Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[Justatruthseeker]

Funny enough, I don't believe Napoleon said that

Of course you don't.

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1056429

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I guess this doesn't say much for the bible then, does it?

Or doesn't say much for men who will believe anything?

 

[RickG]

Why do all evolutionists refuse to accept empirical observations??????

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-evolutionist.7916357/page-15#post-68891501

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-evolutionist.7916357/page-15#post-68891501

How does saying, "I am not an evolutionist because I refuse to ignore the data", mean evolutionists refuse to accept empirical observations?

I am still waiting for someone to match theory to the observational evidence instead of asking we ignore it.

You ignore the fact that the fossil record cannot exist without evolution. If evolution were false we would find all fossils in all layers of the geologic column.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How does saying, "I am not an evolutionist because I refuse to ignore the data", mean evolutionists refuse to accept empirical observations?



You ignore the fact that the fossil record cannot exist without evolution. If evolution were false we would find all fossils in all layers of the geologic column.

Then stop avoiding it and show me how your theory matches the observational evidence.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-evolutionist.7916357/page-15#post-68891501

Yes it can. You claim that because something appears later in the geological layer it is from evolution. I say you are confused because you ignore the observational evidence.

If evolutionist's had never seen a dog in life nor knew anything about them and found fossils of the Husky and Mastiff and then found fossils of the Chinook in a later layer, they would claim the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook simply because the Chinook appears at a later time in the record. Yet we know from observational fact that this is not what has occurred, even if the Chinook appeared at a later date. The Husky remained a Husky, the Mastiff remained a Mastiff.

Again - you ask me to ignore the observational evidence for a theory that you can't make fit the observational evidence.

Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before Husky and Mastiff mated to create the Chinook? Are lies and misdirection all you have? It is quite clear from observational data that we should NOT find the Chinook in all layers of the geological column, since the Chinook can not exist until after the Husky and Mastiff exist to mate.

Just as we would find no evidence of an Afro-Asian existing until after an Asian and an African mated.

 

[RickG]

Yes it can. You claim that because something appears later in the geological layer it is from evolution. I say you are confused because you ignore the observational evidence.

That is observational. The observation is that the fossil record exhibits what evolution would produce. The alternative is that those life forms just popped into existence at the right time to exhibit evolution.

 

[newhopeinHim]

Amen!

Thank you RickG

 

[newhopeinHim]

to wait for something good to happen in your life is not a good thing, especially when it has to be for a long time as the process of evolution takes not-so-short time, that is also why there's no evolution in the true Lord God

Blessings

AMEN toL!!!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is observational. The observation is that the fossil record exhibits what evolution would produce. The alternative is that those life forms just popped into existence at the right time to exhibit evolution.

As I said - you continue to ignore the observational evidence and refuse to apply it to the fossil record. Tell me - how long does it take to make an Afro-Asian from both an Asian and an African? 9 months. In geological time it did indeed just pop into existence. There was no gradual evolution of an African into an Afro-Asian nor any gradual evolution between the Asian and the Afro-Asian. And that's why your missing links are missing - because they never existed. There are no missing links between the Asian and the Afro-Asian nor between the African and the Afro-Asian. Because once again - you refuse to accept the observational evidence. NEVER has one thing been seen to evolve into another species. NEVER. Or even another infraspecific taxa within the species. At all times it takes two or more infraspecific taxa to create another. You simply ignore half of the equation - the other infraspecific taxa it took to make a third. And this is why your theory will never fit what we observe - because it is the most idiotic theory ever devised. You require epicycle upon epicycle upon epicycle to explain what we observe, because you ignore what we observe. Based upon one man who was charting islands and believed those Finches were reproductively isolated.

And then when we actually did get around to studying them - we find he was wrong - they have been interbreeding according to the DNA data since they arrived on the island. His entire theory falsified by direct empirical observation. Interbreeding right in front of your eyes producing new infraspecific taxa and you continue to ignore it. Continue to preach Fairie Dust.

Prove me wrong - show me one thing that we have ever observed become another species or even another infraspecific taxa within that species without mating with a separate infraspecific taxa within that species? You can't. You are off in wonderland - asking us to believe in Fairie Tales. And still you refuse to accept observational evidence and promote Fairie Dust.

You people don't know what science is - all you have is Fairie Dust.

Your strawman can not stand - any more than your last strawman stood.
"If evolution were false we would find all fossils in all layers of the geologic column."

"Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before Husky and Mastiff mated to create the Chinook? It is quite clear from observational data that we should NOT find the Chinook in all layers of the geological column, since the Chinook can not exist until after the Husky and Mastiff exist to mate."

Well answer me - are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before the Husky and mastiff mated to create the Chinook? You ain't gonna get out of this one. Your strawman is going to be shown for what it is - pure dishonesty and distraction.

 

[RickG]

As I said - you continue to ignore the observational evidence and refuse to apply it to the fossil record. Tell me - how long does it take to make an Afro-Asian from both an Asian and an African? 9 months. In geological time it did indeed just pop into existence. There was no gradual evolution of an African into an Afro-Asian nor any gradual evolution between the Asian and the Afro-Asian. And that's why your missing links are missing - because they never existed. There are no missing links between the Asian and the Afro-Asian nor between the African and the Afro-Asian. Because once again - you refuse to accept the observational evidence. NEVER has one thing been seen to evolve into another species. NEVER. Or even another infraspecific taxa within the species. At all times it takes two or more infraspecific taxa to create another. You simply ignore half of the equation - the other infraspecific taxa it took to make a third. And this is why your theory will never fit what we observe - because it is the most idiotic theory ever devised. You require epicycle upon epicycle upon epicycle to explain what we observe, because you ignore what we observe. Based upon one man who was charting islands and believed those Finches were reproductively isolated.

And then when we actually did get around to studying them - we find he was wrong - they have been interbreeding according to the DNA data since they arrived on the island. His entire theory falsified by direct empirical observation. Interbreeding right in front of your eyes producing new infraspecific taxa and you continue to ignore it. Continue to preach Fairie Dust.

Prove me wrong - show me one thing that we have ever observed become another species or even another infraspecific taxa within that species without mating with a separate infraspecific taxa within that species? You can't. You are off in wonderland - asking us to believe in Fairie Tales. And still you refuse to accept observational evidence and promote Fairie Dust.

You people don't know what science is - all you have is Fairie Dust.

Your strawman can not stand - any more than your last strawman stood.
"If evolution were false we would find all fossils in all layers of the geologic column."

"Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before Husky and Mastiff mated to create the Chinook? It is quite clear from observational data that we should NOT find the Chinook in all layers of the geological column, since the Chinook can not exist until after the Husky and Mastiff exist to mate."

Well answer me - are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before the Husky and mastiff mated to create the Chinook? You ain't gonna get out of this one. Your strawman is going to be shown for what it is - pure dishonesty and distraction.

Thanks for ignoring my reply and going off on a tangent. How did we get the fossil record we have? Did everything just pop into existence at the right time? That is what you seem to be implying? The fossil record is the observed evidence.

 

[Astrophile]

That doesn't make sense. Europe was completely Christianized by the 5th century.

No, it wasn't. England wasn't converted until the 7th century, Germany in the 8th century, Bohemia and Poland in the 9th and 10th centuries, the Scandinavian countries at the end of the first millennium, Finland in the 12th and 13th centuries. The first Christian king of Russia lived in the late 10th century. Lithuania didn't become Christian until about 1360, and then only because the Grand Duke wanted to marry a Polish Catholic princess. Even then, Lithuanian Christianity was the religion of the ruling classes; the common people remained largely pagan even into the 19th century.

It grew and became the religion of the Roman empire and when the empire came to an end Christianity spread quickly throughout Europe. It had reached Russia in the 1st century. It was in China in the 6th century as well.

First, as I have explained, the conversion of Europe was a slow process that lasted the best part of a thousand years. Second, Christianity was imposed on most of Europe by the sword or other forms of coercion; people didn't adopt it of their own free will. Third, whenever Christianity reached China, it remained a minority religion. Most of the Chinese did not accept it; I suspect that many of the Chinese never heard of it.

It must have reached the middle east fairly early as Mohammad acknowledges Jesus when he was around in the 6th century as well.
Christianity may have reached many places even earlier around the late 1st to mid 2nd century as there were reports of Christian tribes in places like Northern Africa and India.

Christianity originated in the Middle East, and the Mediterranean fringe of Africa was part of the Roman Empire, so it became Christian in the 4th century with the rest of the Empire. However, Roman Africa occupied only a very small part of the continent.

The disciple Paul covered a very large area including Asia and Africa.

Asia and Africa are big places. Paul's journeys took him through what are now Turkey and the Levant, but not to any other parts of Asia. Where does the Bible say that Paul visited Africa? Most of Africa was not even explored by Europeans, let alone converted to Christianity, until the 19th century.

Considering other countries like Australia and America were not discovered until much later

Human beings first reached Australia about 60,000 years ago. They first reached the Americas about 20,000 years ago. Perhaps you are referring to the European discoveries of these continents.

I think the Message of Christianity had reached most of the world fairly early.

If you mean that part of the world known to Europeans, you are probably right. However, that merely confirms what I said about knowledge of Christianity being confined to Europe and to the neighbouring regions of northern Africa and western Asia.

It would have taken some time to spread the message to the far reaches of these countries. In fact even through the early missionary years many remote areas still hadn't heard the Gospel. Some still havnt today.

This simply confirms my previous statement, that for most of the last 2000 years knowledge of Christianity was largely confined to Europe and the Mediterranean littoral.

 

[Davian]

I've made no claims that are unevidenced, untestable or unfalsifiable.

All my claims are in direct agreement WITH science.

In post #293, did you not claim that your "God" created the world, with your "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--" and all that?

It looks like you do make such claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

But if you have some kind of proof the science is incorrect??????

Where did I say otherwise? How much wrong can you accumulate?

Study science and you would know.

No, stupid and inappropriate. Would have taken you two seconds to do a search to find out what science believes all things are made of.

What, and spoil the surprise for you?

 

[Davian]

Show me one historical claim that absence of a body is claimed as evidence for it not being true?????

As a matter of fact you claim your missing links are just "missing"

No, all of my links are here and accounted for.

- absence of a body doesn't seem to bother you much at all when it comes to your faith.

What faith? Have you confused me with someone else?

What part of all the experts agree that he did exist do YOU not understand? Show me where the experts say Jesus did not exist historically?

Show me where I disagreed with them. Are you having memory problems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,... and historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
"Nevertheless there is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically,"

Again - you claim to believe the experts - yet the historical experts believe he did exist. Funny how what you believe does not match them. Funny how you make claims you follow them - yet they diagree with you. Claims with no substance are just mere claims. Anyone can do that. I provided you with verifiable links the experts agree he existed - you provide nothing.

The question still stands; why do you not go with the experts?

 

[crjmurray]

No, all of my links are here and accounted for.

What faith? Have you confused me with someone else?

Show me where I disagreed with them. Are you having memory problems?

The question still stands; why do you not go with the experts?

Because they disagree with his beliefs. Her beliefs? Whatever. Their beliefs.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I believe both. I believe in creation, but also believe that over the years animals develop different traits based on how their enveiment changes.

 

[Jimmy D]

As I said - you continue to ignore the observational evidence and refuse to apply it to the fossil record. Tell me - how long does it take to make an Afro-Asian from both an Asian and an African? 9 months. In geological time it did indeed just pop into existence. There was no gradual evolution of an African into an Afro-Asian nor any gradual evolution between the Asian and the Afro-Asian. And that's why your missing links are missing - because they never existed. There are no missing links between the Asian and the Afro-Asian nor between the African and the Afro-Asian. Because once again - you refuse to accept the observational evidence. NEVER has one thing been seen to evolve into another species. NEVER. Or even another infraspecific taxa within the species. At all times it takes two or more infraspecific taxa to create another. You simply ignore half of the equation - the other infraspecific taxa it took to make a third. And this is why your theory will never fit what we observe - because it is the most idiotic theory ever devised. You require epicycle upon epicycle upon epicycle to explain what we observe, because you ignore what we observe. Based upon one man who was charting islands and believed those Finches were reproductively isolated.

And then when we actually did get around to studying them - we find he was wrong - they have been interbreeding according to the DNA data since they arrived on the island. His entire theory falsified by direct empirical observation. Interbreeding right in front of your eyes producing new infraspecific taxa and you continue to ignore it. Continue to preach Fairie Dust.

Prove me wrong - show me one thing that we have ever observed become another species or even another infraspecific taxa within that species without mating with a separate infraspecific taxa within that species? You can't. You are off in wonderland - asking us to believe in Fairie Tales. And still you refuse to accept observational evidence and promote Fairie Dust.

You people don't know what science is - all you have is Fairie Dust.

Your strawman can not stand - any more than your last strawman stood.
"If evolution were false we would find all fossils in all layers of the geologic column."

"Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before Husky and Mastiff mated to create the Chinook? It is quite clear from observational data that we should NOT find the Chinook in all layers of the geological column, since the Chinook can not exist until after the Husky and Mastiff exist to mate."

Well answer me - are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before the Husky and mastiff mated to create the Chinook? You ain't gonna get out of this one. Your strawman is going to be shown for what it is - pure dishonesty and distraction.

I know I shouldn't take the bait, but where do these Africans and Asians come from? Where did huskies and mastiffs come from? Are they different 'kinds' created by God. I don't get it.

Am I right in thinking that your argument is that because we can't actually see speciation happening, in front of our own eyes, in several generations it can't be true?

This seems like one of the most childish arguments against evolution you could make - and yet you keep pushing it thread after thread.

 

[stevevw]

No, it wasn't. England wasn't converted until the 7th century, Germany in the 8th century, Bohemia and Poland in the 9th and 10th centuries, the Scandinavian countries at the end of the first millennium, Finland in the 12th and 13th centuries. The first Christian king of Russia lived in the late 10th century. Lithuania didn't become Christian until about 1360, and then only because the Grand Duke wanted to marry a Polish Catholic princess. Even then, Lithuanian Christianity was the religion of the ruling classes; the common people remained largely pagan even into the 19th century.

I think we are talking about two different things here. I am talking about knowledge of Christianity and not when these nations actually finally converted. So many countries had heard of Christianity around the 4th century. The Roman empire which occupied a vast area throughout Europe icluding Germany, England and the Scandinavian countries became Christian by the 5th century. So they would have been known for their Christian beliefs further a field as well.

But according to these sites Christianity was even the dominate religion fairly early. You have to remember that many countries would have heard of Christianity and it took some time for it to be established as their religion. But that doesn't mean they had never heard of Christianity. Even the Pagans had heard about it. But they had to overcome the existing beliefs before they could make Christianity the main religion which took time.
In the year 300 AD, Christianity was a minority religion in the Roman Empire, practiced by perhaps ten percent of the population. In good years it was discriminated against; in bad years it was persecuted. By 400 AD, a century later, it had become the official religion practiced by pretty much everyone.
http://gadling.com/2010/09/21/the-death-of-paganism-how-the-roman-empire-converted-to-christi/
Christianity would grow to dominate Europe by the 5th century AD
http://www.worldology.com/Christianity/rise_christianity.htm
http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/empire/extent/rome-modern-day-nations.html

First, as I have explained, the conversion of Europe was a slow process that lasted the best part of a thousand years. Second, Christianity was imposed on most of Europe by the sword or other forms of coercion; people didn't adopt it of their own free will. Third, whenever Christianity reached China, it remained a minority religion. Most of the Chinese did not accept it; I suspect that many of the Chinese never heard of it.

I agree the conversion took longer but people had heard of the message of Christianity before its final conversion. So there may have been resistance from the powers that were in charge. It may have been banned and then it may have been restricted. So it took some time o be established. Still it grew remarkable fast to begin with and persisted despite persecution and resistance from the powers in charge.

Christianity originated in the Middle East, and the Mediterranean fringe of Africa was part of the Roman Empire, so it became Christian in the 4th century with the rest of the Empire. However, Roman Africa occupied only a very small part of the continent.

Asia and Africa are big places. Paul's journeys took him through what are now Turkey and the Levant, but not to any other parts of Asia. Where does the Bible say that Paul visited Africa? Most of Africa was not even explored by Europeans, let alone converted to Christianity, until the 19th century.

Yes I agree.

Human beings first reached Australia about 60,000 years ago. They first reached the Americas about 20,000 years ago. Perhaps you are referring to the European discoveries of these continents.

Yes.

If you mean that part of the world known to Europeans, you are probably right. However, that merely confirms what I said about knowledge of Christianity being confined to Europe and to the neighbouring regions of northern Africa and western Asia.

Yes Christianity spread to wherever civilized people were. Thats all it could do until the missionaries and settlers got there.

This simply confirms my previous statement, that for most of the last 2000 years knowledge of Christianity was largely confined to Europe and the Mediterranean littoral.[/QUOTE]It was also in China and many other Asian countries. It made it to parts of Africa. It was in Russia as well. But it cant become a dominate religion if it was never taken to those places in the first place until much later. But it shows that the places where it did end up being heard it became the dominate belief. It started with a man crucified on a cross in a small town in Jerusalem and went on to dominate the Roman empire that tried to destroy it. It continued to spread and became the worlds greatest religion in a relatively short time.

 

[stevevw]

I believe both. I believe in creation, but also believe that over the years animals develop different traits based on how their environment changes.

Yes and many people do. But this is mainly evolution within a species and it is limited. Animals change and new variations happen. You would have to be blind not to see that. But just like Darwin's finches which change their beaks so they could forage for food and crack the seed husks because those birds with stronger beaks and survived. But they didn't continue to change completely and become some other animal. they may have become a different looking bird because of those limited variations but thats about it. When the conditions for those birds went back to normal so did the birds revert back to their natural wild state. The further an animal moves away from its natural wild state the less fit it becomes. We have seen that with dog breeding.

So this is a form of evolution. What Darwinian evolution does is take what we see with the variations within a species and then they assume that the same mechanisms can happen to make changes beyond a species. That one type of animals can turn into a completely different type. Tests have confirmed evolution within a species (micro evolution). But nothing has ever been confirmed with evidence the macro evolution of one type of creature turning into a completely different one like a Dino to a bird. The only evidence used is observational evidence which is up fro interpretation and often contradicted. But tests have never confirmed it which is the proper way to verify something scientifically.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I know I shouldn't take the bait, but where do these Africans and Asians come from? Where did huskies and mastiffs come from? Are they different 'kinds' created by God. I don't get it.

I can assure you the Husky did not magically become a Husky by evolving from another creature. I can assure you it took at a minimum of (two) separate infraspecific taxa to create the Husky or Mastiff - just as it took a minimum of (two) to create the Chinook. But then I do not need to ignore all of the observational evidence but simply accept it. Just as I can assure you the African did not evolve from one infraspecific taxa - but like observation shows you - it takes at a minimum of (two) separate infraspecific taxa within the species - just as it took two to create the Afro-Asian.

Of course you don't get it - you still believe one infraspecific taxa can become two - when ALL the evidence tells you it takes a minimum of (two). You tell me - Are Husky and Mastiff separate species, or merely separate infraspecific taxa within the canine species??? You tell me - are Asian and African separate species, or merely separate infraspecific taxa within the human species??? You tell me - and answer your own question about "Kinds."

Am I right in thinking that your argument is that because we can't actually see speciation happening, in front of our own eyes, in several generations it can't be true?

This seems like one of the most childish arguments against evolution you could make - and yet you keep pushing it thread after thread.

No, what is childish is to believe it happens any other way when you have not ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS SO. So you want us to ignore what we can see, while pretending something is true that you can not see, because you ignore what we can see???? Isn't that what you claim religion is, believing in things not seen while ignoring the data?????

Again, I need none of that Fairie Dust to explain variation in the species - just to accept that Asian mates with Asian and produces an Afro-Asian (variation) within the species. Just to accept that Husky mates with Mastiff and produces a Chinook (variation) within the species. It is you that is required to ignore how variation occurs in the species, simply because they refuse to accept the observational evidence of how that variation occurs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I believe both. I believe in creation, but also believe that over the years animals develop different traits based on how their enveiment changes.

I also believe this. I believe that Asians undergo mutations, but they always remain Asian - one is simply taller or shorter than another - different noses, etc. But the ONLY time we have observed variation in the species itself - is when (two) or more infraspecific taxa mate to create a new infraspecific taxa within the species.

If you took one million black rabbits and placed them in the arctic, then over time we would possibly have millions of white fat rabbits - but they would still be rabbits, and will never become anything but rabbits.

In the fossil record they simply mistakenly call everything slightly different in appearance a separate species - even if dogs (for the win) tell us the folly of that belief. Or cats, bear, deer, horses, etc, etc., let's not be prejudiced (my sarcastic humor, sorry I can't help it )

EDIT:

I simply claim that these:

Are no different than these:

Merely different infraspecific taxa in the species or Kind to which they belong. Not separate species themselves.

 

[nomadictheist]

Are we talking microevolution (the small changes that take place in a species, leading to variations, but do not lead to new species) or macroevolution (the theory that microevolution, given enough time, can cause a species to slowly turn into another species altogether)?

In terms of macroevolution, there's one simple reason that I don't believe it - it assumes there is no God.

Now, before all you eager atheists and agnostics jump on this and say that "science doesn't speak to God," I will elucidate this statement.

Even though scientists claim that science - in which they include the "science" of origins - does not speak to the existence of God, this is nothing more than a falsification of fact. The reason is simple: If God exists, then, by His very nature, there are things in this world that cannot be satisfactorily explained without the presence of God.

When scientists say that everything in this world can be satisfactorily explained without the presence of God, it is the same as saying that there is no God. Because if there is a God, then His actions will have caused effects that cannot be satisfactorily explained without Him.

What intrigues me is that - in this regard - evolutionists apply a premise that is not thought reasonable if applied anywhere else. The premise is that if we can understand the parts and workings of something, that is evidence that it didn't have a Designer.

There is another premise applied by evolutionists that is not thought reasonable anywhere else. That is that if things are similar, that is evidence that one came from another, or all from some lower thing of the same variety.

But if we tried to apply these premises to any other orderly thing in the universe, these same scientists would ridicule us.

For example, we understand very well how a cell phone works. But if we tried to use our understanding of a cell phone as evidence that it came to being by completely natural processes with no intelligent interference, we would be ridiculed for this notion (and rightly so).

If we were to say that the faces on Mt. Rushmore were carved out over thousands of years by natural processes and just happen to look like real faces, we would be ridiculed (and rightly so).

If we were to claim that because all vehicles have features common to them, it's evidence that they evolved without outside interference from a single vehicle, which itself came about through purely natural processes, we would be laughed at (and rightly so).

And yet, scientists say that because we can understand a large portion of the incredibly complex systems that make up physical life - because we can analyze the components that all living creatures physically have to process food, water, etc. - that this is enough evidence to say that there is no need for an intelligent Creator of life.

Furthermore, they say that because all life has certain similarities, it all evolved from an original life form, that itself came about by purely natural causes. They further say that closer similarities indicate evolutionary ancestry.

So why do I choose to not believe in macroevolution? Because I believe that there is a God, and therefore there are things that exist because He made them to exist. And the most unsatisfactory explanations of evolution do not negate the intricacy, complexity, and glory of His works.