If evolution were wrong, it means ...

[shernren]

Was the Bible ever made flesh, Calypsis4?

Well, it was probably copied onto vellum at some point.

 

[troodon]

Well, it was probably copied onto vellum at some point.

Let us all behold its glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father!

Jeeze, I feel gross just saying that sarcastically...

 

[Papias]

Calypsis wrote:

Look, genius; no matter where the goalposts are placed you will not ever see a dog become a non-dog no matter how long the time frame is applied. You will never see a bacterium become non-bacteria. You will never see a bird become a non-bird.

Well, duh, because I'll be dead in <100 short years. However, the fossil record is very clear that fish evolve into amphibians, then into lizards, then into mammals, and so on. You can see some of the tranisitionals here:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

The genetic limitations are there to be tested and retested all you wish but it won't happen.

Creationists talk about their fairy tale "genetic limitations", but have not evidence for them. In addition to the widely acknowledged fact of transitions in the past, they still posit these "genetic limitations". Not only that, but they have no idea what would be a "genetic limitation" - not how it would work, what it would be, or anything. Would it be a section of bases that reads GGGCCTAACCCGG? What would it be and how would it work? They have no idea, but having no idea doesn't appear to give them any hesitation before claiming it exists.

You won't only not get a flow to become wheat or barley or oats you will never see it in ANY transitional stage

Have you tried to get a flow to become wheat? maybe that is better left alone. At any rate, we have seen the evolution of the gangley grass Teosinte into corn plants. They don't look anything alike.

As far as the word 'kind' is concerned, its in the dictionary. Look it up.

OKey Dokey:

kind Kind | Define Kind at Dictionary.com

2&#8194; &#8194;/ka&#618;nd/ Show Spelled[kahynd] Show IPA
–noun 1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.





So kind is "breed". We've certainly see the dog evolve into different kinds of dog. You don't deny dog evolution, right Calypsis?

That is exactly correct. Evolution from one organism into a different organism has never occured on this planet. Ever.

I sure am glad that my lap poodle is different from a wolf - my baby wouldn't be safe (I said as I ate some cornbread).

Then they admitted that evolution happened within species
(microevolution), but that species never evolved into different species (macroevolution).

Horizontal changes within a variety of organisms is NOT evolution

Sure it is. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency over time.

Speciation is mere change within a certain grouping of organism.

No, it isn't. It often involves visible changes to the karyotype, in addition to "reproduction according to their kinds" - aka genetic breeding isolation.


Remember the classification system:

Domain
Kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

Tell me something, genius; Is the Linneaus classification system infallible? Yes/no?

Infallible? no. Generally reliable? Yes. It's a lot better than the creationist classification system, which is "redefine groups as needed during discussion so as to pretend all evolution is within 'kinds'."

Whenever evolution is observed, the creationists simply go up the list as far as needed to include both the new and the old organism under a common name, and they say "but the worms stayed worms!" (phylum level), or whatever, as needed.

Evolution is not observed. It does not exist.

Nice, detailed, evidence based reply.

Note that calypsis just stated that he is fine with the idea of a tree shrew like creature evolving into a human being (both mammals, at the class level).

I did? You have a healthy imagination.

Sure you did - you said that things in one class never evolve to things outside that class. Tree shrews and humans are animals from the same class.

You need to repent for not believing the Word of God about the creation and how our world came about as it is today.

Maybe creationists who quote mine, distort, and lie about the pictures they post (like your sawmark leaf picutre) should read Exodus 20:16?

The truth is, skeptic, that you don't know if the first cell was a eukaryote or a prokaryote nor even if the first reproduction was sexual or asexual. You don't have a clue. Evolutionists don't know diddly squat about origins but they sure like people to think they do.

What a joke. Scientists have determined a lot about that the first cell, showing that it was much simpler than either, and on just a simplicity level, more similar to the prokaryote than than today's Eukaryotes. Of course the first reproduction was asexual. Scientists not only know a lot more about origins than you, they have reached a consensus that creationists like you continue to hide from people. At least the Pope is more honest - he has mentioned that it is "virtually certain" that all life descended from the first organism, which existed around 3 billion years ago.

Papias

 

[The Lady Kate]

We still haven't seen any evidence of limitations on Evolution by genetic mutation.

And we're not going to, either.

 

[lucaspa]

Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter ye at the strait gate: (entropy) for wide is the gate and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction and many there be which go in thereat:because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
I know Jesus were referring to the spiritual life which is much greater than the physical yet I 'm amazed how much this fits so well with physical life.
Entropy is the broad way which everything natural tries to go. Life is on the opposite extremely with many narrows path it must follow.

Wow. If you know that Jesus is referring to the path to the Kingdom of Heaven, why would you try to make it anything else?

And no, entropy does not fit this. You can't do a decrease in entropy without an increase in entropy in a larger system. That does not fit with Jesus' message at all. It would mean that for every person taking the narrow path, more people would have to take the broader one. Surely Jesus did not mean that.

It the same with my PC vs a rock (even a crystal). My PC is nothing but huge amount of narrow paths which electricity has to follow. If the electricity doesn't follow these extremely narrow paths then my pc doesn't work.

But your PC is an increase in entropy, not a decrease! Using your PC goes down the broad path of increasing entropy.

 

[lucaspa]

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

I'm afraid that is not the intent. Darwin was very careful to tell people that evolution meant that a Creator could exist.

You must remember, it'sme, that the vast majority of scientists, including me, are theist. We believe in a Creator.

There is a vocal minority of atheistic scientists -- Dawkins, Myers, Atkins, Wilson -- that would like to prove that deity does not exist. They have not succeeded. Remember, 99.999% of scientists are evolutionists, but only about 20% of scientists are atheists. If scientists are willing to accept a theory -- evolution -- that has proof, but have not become atheists, it means that Dawkins and company have not proved a Creator does not eixst.

It's not the the sciecne , that the scientists find in their work is wrong ,it is the interpretation of the science.

That's the rallying cry of creationists, isn't it? But the fact is that the scientists who are theists interpret the evidence to mean evolution, also.

In the real world the evidence that is there is that life comes from life.

Not all of it. I can show you how to make life from non-living chemicals. It's easy. You can do it in your kitchen or backyard. Thousands of high school students have done it for science fairs.

And that the life we see has great design in it.

Well, yes. That is because natural selection is an unintelligent process that guarantees design. It does not mean we were directly manufactured by God.

( 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)

Computer programs are far above DNA in complexity. Remember, DNA has only 4 letters and 64 words. Computer programs have more of both.

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.

Again, that is not the case. We have series of transitional individuals that go across species to species to new genera, family, order, and even class. We have series of transitional species that go farther than that. Whoever told you the fossil record did not back evolution told you a fib.

 

[lucaspa]

That depends on if you believe evolution happened or creation.

Whoa! False choice. The issue is between evolution and creationism. Accepting evolution doesn't mean saying there is no Creator. Evolution is not atheism.

Both evolution and creationism are different how God created. Creation is whether God created. What the evidence in God's Creation says is that God created by evolution, not by creationism.

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.

Not at all. It'sme, you have confused 2 different ideas: creation and creationism. Creation is the belief that God created. Creationism is a very specific how God created. God does not have to create by creationism in order to create, does He? God can create any way He chooses. What science does is try to figure out the method that God really used to create. God did not use creationism. We believe God used evolution.

Part of the confusion arises because atheists want you to do what you are doing. Atheists can't falsify creation, so the only way they can attack a Creator is if you insist that God must have used creationism. By making evolution be without God, you are playing right into the hands of atheists and doing what they want you to do.

 

[Nilla]

Mod Hat On​

This thread has been through a clean up.
Some posts have been deleted, some are edited.
​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Orogeny]

Nature never produces anything with this degree of complexity on its own. The degree of specificity is much higher in these objects and such things must be intelligently designed.

Nature never produces anything complex
Man produces complex things, which require intelligent design...
Nature isn't intelligently designed?

That's essentially what you just said. Not a particularly Christian view, is it, C4? Maybe stop worshiping your false interpretation of the bible and start using your head.

 

[lucaspa]

There is no possiblity that evolution could be true for even if it did exist it would be in violation of natural law. ... Everything from the necessary a priori first cause to the Law of Biogenesis, to the laws of entropy are all against the formation of life on any world including earth.

Calypsis, if evolution were truly impossible, don't you think you would have every scientist screaming out its impossibility? Instead, you have scientific study after scientific study showing that it exists!

Also, you seem to have a very different definition of "evolution" that scientists use. First Cause, abiogenesis, and entropy are not part of evolution. They are different theories. First Cause and entropy are physics and abiogenesis is chemistry. Anyway, let's take your objections one at a time. It seems that you are using "evolution" as another word for "atheism". But you can't do that. They are separate. For instance, on this board all the evolutionists are Christians. Not an atheist in the group.

1. First Cause. Evolution assumes the universe exists. So it is not concerned with how the universe got here. There are several theories about an a priori First Cause. However, that First Cause does not have to be God. You and I believe that it is, but it doesn't have to be. One theory out there -- No Boundary -- has no need of a First Cause. The universe is self-contained and simply IS. Read Hawking's A Brief History of Time.

2. There is no "Law of Biogenesis". This is a misstatement of the refutation of Spontaneous Generation. Remember, Spontaneous Generation said you got multicellular organisms from organic material: rats from rotting grain, maggots from rotting meat, etc. Abiogenesis says that life, which is chemistry, arises from chemical reactions. And it does. I can discuss with you one way that happens. It is so easy that you can make living cells from non-living chemicals in your kitchen or backyard.

3. Entropy. Do you even know what entropy is? If entropy worked the way you say it does, an acorn could not grow into a tree. A fertilized human ovum -- you at one point -- could not grow into an adult. C'mon, we don't think God miraculously intervenes in each pregnancy to make a baby possible! Or do you?

No, it has never been observed. Evolution is the change from simple organisms to more complex ones supposedly resulting in the vast array of life we see in existence today.

Well, you have just destroyed one of your arguments against evolution: the need for a First Cause! As you say, evolution isn't concerned with that. But, your definition of evolution is flawed. There is nothing in evolution that requires a change from "simple organisms to more complex". Instead, evolution is "descent with modification". That process will indeed produce the diversity of life we see today.

But scientists can't even cause organisms to change into other organisms outside of their family/order.

Why have you set the goalpost of family/order? Families/orders are simply groups of species. For evolution to be correct, all we need to see is the generation of new species from existing ones. You will inevitably get a new family or order as more and more speciations occur in each of the 2 species. All families/orders originally started as a single species. Shoot, even creationists now believe that. So yes, we have seen speciation. In one case humans have even produced a new genus.

Genetically speaking; lions and tigers can produce offspring (ligers) and horses and donkeys can do likewise (mules) but they are all hybrids!

And that is what is supposed to happen if evolution is true. If creationism is true, they should not even mate at all, much less produce living offspring! Thank for providing more evidence for evolution.

Humans, on the other hands, cannot be successfully crossed with apes even though we are supposedly from a common ancestor!

How do you know? I have looked hard to see if the experiments have even been done. As far as I can tell, they have not. For ethical reasons. So how do you know it is impossible?

How long ago was the common ancestor? About 7 million years. There have been at least 6 speciation events since then just on the human side of the lineage. The chimp side probably has just as many. So why would we expect them to be able to interbreed? Chimps may be our closest relatives, but they are really 4th or 5th cousins, not siblings. Now, if you could try the experiment with neandertals then it might mean something.

Because God Almighty placed the genetic barriers between different organisms and they WILL NOT change into other organisms.

But genetic analysis shows us that is not the case. If you have a "genetic barrier", then the DNA sequences of the different classes would have to be independent. No possibility of transforming one to another, therefore no historical connections between DNA sequences. The problem is that since the 1980s we have been routinely doing DNA sequences on huge amounts of DNA (think of all the genomes that have been fully sequenced; there are thousands more where we have chunks of the genome sequenced). What did we find? Did we find independent DNA sequences? NO! Instead, what was found was that DNA sequences -- from worms, to bacteria, to corn, to insects, to trees, to humans -- are all interrelated by historical connections! There goes your mythincal "genetic barrier".

There is no 'descent with modification' except within the family/order of the organism.

If that is the case, then humans and chimps are just variations within the Family Ape. We are members of the same family. If you want "order", then humans and monkeys are all just "modifications" within the order Primate. Ouch!

You are talking about a lot of wishful thinking but empirical investigation never reveals change from one organism into another kind of organism.

Well, there are fossil sequences of individuals linking species to species to different family, a different order, and even to a different class (mammals and fish are examples of a class).

In the empirical world, we have the transformation of wheat into a different kind of organism called triticale. We also have seen the transformation of a fruit fly into a malt fly. Or we have seen the transformation of a species of Drosophila into another species where the genetic difference is 3%. The genetic difference between humans and chimps -- measured the same way -- is less than 1%. There go those so-called genetic barriers again.

 

[lucaspa]

Nature never produces anything with this degree of complexity on its own. The degree of specificity is much higher in these objects and such things must be intelligently designed.

How about snowflakes. They are much more complex than the droplets of water that is the starting material.

Or how about elements made in the fusion of a hyrdrogen bomb -- or in the sun. Carbon is much more complex than the staring material -- hydrogen.

Entropy is why we do not observe abiogenesis in nature.

But we do. Now, you might say that the chemicals are "programmed" by a Creator, but you are using "intelligent design" for a lot more than programming, aren't you? You are using it to mean that God gets in there and directly manufactures. Chemistry did not make the first DNA molecule, but instead God took individual nucleotides and hooked them together. Isn't that what you are saying?

Take a quick look at the Gospel of John and see if the Bible really is the 'Word'.

What a wasted argument. Should I take YOU at your WORD? Why should I believe your WORD? Answer me and then I will tell you why I asked this.

He's not asking you to take his promise. He's asking you to look at the Bible! What does John 1 say? Is the Word really the Bible? Look at Revelations 19:3. Is the Word the Bible? Then look at Hebrews 4:2 and see what the "word" is.

 

[lucaspa]

Actually I didn't think this was a serious question.
After reading that scripture and you are standing on the earth, no matter which way you looked there is a circle on the earth, what part of that is flat? Also how wide is the circle? Is it a centimeter wide? Is it a yard wide? What direction was the circle?


Circle | Define Circle at Dictionary.com

16. a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.

LOL! That's an ENGLISH dictionary, not a Hebrew one. Was Isaiah written in English?

As noted, the Hebrews had a word for "ball" -- a sphere. If they wanted to accurately state the shape of the earth -- which you asserted was their intention -- then they would have used the word for "ball". Then there would have been no confusion.

But look what you are doing. You are no longer interprating literally. You arenow sayin we should interpret it from the perspective of the person, not literally.

If you stand in Iowa, there is no "circle". Instead, the earth is flat. Same in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, or haven't you seen any of the video from Iraq? No matter how you cut it, the passage does not give the earth a 3 D sphere, when you pay attention to the original Hebrew.

 

[lucaspa]

Let us all behold its glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father!

Jeeze, I feel gross just saying that sarcastically...

Really. But for Calypsis, it's not the only begotten. Now God has 2 kids: Jesus and the Bible. Can you just see Jesus playing with his brother? Does the Bible get resurrected?

Wow. All these theological questions arising from that theology. The mind boggles.

 

[lucaspa]

Look, genius; no matter where the goalposts are placed you will not ever see a dog become a non-dog no matter how long the time frame is applied.

How about a wolf becoming a non-wolf? That's how dogs arose, remember? And we have seen that since humans have been around.

You will never see a bird become a non-bird. The genetic limitations are there to be tested and retested all you wish but it won't happen.

Well, the fossil record clearly shows the sequence of a non-bird becoming a bird. That took hundreds of speciation events, but the record of transitional species is clear.

I told you. We already tested the "genetic limitations" and they aren't there.

Go plant flower seeds of any kind you wish and observe how long it takes to see a flower become wheat or how long it would take a rose to become a tree...of any kind.

That's not evolution. You do know that the evolution happens to populations, not individuals. Right? Maybe not. Also that the transformation takes generations. All you've done, Calypsis4, is show that you can make strawmen and knock them down. Knowing what kind of response that would bring (Oh, calypsis, you don't know how evolution works.) The truth is you don't even know that it doesn't work, period. You won't only not get a flow to become wheat or barley or oats you will never see it in ANY transitional stage between a flower and anything that is NOT a flower. That is the law of genetics that God created and there isn't anything you can do about it.

As far as the word 'kind' is concerned, its in the dictionary. Look it up.

That is exactly correct. Evolution from one organism into a different organism has never occured on this planet. Ever.

We have hundreds of instances of observed speciation. Let's see if this link still works: http://www.christianforums.com/t155626
A new species is a "different organism" in that it breeds only with its own "kind" and not any other species.

The truth is, skeptic, that you don't know if the first cell was a eukaryote or a prokaryote nor even if the first reproduction was sexual or asexual. You don't have a clue.

The cells we see forming now from non-living chemicals are neither eukaryote nor prokaryote. They reproduce asexually, either by fission or by budding.

 

[metherion]

The cells we see forming now from non-living chemicals are neither eukaryote nor prokaryote. They reproduce asexually, either by fission or by budding.

Waaaaait a moment. This is probably a hole in my own knowledge, but I thought that prokaryotes did NOT have organelles while eukaryotes did, and that was the distinguishing feature. And since have A/ lacks A covers 100% of the possibilities, every cell would HAVE to be one or the other.

What do I have wrong? Please to explain.

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

He's not asking you to take his promise. He's asking you to look at the Bible! What does John 1 say? Is the Word really the Bible? Look at Revelations 19:3. Is the Word the Bible? Then look at Hebrews 4:2 and see what the "word" is.

I think you mean Revelations 19:13

 

[Smidlee]

Nature never produces anything with this degree of complexity on its own. The degree of specificity is much higher in these objects and such things must be intelligently designed.

Entropy is why we do not observe abiogenesis in nature. Nature is incapable of performing such tasks. It can only do what the Creator programed it to do.

Next time type "Nature never produces anything with this degree of specified complexity own its own" so someone doesn't use the snowflake example. I knew exactly what you were referring to.

L iving organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple, well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. (Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973).)

 

[troodon]

And what's the definition of "specified complexity"?

 

[Smidlee]

And what's the definition of "specified complexity"?

My personal definition, It's the narrow path complexity vs the broad road complexity.

 

[Orogeny]

Elaborate, please. I'm not actually sure that means anything.