If evolution were wrong, it means ...

[lucaspa]

None of these alternatives can stand with just a little more thinking.

Why not? Take us thru the thinking. You didn't, for instance, tell us why ET or panspermia are wrong.

For example, theistic evolution is still evolution. If evolution is wrong, then theistic evolution is also wrong. It is not independent and is not an alternative.

The website stated: "Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They coexist in models such as theistic evolution."

So theistic evolution is not being presented as an alternative to creation, but rather as a means by which creation happened. If evolution is wrong, then we have to consider whether the replacement theory would allow creation by God. Evolution does. Raelianism would not.

There is no alternative. If evolution is wrong, then creation must be right.

Not necessarily. Panspermia might be right. It is not "creation". Genegineering by ETs is "creation", but not creation by God. And I think by "creation" you mean creation by God, don't you?

 

[Smidlee]

I would like to repeat my point which has been posted a few times, but did not get a good response:

If evolution is wrong, then creation is right. There is no third option.

Evolution describes the nature. If something is not natural, then it must be supernatural.

Exactly where is the line drawn between supernatural and natural. 2000 years ago a virgin gave birth was supernatural now man can do the same thing. 2000 years ago going to a high mountain top and see all the kingdoms of the world sounds supernatural but now man is able to do the exact same thing. I can watch something live half way around the world in my living room. Jesus saw Nathanael sitting at the fig tree. Today with cell phones man can do the same thing.
What man sees supernatural is just natural with God.

 

[juvenissun]

Let me ask you this: is Scripture the only words of God? Do we understand God only from scripture?

Also, what do you do with Mark 10 and Matthew 14 where Jesus tells you scripture is not the words of God?

The Scripture is the only written words of God. Is it not?

And forgive me that I could not find what you referred to in both Mk 10 and Mt 14. Could you be more specific?

 

[juvenissun]

Exactly where is the line drawn between supernatural and natural. 2000 years ago a virgin gave birth was supernatural now man can do the same thing. 2000 years ago going to a high mountain top and see all the kingdoms of the world sounds supernatural but now man is able to do the exact same thing. I can watch something live half way around the world in my living room. Jesus saw Nathanael sitting at the fig tree. Today with cell phones man can do the same thing.
What man sees supernatural is just natural with God.

Sorry to mess up the vocabulary. Let's forget the natural/supernatural analogy. What I meant was:

Natural --> Evolution
Supernatural --> Creation.

 

[dad]

What is a "kind"? Creationists have been working on that one for decades and can't come up with a consistent classification. Originally is was "species", since "species" is Latin for "kinds". That does seem to have fallen out of favor. Right now, evolution is descent with modification from a common ancestor.

What WAS a kind might be a better question. I suppose one definition might be the common ancestor of all the things that evolved from that particular kind. If there was all that evolving, then we would expect a hard time in seeing clear kinds. This is just what we see! It fits the evidence. However, I think there may be a few clues in the bible. In the future, lions and wolves are mentioned. I assume these are kinds.

Are you defending God or defending the Bible? Which is more important to you: God or the Bible?

You can't have one without the other. It is a package deal, we must take or leave.

So? Jews don't. Neither do the Hindus. Neither do the Chinese, or Japanese. In fact, only a minority of people in the world set the calendar to the birth of Jesus. We do because of belief.

Nope. The whole world uses the calendar set to Jesus. They do it, as far as I know, not in any way because they believe, but because God arranged all time to point to Jesus!

From a scientific pov, that was not "observed". The observation does not qualify as a scientific one. You and I believe the accounts are accurate, but that doesn't make it "fact".

Science wasn't here. Science doesn't qualify as an observer for the far past. Not even the fairly recent past of the days of Jesus. They are just present observers, and they mess up a lot of what they see.

BTW, the Raelians claim to have seen ET.

So? Americans claim to have seen Elvis.

Well, there is that evidence of life on the Martian meteorite. Also, this is the "meaningless speculation" that the creationist witness introduced at the Arkansas trial. So your fellow creationists do not agree with you.

Well, then they are wrong. So?? Like you thought they were real clever and to be believed?

But the mice, moles, voles, etc. would have died in that era. After all, their lifespans were not a thousand years, were they?

Nope! Wrong. The creatures of Eden were just in Eden. It was some time before they spread out.

And, of course, there were all the men that weren't in Eden; the ones that had girl children so that Cain and Seth could have wives. Their lifespan was not that long, was it?

Say what? Does having kids shorten life spans?

 

[sungaunga]

If evolution were wrong, it means ... the Bibles right?

 

[dad]

If evolution were wrong, it means ... the Bibles right?

God doesn't need man's errors to validate His truth! He validated Jesus with prophesy, and miracles, and witnesses, and rising from the dead, and being born to a virgin. His ways are not man's ways.

Evolution as far as I am concerned is right. Created kinds came equipped with the abilty to adapt and evolve rapidly, at the time.

 

[it'sme]

Natural --> Evolution
Supernatural --> Creation.

It should read this way.

Natural --> Creation
Supernatural --> Creation. ( the one who creates the laws of nature)

People know things were created, they use the term mother nature all the time. We call wildlife, nature, it is natural. Even a loaf of bead which is made from the elements of the earth, we say we used natural ingredients.
The creator says he made man from the dust of the ground, ( elements from the earth) Is that supernatural? Because if sceicntists make life from the elements of the earth is that supernatural? Is the loaf of bread that man makes supernatural? Or even mechanical things are they supernatural?
Creation is a very logical natural thing.

 

[juvenissun]

It should read this way.

Natural --> Creation
Supernatural --> Creation. ( the one who creates the laws of nature)

People know things were created, they use the term mother nature all the time. We call wildlife, nature, it is natural. Even a loaf of bead which is made from the elements of the earth, we say we used natural ingredients.
The creator says he made man from the dust of the ground, ( elements from the earth) Is that supernatural? Because if sceicntists make life from the elements of the earth is that supernatural? Is the loaf of bread that man makes supernatural? Or even mechanical things are they supernatural?
Creation is a very logical natural thing.

It is the first time I hear it this way. Quite refreshing. Thanks.

 

[it'sme]

It is the first time I hear it this way. Quite refreshing. Thanks.

Thanks.
It's always bothered me when people say mother nature. They are giving intelligence to that natural world, but then say there is no intelligent designer.
But when man creates something, they give themselves all the credit, even though it is a copy of 'mother nature'. So what they are really showing by their actions is creation. Other wise they would just let these things they want, happen on their own. I'm still waiting for that Harley, to just appear in my driveway. After all its been a couple of billion years.

 

[Smidlee]

OK I'll bite.
If evolution means Neo-Darwinism then it was proven false over 50 years ago when scientist learned that a creature body-planned is not inherited totally from the DNA. They used single cell creatures and deform the cell (rearrange some of it's parts). Without changing it's DNA their offspring had these same deformities.
So there is strong evidence you can change the DNA forever and still come out with the same basic body plan. DNA changes do make make some changes to the creature body as in the case of Hox genes but those changes are found limited. Thus a fruitfly is still a fruitfly just a deformed one.Even though Neo-Darwinism is proven false scientist will continue to hang on to it someone else comes up with another evolutionary explanation.
So if evolution is false then there will be those who still believe and defend it religiously. After all, If after over a hundred of years of research and the best they got is "God did it" (or "evolution did it") it would be a huge blow to the ego of many scientist who look down at creationist.

 

[it'sme]

OK I'll bite.
If evolution means Neo-Darwinism then it was proven false over 50 years ago when scientist learned that a creature body-planned is not inherited totally from the DNA. They used single cell creatures and deform the cell (rearrange some of it's parts). Without changing it's DNA their offspring had these same deformities.
So there is strong evidence you can change the DNA forever and still come out with the same basic body plan. DNA changes do make make some changes to the creature body as in the case of Hox genes but those changes are found limited. Thus a fruitfly is still a fruitfly just a deformed one.Even though Neo-Darwinism is proven false scientist will continue to hang on to it someone else comes up with another evolutionary explanation.
So if evolution is false then there will be those who still believe and defend it religiously. After all, If after over a hundred of years of research and the best they got is "God did it" (or "evolution did it") it would be a huge blow to the ego of many scientist who look down at creationist.

The truth is for the last 150 years or so, the direct intent of scientists is to prove that no Creator exists. It is as though they are on a mission , and it really does not matter what the evidence says. It's not the the sciecne , that the scientists find in their work is wrong ,it is the interpretation of the science.
In the real world the evidence that is there is that life comes from life. And that the life we see has great design in it. ( we are not just a lump of bio mass) DNA is increadable ( man copies that in there computer programing, and yet are nowhere near to what DNA can do)
Darwin himself said that his theories, were flawed , and he hoped that the new fossil found would help support his ideas , but that has not been the case. Actually the new fossils found , just as in his day, are really telling us that he was wrong.
I think scientists now, can not bring themselves to tell the world they have been lieing to the world.

 

[it'sme]

If evolution were wrong, it means ... the Bibles right?

Actually creation does not need the scientists approval, to be correct.
But creation does need the science to be correct.
A belief in a creator does not mean, you have a blind faith. The faith is based on the real world , and the evidence it supplies. And the bible itself, has it's own evidence, of coming from God.
Faith is real.

 

[Mallon]

The truth is for the last 150 years or so, the direct intent of scientists is to prove that no Creator exists.

How does demonstrating that something happened naturally (as opposed to miraculously) prove that no Creator exists?

I think scientists now, can not bring themselves to tell the world they have been lieing to the world.

I'm a scientist. Are you calling me a liar?

 

[it'sme]

Originally Posted by it'sme

The truth is for the last 150 years or so, the direct intent of scientists is to prove that no Creator exists.
​

How does demonstrating that something happened naturally (as opposed to miraculously) prove that no Creator exists?

I think scientists now, can not bring themselves to tell the world they have been lieing to the world.
​

I'm a scientist. Are you calling me a liar?

That depends on if you believe evolution happened or creation. There are many scientists that believe there is a creator.
As for being a liar , I don't think most scientists that believe in evolution , actually know that they are supporting a lie. Also the ones that say evolution is a fact, are not telling the people the truth. For them to say that, means that they think creation is impossible. And there is no evidence that says that is true.

 

[Mallon]

That depends on if you believe evolution happened or creation. There are many scientists that believe there is a creator.

I believe there is a Creator, too. And I accept evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive concepts. Even Darwin spoke of God as the Creator in his Origin of Species.

As for being a liar , I don't think most scientists that believe in evolution , actually know that they are supporting a lie.

Why do you think evolution is a lie?

 

[it'sme]

I believe there is a Creator, too. And I accept evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive concepts. Even Darwin spoke of God as the Creator in his Origin of Species.
Why do you think evolution is a lie?

Yes Darwin did say that. But further on this is , that Darwin, knew that his theories on evolution needed the fossil record to show that, the transitional fossil be there. he was hoping that with more fossils being found in the future, that his theories would hold up. But that has not been the case. And becasue that did not happen it is even more compelling, that evolution cold never proved from the fossils.
When i say transition, i don't mean what scientists call transitional. The ones i mean are the ones were all the mistakes happened going from one species to the next. For example in whales ( which scientists like to use for evolution), they say the bones on the sides gradually moved to become fins and then thee fins moved to the front and then became legs that could let the animal use them for crawling.
Now for evolution , it has no goal in mind, it doesn't know it needs to crawl eventually. So any movement of this fins would be trial and error. Mutations. So you would need to show the millions of attempts, at this, so the fins would go on the back under the belly on top of the head etc. Not only that but all the necessary nerve wiring , muscle placement, and brain function would have to follow this.
You would find many more of these mutations than you would of a completed animal. But none are found. Also the real problem with this is that all the other organs in the body would be doing the same thing they should be mutating also. With all their trial and errors. Now we have animals that need to be all together if they want to survive, so many of these mutated animals would die. Thus stopping the mutations it had, and you would have to start over again. Nothing like this is in the fossil record.
Now today if you look at what is on the earth, where are all the almost humans, the ones that are not quite human, ( because scientists say things changes little bit by little bit) There should be a different species of humans. Also what are humans evolving into so that they are no longer human?
DNA tries to center the life animals have. What I mean is when DNA makes animal , it allows for some adapting, and can change some traits, like races in humans. But it really tries to keep an animal complete , without very many mutations.
The other thing is evolution is based only on life starting on it's own. It can not be separated from that. If life came into existence from creation , then all life is created. And evolution as the scientists are promoting, would be a myth, becasue the creator made life to turn into all the variety we see. ( it was programmed in to the DNA) And then you would also have to find out who the creator is.
So evolution as the scientists promotes can only happen, if life started on it's own. So scientists have no choice but to try a prove that. Nothing else is acceptable.
The life we know has DNA , that first cell has DNA, but where did it get it's heredity? The first cell doesn't know it needs to survive , or does it know how divide. To do that is not a simple process. It takes 5 stages, to do. It would have to do this the first time or it dies trying to divide, and it has to do this before it dies. No trial and error.
Scientists are trying to do this in a lab. But the experiments in a lab only shows, creation. It can not show that life started on it's own , by doing the experiment. They can only prove that by finding life starting on it's own some place.
The example is a loaf of bread. Scientists can theorize , how the ingredients in bread could mix properly in the natural world, and you have bread. But does this happen. NO.
So scientists can create a loaf of bread in a lab, but that experiment does not show that it can happen on it's own. So the scientists have shown the case for creation.
Besides the evidence we have is life comes from life, and there is design in the life we see. Both of these which scientists , ignore , to pursue their quest of non creation.
So what scientists are telling us is a lie. For them to be honest, all they have to say is we don't know. And make that clear. For some scientists to claim evolution as a fact, is a lie.
Many scientists say to me, well we can't test for creation.
But the obvious answer is. How much intelligence would it take to make a bird. Here is some raw un-coded DNA , make a bird from it. How many of those scientists would leave the DNA in a test tube and say I don't have to do a thing it will happen on it's own. Do they really think it could happen on it's own? Or is this a lie?
Or some may say it would take me 1,000 years to code that DNA and I have to do it perfectly, or disaster. At least you can measure that.

Some scientists may say , I'm am not intelligent enough, or have enough knowledge to do that. This is really the truthful answer.

 

[troodon]

For example in whales ( which scientists like to use for evolution), they say the bones on the sides gradually moved to become fins and then thee fins moved to the front and then became legs that could let the animal use them for crawling.

What whales crawl?

So what scientists are telling us is a lie. For them to be honest, all they have to say is we don't know. And make that clear. For some scientists to claim evolution as a fact, is a lie.

We don't know that life on earth evolved naturally, it's the simplest unfalsified theory for earth's biodiversity.

We do know that the earth is older than 6,000 years and that no global flood can account for the earth's geology. That theory has been falsified, and you can call me a liar if you like but I've seen with my own eyes rocks that prove it.

Some scientists may say , I'm am not intelligent enough, or have enough knowledge to do that. This is really the truthful answer.

Okay...

 

[gluadys]

Whew! Where to begin?

Yes Darwin did say that. But further on this is , that Darwin, knew that his theories on evolution needed the fossil record to show that, the transitional fossil be there. he was hoping that with more fossils being found in the future, that his theories would hold up. But that has not been the case.

Actually, it is very much the case. Today's fossil record has many transitional series. Whoever told you differently is not telling you the truth (though they may not realize it is not the truth.)

And becasue that did not happen it is even more compelling, that evolution cold never proved from the fossils.
When i say transition, i don't mean what scientists call transitional. The ones i mean are the ones were all the mistakes happened going from one species to the next.

Then you are moving the goal-posts. This is just an excuse for saying the transitional fossils that have been found don't count.

For example in whales ( which scientists like to use for evolution), they say the bones on the sides gradually moved to become fins and then thee fins moved to the front and then became legs that could let the animal use them for crawling.

No they don't say this at all. It sounds like you have confused whale evolution with tetrapod evolution.

Now for evolution , it has no goal in mind, it doesn't know it needs to crawl eventually. So any movement of this fins would be trial and error. Mutations. So you would need to show the millions of attempts, at this, so the fins would go on the back under the belly on top of the head etc.

No, not really. A mutation that is favorable only needs to happen once; inheritance and natural selection take care of the rest.

Not only that but all the necessary nerve wiring , muscle placement, and brain function would have to follow this.
You would find many more of these mutations than you would of a completed animal.

All animals that have ever lived and reproduced are (or were) complete. Why would you expect them not to be?

But none are found. Also the real problem with this is that all the other organs in the body would be doing the same thing they should be mutating also. With all their trial and errors.

Actually, most evolution doesn't need to get started with mutations. Ever heard of chromosomal recombination?

Now we have animals that need to be all together if they want to survive, so many of these mutated animals would die. Thus stopping the mutations it had, and you would have to start over again. Nothing like this is in the fossil record.

Animals are all together. The sort of thing you are imagining wouldn't even get to be born. It would die as an embryo leaving no trace in the fossil record. You believe evolution is a lie because the version of evolution you have acquired is a lie. You need to learn how evolution really works before you can say the real thing is a lie.

Now today if you look at what is on the earth, where are all the almost humans, the ones that are not quite human, ( because scientists say things changes little bit by little bit) There should be a different species of humans. Also what are humans evolving into so that they are no longer human?

Do you mean other species of hominids? I think "human" means only our species Homo sapiens. There used to be other species in the same genus (Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo erectus, etc.) Some of these lived around the same time as earlier generations of Homo sapiens, just as various species of cats (Felis domesticus, Felis leo, Felis tigris, etc.) all live today. But today all the other species of Homo are extinct.

Humans will never become "not human". While it is not likely now, it is theoretically possible that our species could break into groups with each group becoming a particular type of human. Just as you have different types of pine trees (Scotch pine, jack pine, white pine, etc.) Each is a different species but they are all pines because they all have a common ancestor that was a pine. If humanity broke up into separated species, they would still all be human species because they would all have a common human ancestor: us.

DNA tries to center the life animals have. What I mean is when DNA makes animal , it allows for some adapting, and can change some traits, like races in humans. But it really tries to keep an animal complete , without very many mutations.

That is more or less true. Mutations are rare. DNA copying is extremely high-fidelity. But there are still a few miscopies, and there are so many DNA bases in the genome that even with a very small error rate, you get mutations in every cell division. Of course, only a very small percentage of these have any impact on evolution.

The other thing is evolution is based only on life starting on it's own. It can not be separated from that.

No, that's not true. It doesn't matter how life gets started; it still evolves.

If life came into existence from creation , then all life is created.

And as theistic evolutionists (evolutionary creationists) that's what we believe, that all life is created----through evolution---according to God's plan.

And evolution as the scientists are promoting, would be a myth, becasue the creator made life to turn into all the variety we see. ( it was programmed in to the DNA) And then you would also have to find out who the creator is.
So evolution as the scientists promotes can only happen, if life started on it's own. So scientists have no choice but to try a prove that. Nothing else is acceptable.

Many scientists are theistic evolutionists too. Maybe you mean that some scientists who are atheists promote evolution without God. But when they do that, they are not talking science anymore. They are just giving their own opinion.

The life we know has DNA , that first cell has DNA, but where did it get it's heredity? The first cell doesn't know it needs to survive , or does it know how divide. To do that is not a simple process. It takes 5 stages, to do. It would have to do this the first time or it dies trying to divide, and it has to do this before it dies. No trial and error.

I think you are alluding to the stages of meiotic division in a eukaryotic cell. But the first cell would have been much simpler and the process of division by simple fission would be much simpler. It didn't need to know how to divide; its chemistry would make it divide when it needed to.

Some scientists may say , I'm am not intelligent enough, or have enough knowledge to do that. This is really the truthful answer.

I expect you are intelligent enough, but your post does show that you lack knowledge of evolution. It is no wonder you think evolution is a lie because most of what you think about evolution is a lie. This is not evolution as scientists understand it.

 

[it'sme]

We do know that the earth is older than 6,000 years and that no global flood can account for the earth's geology. That theory has been falsified, and you can call me a liar if you like but I've seen with my own eyes rocks that prove it.

There is no problem with the earth and the universe being , very old.
There are many evidences of the flood. from sea life on the tops of mountains, from huge boulders that are moved in different directions, to quick frozen animals.

Actually, it is very much the case. Today's fossil record has many transitional series. Whoever told you differently is not telling you the truth (though they may not realize it is not the truth.)

There are no transitional fossils, what is found are completed animals, which , is what would be expected from creation.

Then you are moving the goal-posts. This is just an excuse for saying the transitional fossils that have been found don't count.

Not at all , there should be more of these than completed ones.

No, not really. A mutation that is favorable only needs to happen once; inheritance and natural selection take care of the rest.

You need animals that go from one animal to another, this is not seen.

Actually, most evolution doesn't need to get started with mutations. Ever heard of chromosomal recombination?

You still need one animal to become another. this is not seen

Animals are all together. The sort of thing you are imagining wouldn't even get to be born. It would die as an embryo leaving no trace in the fossil record. You believe evolution is a lie because the version of evolution you have acquired is a lie. You need to learn how evolution really works before you can say the real thing is a lie.

This is correct, you would not even get past the first cell. This is if life could start on it's own. Scientists have never proved that it could.

Do you mean other species of hominids? I think "human" means only our species Homo sapiens. There used to be other species in the same genus (Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo erectus, etc.) Some of these lived around the same time as earlier generations of Homo sapiens, just as various species of cats (Felis domesticus, Felis leo, Felis tigris, etc.) all live today. But today all the other species of Homo are extinct.

There has never been any proof that they are related to humans, it has been a constant quest , with many missing links and all fall short of any real evidence, it is only speculation. and with later scrutiny, are forgotten .about.

Humans will never become "not human". While it is not likely now, it is theoretically possible that our species could break into groups with each group becoming a particular type of human. Just as you have different types of pine trees (Scotch pine, jack pine, white pine, etc.) Each is a different species but they are all pines because they all have a common ancestor that was a pine. If humanity broke up into separated species, they would still all be human species because they would all have a common human ancestor: us.

There is a huge variety now, from very tall to short to light skin to dark skin. But they are all still human. If they will not become something else, then that means the almost humans will not change either. Why are humans not different species?

No, that's not true. It doesn't matter how life gets started; it still evolves.

It does matter how life started, but evolves into what. A human is still a human.