretty good indication that guesses and suppositions form the basis for the particular viewpoint.

In your world perhaps but in the world of science, it is the mark of someone being very precise about their statements. All science is provisional and that is reflected in the language. Your not liking this has nothing to do with the validity of what they are saying.

That you don't understand this is an unfortunate but self inflicted problem.

My other question was about how you can make statements about subjects of which you know little or nothing. Can you address this?


Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Yes from the two life forms sperm and egg. Happens all the time.

LOL. Well, that certainly isn't speaking of the common life form of the human and pine tree, is it?

Just No your are and you appear to be the only one talking about it. Unfortunately for you, repetition does not equal truth. If it did you arguments would be accepted by the whole world instead of just yourself and perhaps one or two others most likely in your church.

The attempt to dismiss the failure to provide evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms produced a human and a pine tree from a common life form of long long ago isn't going to succeed. The question remains and will continue to remain, repetitive or not.

Why on earth should I defend a viewpoint that I don't have and have never expressed.

Great. At least there's that.

In your world perhaps but in the world of science, it is the mark of someone being very precise about their statements. All science is provisional and that is reflected in the language. Your not liking this has nothing to do with the validity of what they are saying.

That you don't understand this is an unfortunate but self inflicted problem.

It's not about not liking a viewpoint, it's about the viewpoint not having evidence.

My other question was about how you can make statements about subjects of which you know little or nothing. Can you address this?


Dizredux

I've addressed it, explain it to me. Show me. Present evidence. But don't try to pass of 'maybes', 'could be's' and 'we don't knows' as fact.

Are you claiming that you do know, that you have evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms produced a human and a pine tree from a single life form of long long ago? No? Yes?

 

[Dizredux]

LOL. Well, that certainly isn't speaking of the common life form of the human and pine tree, is it?

I wasn't discussing this. It is your obsession, not mine.

The attempt to dismiss the failure to provide evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms produced a human and a pine tree from a common life form of long long ago isn't going to succeed.

Why should it succeed when no one is making the argument in the scientific literature. I am not making the argument at all as I do not agree with it.

The question remains and will continue to remain, repetitive or not.

It remains mainly with you. I really don't know who you are are arguing with. A bit obsessive, don't you think?

Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

I wasn't discussing this. It is your obsession, not mine.

Why should it succeed when no one is making the argument in the scientific literature. I am not making the argument at all as I do not agree with it.


It remains mainly with you. I really don't know who you are are arguing with. A bit obsessive, don't you think?

Dizredux

Obsessiveness is required to protect fundamentalists beliefs. Just warding off the cognitive dissonance requires significant effort.

 

[EternalDragon]

Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls

If you had actually read "Origin of Species" you would know that they should not be everywhere due to the imperfection of the geologic record.

The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

Darwin wrote an entire chapter describing how the geologic record would not be capable of capturing such fine graded transitionals with any regularity.

Found them for you.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you even read "Origin of Species", or have you only read the quote mines that dishonest creationists use?

Do we have to keep seeing your picture of skulls that are similar or
the same old "similarities prove evolution" ideas?

The list of transitional fossils is kind of funny. It shows speciation of like a fish changing to a fish, lizard changing to a new type of lizard, etc. and then tries to link those all together with what if's and could have been's. As if nature could produce new, very complex characteristics into a species that were not present before hand.

 

[madaz]

I realize using words like "magic" when speaking of how God created His creation is to elicit certain emotional reactions, but to ask for evidence that a pine tree and a whale has the same common ancestor, and evidence they were created by only naturalistic mechanisms isn't worded to elicit emotional reactions. It's a valid request.

Choose any pine tree and any whale anywhere on earh, take a DNA sample from both of them.

Compare the DNA, you will find they are indeed related. Very distantly related, but decended from a common ancestor nonetheless.

If you compare your own DNA with the whale, you will find you are more closely related to it, than the pine tree.

Compare your own DNA with your mother, and the similarities will be extremely close.

 

[HitchSlap]

Arguing DNA evidence and common descent with creationists is a fool's errand.

 

[AV1611VET]

Arguing DNA evidence and common descent with creationists is a fool's errand.

Get to it then.

Psalm 14:1a The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

 

[JacksBratt]

In your mind then, wouldn't it be true, that no person should be convicted of a crime, unless someone observed them doing the actual crime?

?????

I don't see the parallel here. No one would ever be convicted of evolving if it had to be proven in a court of law. There is no observable evidence. It is all circumstantial and speculation. No witnesses, not even an actual crime. Evolution is like going into a room at a bank, seeing that there is no safe there and stating that someone must have stole it without even having any proof that there was a safe in the first place.

 

[JacksBratt]

Hmm, hard to say though. The bible never states explicitly that they are completely immortal, or actually alive for that matter. I would imagine god should have the ability to destroy them.

These passages should show that they were created by God and are immortal.
Nehemiah 9:6King James Version (KJV)

6 Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.


Colossians 1:16King James Version (KJV)

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:




Psalm 148:2-5King James Version (KJV)

2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
5 Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created.




Luke 20:35-36King James Version (KJV)

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

 

[madaz]

Arguing DNA evidence and common descent with creationists is a fool's errand.

Agreed, but I live in hope that they will eventually recognise their denial is unsubstantiated.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yeah, just like a body with a knife sticking out the back is not evidence of murder, but just of a human that lived and then died of unkown causes.

Or, you could try not engaging in juvenile intellectual dishonesty...

Do you have a "body with a knife sticking out of it" or should I say fossil remains that show the transition of one species as it changes into another species... There should be millions.

 

[justlookinla]

Choose any pine tree and any whale anywhere on earh, take a DNA sample from both of them.

Compare the DNA, you will find they are indeed related. Very distantly related, but decended from a common ancestor nonetheless.

If you compare your own DNA with the whale, you will find you are more closely related to it, than the pine tree.

Compare your own DNA with your mother, and the similarities will be extremely close.

1) Common building blocks

2) That isn't addressing the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced a human and a pine tree from a single ancestor of long long ago.

 

[JacksBratt]

What data is skewed?

Piltown man, lucy, the tree fossils that are vertical though thousands of years of strata,
some fossils that haven't changed in thousands of years.

Found them for you:

This is a nice collection of skulls but no other bones to show if they walked on knuckles or had actual feet or hip bones more and more like humans. Looks like more guess work.

Just as David's own words say that there is no God.

"There is no God"--Psalms 49:1

You shouldn't quote mine the Bible.......It's Psalm 14:1
Psalm 14:1King James Version (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

 

[madaz]

1) Common building blocks

Proteins are the common building blocks, the DNA is the "linking" evidence you requested.

2) That isn't addressing the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced a human and a pine tree from a single ancestor of long long ago.

What sort of evidence would suffice?

 

[justlookinla]

Piltown man, lucy, the tree fossils that are vertical though thousands of years of strata,
some fossils that haven't changed in thousands of years.

This is a nice collection of skulls but no other bones to show if they walked on knuckles or had actual feet or hip bones more and more like humans. Looks like more guess work.




You shouldn't quote mine the Bible.......It's Psalm 14:1
Psalm 14:1King James Version (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

When LM first posted those, it included skulls through N for some reason. They're de-evolving and now we're down to L.

The graphic is meaningless in proving that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity from a single life form of long long ago, anyway.

 

[madaz]

Do you have a "body with a knife sticking out of it" or should I say fossil remains that show the transition of one species as it changes into another species... There should be millions.

Every species IS a transitional species, there is no clear boundary line between previous species and new species.

For eg. One species does not give birth to another.

 

[justlookinla]

Proteins are the common building blocks, the DNA is the "linking" evidence you requested.

I requested evidence that ONLY naturalistic mechanisms created both a human and a pine tree from a single common ancestor of long long ago.

What sort of evidence would suffice?

Evasion tactic. Offer what you believe to be evidence and we'll examine it.

 

[EternalDragon]

Arguing DNA evidence and common descent with creationists is a fool's errand.

1 Corinthians 3:18
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1 Corinthians 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.