Looking for all the missing links

[Metal Minister]

Wow...missed the point by a mile...

 

[Guy1]

Wow...missed the point by a mile...

Congratulations. You've neglected to fix your mistake with the quoting system AND ignored my post.

 

[Orogeny]

Just because I DO NOT waste peoples time with information that does not pertain to the conversation? It would look like you have nothing constructive to add, so you waste time on nonsense like this. Even when we quote a Bible verse we do not always quote the whole verse. We may only quote the A, B or C part of the verse. If people want to know the context then they should look it up.

Yeah, you're right, why should you present a quote they disagrees with you as such when it's so much easier to leave out the bits you don't like so it looks like it says what yOu want it to? What would be the point of keeping the part where the pope affirms evolution when you don't want him to?

I get it, man. Sometimes you just run out of material. Being a creationist is tough, what with all that evidence in your way. :/

And you're TOTALLY RIGHT, the part of the excerpt that intimates the popes actual position regarding evolution has NOTHIG TO DO with this conversation about evolution where you've attempted to quote the pope as an authoritative figure regarding the validity of evolution.

BTW, WE do not only quote parts of a verse so that it says what we want it to, that's just you. I take my bible quotes in context, thanks.

 

[USincognito]

www(dot)dyeager(dot)org/blog/2008/04/probability-evolution(dot)html

Looking through Darrin's posts with the evolution tag, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

The Probability of Evolution - Frames of Reference

A similar argument against evolution applies to the probability of events occurring which result in new species (mutations, natural selection and spontaneous generation).

Spontaneous generation?

 

[Norman321]

Yeah, you're right, why should you present a quote they disagrees with

Actually I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church. I tend to agree with the official beliefs of the church more then a lot of people I know that are Catholic.

What would be the point of keeping the part where the pope affirms evolution when you don't want him to?

Why would I not want him to? Seems like a very logical approach. You know the theologians in the Catholic Church think this stuff though. They are very well educated. They did not object to Martin Luther's teaching. They objected to him going out on his own and teaching it to the common person. At the time his teaching had not been tested and they felt that there should be more discussion.

A common theme on here is that the Scientist is educated and knows what he is talking about. Well, there are theologians that are educated also and know what they are talking about.

 

[Norman321]

Spontaneous generation?

Is that anything like: Spontaneous human combustion?

 

[MostlyLurking]

Originally Posted by USincognito

http://www.christianforums.com/t7653920/#post60571449

Spontaneous generation?


​

Is that anything like: Spontaneous human combustion?

I think Spontaneous generation is the process which explains the Jim & Michelle Duggar family, "19 Kids & Counting" on American reality TV.

(Evolution has apparently produced a family which reproduces through fungal spores which sprout under elm trees in the front yard.)

 

[USincognito]

Is that anything like: Spontaneous human combustion?

I think Spontaneous generation is the process which explains the Jim & Michelle Duggar family, "19 Kids & Counting" on American reality TV.

(Evolution has apparently produced a family which reproduces through fungal spores which sprout under elm trees in the front yard.)

Spores would still be asexual reproduction.

Norman, the Wikipedia page gives a lot more detail but it's an archaic and falsified concept of fully formed beings emerging from inorganic material or other living for formerly living organic material. Examples would be maggots and flies from meat, rodents from grain and/or cloth, geese from banacles, sardines from sea foam, etc.

A lot of Creationists try and conflate it with abiogenesis, but the two concepts could not be further apart.
Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Norman321]

I think Spontaneous generation is the process which explains the Jim & Michelle Duggar family, "19 Kids & Counting" on American reality TV.

R those the people that has a garage that looks like a grocery store? They are still counting? If they have more kids do they plan to add more bathrooms?

 

[Norman321]

Examples would be maggots and flies from meat,

Was that the theory they had before they found out that flies lay eggs? So it was falsified when new information came along.

 

[MostlyLurking]

A common theme on here is that the Scientist is educated and knows what he is talking about. Well, there are theologians that are educated also and know what they are talking about.

When talking about science, yes, it is quite likely that the scientist knows what he is talking about. And when talking about theology, the theologians tend to know what they are talking about.

But while the scientists on various forums occasionally talk about theology, lots of theologians have a tendency to talk confidently but erroneously about science and that causes lots of issues to arise. (Yes, sometimes the scientists speak way outside their field of expertise. But I see that far less often than I see it among the theologians. Indeed, most scientists don't have much reason to bring up Biblical topics. But the theologians often presume to speak authoritatively about science. They self-sabotage a lot.)

Of course, in these forums here, we have a number of professional scientists. But we have very few professional theologians. (We have some ministers but few have the sort of training which makes them experts in ever narrow subfields of theology. If more DID have significant education, we wouldn't see so many Bible fallacies spouted about here by people claiming to have Biblical expertise. There's a lot of confusing of denominational traditions with what the Bible actually says.)

Evolution is a scientific topic and requires a knowledge of science. Very few minsters (especially those who so passionately deny evolution) understand even the basics of the theory of evolution nor do they recognize the overwhelming evidence nor even how that evidence applies. And that gets them into trouble with the people here who do, especially the scientists. Now if the topic here were soteriology, the positions would probably be reversed. But no, this topic deals with science.

Several here have described their jobs as professional scientists. A few have mentioned faculty positions they hold. I think I recall one evolutionary biologist. (Perhaps someone who has been here longer could comment.) But I only know for sure of one professional theologian here, although he would probably describe himself as more of a Biblical studies professor. Some would say that a professional theologian teaches systematic theology rather than Biblical exegesis. But if one applies the general definition of theologian, most seminary professors would fit that definition. Seminary graduates (unless they undertook M.A. degrees instead of M.Div's) are more like "professional school" grads rather than theological scholars. So the term "theologian" is rarely applied to some who doesn't hold a faculty position involving publication requirements, unless they hold a Ph.D. (and not Th.D.) And I don't think many of such theologians post here.

But even if they do, when they post on scientific topics, they are unlikely to know any more about evolutionary biology than the accountant who is their neighbor across the street.

So let's look at that statement again:

A common theme on here is that the Scientist is educated and knows what he is talking about. Well, there are theologians that are educated also and know what they are talking about.

I would estimate that there are a lot more scientists than theologians. And whether on these threads or on Youtube videos, I have to admit that my evangelical Christian brethren generally do not know what they are talking about when the topic is evolution. [If they did know something, they wouldn't constantly confuse ToE with abiogenesis and the Big Bang Theory nor would they claim there is "zero transitional fossil forms" and "no evidence for evolution" and "radiometric dating is deeply flawed."] I can only WISH my ministerial brethren spoke with greater knowledge. But instead, the people who are the smartest stay quiet about topics of which they are ignorant. (Yes, occasionally I see a scientist on Youtube say stupid stuff like "The Bible claims Pi=3" and "The Bible says that bats are birds". But for every one stupid scientist statement, I'd estimate 20 stupid anti-evolution Christian statements.)

Frankly, I'd be fine with anti-evolution Christians and their Youtube videos if they understood at least the fundamentals of evolution. But they tend to make fools of themselves. (And because many of them think that people like Ken Ham, Benny Hinn, and Lee Strobel are scholars and even THEOLOGIANS, it is no wonder they repeat their nonsense and pseudo-science.)

So, as much I am embarrassed by it, I have to admit that my evangelical ministerial brethren on the Internet make fools of themselves on a predictable and reproducible schedule. Is there really any doubt? Perhaps the scientists are speaking similar gibberish somewhere online but I rarely see it.

 

[MostlyLurking]

R those the people that has a garage that looks like a grocery store?

Or perhaps it is a grocery store that looks like a garage.

They have be fruitful and multiple down to an art form.

 

[MostlyLurking]

Spores would still be asexual reproduction.

But in this case the spores have mutated and can take on asexual or sexual reproductive strategies depending on environment stresses. I think they first evolved on a Star Trek episode.

You see, as the reality show genre [plural of genus] became more common, the TV world began to evolve in a direction which the medium had never before known. So we are observing a never before seen kind of evolution. (In another generation, there may be a strange hybrid species of Duggar-Kardashians.)

Now what REALLY scared me though was the episode where the ENTIRE family visited the Creation Museum and even met with Ken Ham. All of the children got an inoculation against the evolution virus. And because carriers of the virus have been known to visit the museum, Ken Ham instituted legal contracts which must be accepted by all visitors before going inside. Prohibitions include expressing alternative views loud enough to be heard by other visitors and "thereby ruining their Creation Museum experience." After all, some child might leave the museum with actual scientific knowledge intact.

I think the most amazing exhibit at the museum is the post-Ark super-speed evolution chart, where Ken Ham's high-speed diversification of each kind took place. In around 200 years, one pair of the entire "cat family" evolved into everything from lions and tigers to house cats and leopards and mountain bobcats. In that same period, a single pair of "monkey kind members" evolved into all possible chimps, apes, baboons, orangutans, and spider monkeys, etc. (But NOT humans.) So I think a lot of visitors wonder exactly how Ham's supersonic evolution (or he calls it "development") differs from the much slower kind with evolutionary biologists study.

 

[SkyWriting]

So I think a lot of visitors wonder exactly how Ham's supersonic evolution (or he calls it "development") differs from the much slower kind with evolutionary biologists study.

They shouldn't. Evolution moves at supersonic speeds anytime the pressure is great. Near extinction causes the fastest changes in populations. Common evolution knowledge.

 

[USincognito]

Now what REALLY scared me though was the episode where the ENTIRE family visited the Creation Museum and even met with Ken Ham.

I have to ask. Did you watch that episode because you regularly watch the show or because you heard about the content and just had to?

 

[Astridhere]

So, as much I am embarrassed by it, I have to admit that my evangelical ministerial brethren on the Internet make fools of themselves on a predictable and reproducible schedule. Is there really any doubt? Perhaps the scientists are speaking similar gibberish somewhere online but I rarely see it.

Don't be embarrassed. After 150 years or more of evo researchers sprooking to human knuckle walking ancestry, and providing all the evidence and diagrams to support it, which was falsified just over 10 years ago, these researchers still do not see themselves as fools!

 

[Metal Minister]

Congratulations. You've neglected to fix your mistake with the quoting system AND ignored my post.

Why would I bother? You chose to look at everything excepted the information provided. You instead began attacking the messengers. That's why i said missed the point. Also, I didn't do anything with the quoting, so I'm not sure what your issue with it is. Why not simply copy and paste what you want onto another page? But as I said, its a moot point if all you're going to do is skip around the information and try to use ad hominem attacks...

 

[Astridhere]

Forget evolution, we have evidence of death long before humans - evolution is irrelevant here.
The evidence contradicts the bible - so one of them MUST be wrong.

i won't check your links, I will beieve you (cos a Christian would never lie, right?).
So, a question mark has been raised over bird evolution due to new evidence. What to do?
Shall we throw away the baby with the bathwater?
This is how science works, a theory must explain all the facts.
If it doesn't, then the theory needs to be modified or replaced.
As new facts are uncovered, the theory will be checked again and again.

Personally, I wouldn't get too excited.
I would wait and see what happens.

Irony - a beautiful word.
I wouldn't defend a theory - I would rather know the truth.


Oh dear.
When you have something intelligent to say, please let me know.
This rubbish isn't worth reading, let alone replying to.

Look in simple terms evolutionists have nothing more than misrepresentation and instability to offer as evidence for anything.

You lot really have to realise this. Even if any of you bothered to post some research in refute to me I can easily find a refute to that. There is nothing about evolution that is not contested with vigour.

The data supports a creationist paradigm.eg, Bird footprints that predate the dinosaurs they were meant to evolve from is what a creationist would expect to find and not in line with current evolutionary theory. Ambulocetus natans the supposed whale intermediate while it more closely resembles a sea lion is an example of gross misrepresentation and wishful thinking and in fact shows that sea lions have changed little, you have found indohyus that closely resembles a mouse deer that is known to dive to escape prey and demonstrates that small deer have been around for 48my and has changed little, the myth of 1% where huge chunks of DNA are missing, insertions, relocations really means DNA comparisons are unquantifiable and indeed chimp DNA is nothing like human DNA and the Y chromosome supports this also, this also supports NO COMMON ANCESTRY, and I do not need to evoke excuses such as homoplasy, convergent evolution, accelerated genomic regions or any of the other hand waves evos need to realign clear and convincing evidence for the creation into an evolutionary mystery, ....the list can go on and on.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/biology38/_files/1836.pdf
Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees | john hawks weblog

Why would evolutionists not look to what species alive today any fossil most closely resembles? I'll tell you why. Because if they did TOE would die. Evolutionists need to invent intermediates and they need to ignore genomic differences to support their cause.

Your DNA comparisons are one of the biggest misrepresentations that you throw at creationists. The chimp genome is 10% larger than the human genome just for a start. The surface of the genome is of different composition, there are huge chunks of genomic material missing in human/chimp comparisons as well as insertions and reorganisations. The Y chromosomes are 30% different. They are not 'the same' at all and far from it. It is only algorithmic magic, which ignores the majority of differences and zeros in on tiny similarities, that can scam the public with such obvious nonsense.

How on earth do you evolutionists do your maths?

Does this mean evolution from bacteria to man is impossible? NO. What it does mean is that, for now, evolutionists have absolutely nothing of substance, that is based on reality, to offer.

Treesa Greene... I have provided much in support of creationism. However I do not expect any evolutionist to actually know what evidence is supposed to look like .......

Any research or support that a creationist may present could not possibly be worse than the misrepresentation and instability evolutionists have to offer.

 

[Astridhere]

Treesa Green you obviously can not articulate an appropriate response to me. Evoking generalities just does not cut it.

As I stated, you appear to be one that appears to not know what evidence looks like.

Indeed if you had any idea about what you are saying you would note that the remarkable differences in the Y chromosome I spoke to, and posted a link to, was not predicted nor expected, and that is just one example. Therefore your statement 'it works' is not only simplistic, it is wrong.

You didn't even bother to read the links did you?

 

[good brother]

Would you mind terribly responding to this post from page 50, post 493. Thank you.



Originally Posted by MostlyLurking

There is no such contradiction.

Originally Posted by MostlyLurking

They all harmonize with The Theory of Evolution.

​

If evolution is true, then death is in the world long before humans. That is in stark contrast to what the Scriptures say. The Bible says that death entered by the sin of one man.

How do you "harmonize" that?

If evolution is true, then thorns and thistles have existed for millions of years (as evidenced in the fossil record), while the Scriptures say that thorns and thistles only came about after the sin of one man and the subsequent curse placed upon all the earth and inhabitants there of.

How do you harmonize that?


There are more, but let's start there.

In Christ, GB