Is evolution real?

[driewerf]

Through your understanding, do you think it possible that these were breeds of humans before the flood that descended from Adam and Eve, but we don't see them anymore because we only got the descendants of a small group of humans (Noah and his family) who were our ancestors?

Was it Adam or Eve that had such good long acreage between the front teeth and the eyes, like skull A?

 

[driewerf]

No, evolution is not real, not at all how the worlds appointed men who are called "scientists" describe it to be. Because it's stupid, is not based in reality, and does not work.

And what experiments, observations or other evidence have you gathered, to contradict people who do work in lans or who do dig up the fossils that provide us with evidence?

Figure out how a cell works, how DNA works, how proteins are formed. This did not happen by random chance. These things are more complicated and efficient than anything man can produce, and we're supposed to believe that this just fell together in place?

You mean, to look at the same textbooks of the same scientists that you described as "so called scientists" and stupid in the first part of your post?

 

[pitabread]

Adaptation is real. Evolution is not. If mankind evolved, sin is meaningless. There is no need for a saviour because animals do not sin. How can man be made in God's image if he is just a glorified ape, descended from a single cell? "Created" is not "evolved" no matter which way you try to distort the definitions.

Posts like this only further reaffirm that the issue creationists have with evolution has nothing to do with science and everything to do with their theology.

Which is all the more odd that creationists have set themselves up where they either allow for the falsification of their beliefs or require adherence to a deceptive universe.

 

[emett22]

Your last sentence seems to negate the rest of your post.

In any case, I'd like to ask if you agree with the following:

1. Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others?
2. Do you agree that some of those differences can make it easier for that individual to survive - say, better eyesight so it has a better chance of spotting an approaching predator?
3. Do you agree that these differences are due to the genes that the animals have?
   
4. Do you agree that the genes that are responsible for these differences can be passed on to the offspring when that animal reproduces?
5. Do you agree that if an animal has some genes that mean it has a difference that helps it survive, this animal is more likely to have more offspring precisely because these differences help it live longer (living longer means more chances to reproduce)?
6. Do you agree that if animals with these helpful differences produce more offspring, then the number of animals in the herd that have this helpful difference will tend to increase over the generations?
7. Do you agree that if we wait for enough generations to pass, most if not all animals in the herd will have this difference, and what was once different is now normal?

Because that's evolution.

If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which stage exactly do you think is incorrect?

I think adaptation is real like you've described, but not macro evolution where a cell turns into a mouse, which turns into a monkey, which turns into a human.

 

[driewerf]

I think adaptation is real like you've described, but not macro evolution where a cell turns into a mouse, which turns into a monkey, which turns into a human.

Which indeed doesn't and didn't happen. It only shows eiter

• your ignorance of the theory of evolution

or

• your willingness to erect strawmen

From both options I don't know which is the worst.

 

[solid_core]

This is assuming that the soul is real. Can you demonstrate it exists?

What kind of demonstration? The simple fact that you write to me and that you want to know demonstrates you have a soul.

If you are self-aware, if you think, if you are rational, then you have a soul.

 

[VirOptimus]

What kind of demonstration? The simple fact that you write to me and that you want to know demonstrates you have a soul.

If you are self-aware, if you think, if you are rational, then you have a soul.

That is not valid logic.

 

[solid_core]

That is not valid logic.

Another demonstration you have a rational soul. Animal does not write like that.

 

[VirOptimus]

Another demonstration you have a rational soul. Animal does not write like that.

Humans are animals (and apes) by definition.

 

[Shemjaza]

What kind of demonstration? The simple fact that you write to me and that you want to know demonstrates you have a soul.

If you are self-aware, if you think, if you are rational, then you have a soul.

Why?

Animals are aware of their surroundings, can remember events and their behaviour is changed by their experiences... but it's commonly started that animals don't have souls.

 

[solid_core]

Humans are animals (and apes) by definition.

Animals do not create definitions. Thanks for another demonstration.

 

[solid_core]

Why?

Animals are aware of their surroundings, can remember events and their behaviour is changed by their experiences... but it's commonly started that animals don't have souls.

Animals have souls, but lower than we do.

 

[VirOptimus]

Animals do not create definitions. Thanks for another demonstration.

Humans are animals, humans make definitions; ergo animals make definitions.

 

[emett22]

Posts like this only further reaffirm that the issue creationists have with evolution has nothing to do with science and everything to do with their theology.

Which is all the more odd that creationists have set themselves up where they either allow for the falsification of their beliefs or require adherence to a deceptive universe.

I think it has everything to do with the science.

You can’t assume it happened. Do you have supportive empirical evidence for the Noachian flood?

Oh there was some that certainly points to it, it's been awhile though. Like what evidence would you need to show that there was a global flood? I think large canyons carved out of the earth by the receding running water would be one. Lots of buried remains of animals and plants as well. There is both of those. What do you think would be needed? There are legends from religions all over the world of a great flood, over 50 of them. they all have varying similarities, but there is degradation over many generations being handed down.
But do you really think that the ones in charge of the "scientific" community would support or publicize scientists who find evidence and develop hypothesis and theories in favor of a world wide flood? Their journals wouldn't get peer reviewed, and they would not be accepted as "scientists". Because the ones who run the scientific community wont call anyone a scientist unless they also believe or accept evolutionary theory.
I'm just trying to bring up the idea that the current most popular government supported community of scientists are not infallible and cannot be taken at their word. Just because something is not part of the consensus, doesn't mean it isn't true

 

[solid_core]

Humans are animals, humans make definitions; ergo animals make definitions.

Thats sweet.

 

[pitabread]

I think it has everything to do with the science.

It really doesn't. Especially given that most creationists have almost zero knowledge of the science they are up against.

It only really has to do with the science in that science is revealing a reality that creationists disagree with. But that comes back to creationist theological beliefs and their insistence on prescribing reality based on said beliefs.

 

[driewerf]

Oh there was some that certainly points to it, it's been awhile though. Like what evidence would you need to show that there was a global flood? I think large canyons carved out of the earth by the receding running water would be one. Lots of buried remains of animals and plants as well. There is both of those.

But you'll have to show that all these canyons were in a single event, at the same time. The same for these buried animals; just saying "there are buried dead animals" wont make. You have to show that that happened is a single event.

But do you really think that the ones in charge of the "scientific" community would support or publicize scientists who find evidence and develop hypothesis and theories in favor of a world wide flood? Their journals wouldn't get peer reviewed, and they would not be accepted as "scientists". Because the ones who run the scientific community wont call anyone a scientist unless they also believe or accept evolutionary theory.

So it' just one big conspiracy. Yep.

I'm just trying to bring up the idea that the current most popular government supported community of scientists are not infallible (...)

And these scientists are very well aware of that. Probably even more aware than you. That's why there are such things as peer review and follow up experiments. That's why all science is tentative at best.

(...) and cannot be taken at their word.

That's why scientific papers contain whole lists of references to other papers. To show that what is claimed in a paper has been empirically observed.

Just because something is not part of the consensus, doesn't mean it isn't true

But if you are a layman in a certain filed, sticking to the scientific consensus is often the safest bet.

 

[emett22]

It really doesn't. Especially given that most creationists have almost zero knowledge of the science they are up against.

It only really has to do with the science in that science is revealing a reality that creationists disagree with. But that comes back to creationist theological beliefs and their insistence on prescribing reality based on said beliefs.

Well I don't know about most self proclaimed christians, but I believe it has everything to do with science.

But you'll have to show that all these canyons were in a single event, at the same time. The same for these buried animals; just saying "there are buried dead animals" wont make. You have to show that that happened is a single event.


So it' just one big conspiracy. Yep.

But if you are a layman in a certain filed, sticking to the scientific consensus is often the safest bet.

Oh come on, you know there was a time where the consensus believed that the earth was flat and were enforcing it. Wasn't there also a consensus in germany where the jews were believed to be inferior as well? You will not be called a scientist if you don't believe in the scientific consensus, and so when someone comes out against the consensus: they are not funded, and they are said to not be scientist, and they are not publicized by media or otherwise. Is this true or not?

 

[pitabread]

Well I don't know about most self proclaimed christians, but I believe it has everything to do with science.

Okay. It still doesn't.

 

[pitabread]

But do you really think that the ones in charge of the "scientific" community would support or publicize scientists who find evidence and develop hypothesis and theories in favor of a world wide flood? Their journals wouldn't get peer reviewed, and they would not be accepted as "scientists". Because the ones who run the scientific community wont call anyone a scientist unless they also believe or accept evolutionary theory.

Science has implications beyond academia; e.g. real-world applications. If creationist ideas were superior to conventional science, the first place you would hear about it would be from industry (e.g. oil&gas exploration, mining, etc).

The fact you don't hear industries adopting creationist ideas should tell you something.