"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[bhsmte]

You can ignore post 3 all you want.

I didn't ignore, which is why it made me laugh.

 

[Hieronymus]

Why would anyone adopt theistic evolution?

You just quoted my answer to that question.

Because, there are many reasons to believe evolution is true.

So you keep regurgitating...
But never mind what people have tried to explain to you.

Have a nice day, God bless.

 

[pshun2404]

Eggs predate chickens by hundreds of millions of years.

But not Chicken eggs....

 

[Hieronymus]

No, I said God could possibly be a product of the Big Gang, as everything in the universe is.

So you actually are saying that the BB possibly brought forth God...

 

[Hieronymus]

It presents no empirical evidence, just opinion.

There is no empirical evidence for both sides.

 

[Hieronymus]

Then the only logical conclusion is that the bible is wrong.

Not logical at all.

 

[pshun2404]

Odd that. If humans came into existence hundreds of millions of years ago, how did they all evade the fossil record for hundreds of millions of years?

We were talking about the building blocks of life...do not divert. "Misdirection" is the technique of propaganda (indoctrination), magic, the those who "shape" (engineer) your opinion.

 

[RickG]

So you actually are saying that the BB brought forth God...

No, I'm saying that it is possible.

 

[Waterwerx]

DNA & genetics, comparative anatomy, fossil record, embryology, experiments in the lab and observations in nature.



What do you mean "From nothing by themselves"?



Evolution takes place in populations, not individuals. If there was a population of brown furred bears and a random genetic mutation is seen in some of the offspring that gives them white fur in a snowy environment, which bears in this population have a better chance of survival?



Buildings aren't living systems and they don't fall into a nested hierarchy like life does...

Of course they're not a living system. The point is they are ordered structures.

Survival of a species from a mutation(which you say is random) does not get us from apes to humans. Oh, not the fossils and carbon-dating nonsense again... thought up by a bunch of knuckleheads that want to push the evolution theory. I thought it was common knowledge that carbon-dating is only accurate back to a couple of thousand years?

 

[bhsmte]

Of course they're not a living system. The point is they are ordered structures.

Survival of a species from a mutation(which you say is random) does not get us from apes to humans. Oh, not the fossils and carbon-dating nonsense again... thought up by a bunch of knuckleheads that want to push the evolution theory. I thought it was common knowledge that carbon-dating is only accurate back to a couple of thousand years?

How about this dude's opinion? He seems to be well credentialed and a devout Christian.

"Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics"

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-and-the-church-part-2#sthash.Lm7BvYeh.dpuf

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-part-2

 

[RickG]

There is no empirical evidence for both sides.

Your denial of the countless published research papers does not make the empirical evidence go away. It only means that you are unwilling to review it.

 

[Hieronymus]

No, I'm saying that it is possible.

It's a preposterous idea.
Good luck with that.
God bless.

 

[RickG]

It's a preposterous idea.
Good luck with that.
God bless.

Perhaps, but at least I'm willing to entertain the possibility.

 

[Hieronymus]

Your denial of the countless published research papers does not make the empirical evidence go away. It only means that you are unwilling to review it.

I thought you were supposed to be the science type, brother.
The answers to our question here lie in the distant past, so it is not empirical science.
Mountains of paper do not change that fact.

And they're only naturalistic models, so it says nothing about God (not) creating.
Models with huge gaps even, which they fill with "evolution did it."

 

[RickG]

I thought you were supposed to be the science type, brother.
The answers to our question here lie in the distant past, so it is not empirical science.
Mountains of paper do not change that fact.

The paper doesn't but the facts do.

And they're only naturalistic models, so it says nothing about God (not) creating.
Models with huge gaps even, which they fill with "evolution did it."

No, they are not models, they are actual data observed, tested, and verified.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I thought it was common knowledge that carbon-dating is only accurate back to a couple of thousand years?

I thought it was common knowledge that other methods, such as Rb- Sr are good for millions of years.

 

[sfs]

Let me repeat myself....creationist have no problem with speciation.

In the post you just responded to, I linked to a creationist who expressed a problem with speciation -- in this thread, which presumably you are reading. So is your claim that this creationist doesn't exist? That he's lying about not believing speciation occurs?

 

[doubtingmerle]

In the post you just responded to, I linked to a creationist who expressed a problem with speciation -- in this thread, which presumably you are reading. So is your claim that this creationist doesn't exist? That he's lying about not believing speciation occurs?

Maybe you will be told he is a plant. Just like we were told that there is massive fraud, with nearly universal lying about rock ages by scientists.

 

[sfs]

So far you haven't demonstrated they they could not or did not.

And you haven't told me how the genetic variation got there. It's not just you: no creationist can explain human genetic variation. Not surprisingly, professional creationists loathe real data.

As for demonstrating that genetic data is inconsistent with a recent Adam and Eve, that requires that you learn quite a bit of population genetics. Fortunately, Dennis Venema has done a nice job of summarizing much of it in layman's terms here.

 

[-57]

Most Christians are not literalist. It has nothing to do with denying the bible. And frankly, I'm not concerned with your or any bodys interpretation, rather the use of misrepresented science in the "creation science" literature is what I find deplorable .

I'm sorry that you find my belief in a six day creation time frame deplorable. Despite the FACT the bible tells us it was.