Noah way?

[Subduction Zone]

This isn't a trial.
There is no proof that increasing complexity could ever happen.
There is no proof that we live in a purely physical, purely natural world.
It ll comes down to where you put your faith; in God or in naturalism.
The trial will come when you stand before God and explain to Him why you rejected His word, His son and His offer of salvation.

You can tell Him at that time that the testimony of His Son is meaningless hearsay.

You write about "repeatable, observable, scientific evidence," all the time ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that evolution has none of the the above. Nothing has ever been observe to evolve into anything else. Irradiated fruit flies remain, you guessed it, fruit flies. You put your faith in molecules-to-man. I put my faith in God. In the end, I may have to explain myself to a molecule, but you'll have to explain yourself to God.

You are right, this is not a trial. But still your evidence is of terrible quality. You don't have the testimony of Jesus, at the very best you have the recollection of someone retelling what Jesus said to a third party. That is not eyewitness testimony.

Second, yes we do have evidence (please not that is the correct word to use, not "proof") that new features can form. And unless you can define "complexity" you should not be using the term.

Even worse news for you. There is no evidence that we are in a world where spirits are a real thing. The evidence only supports an atheistic view point. Logically the place to start is the Null Hypothesis, that means you should not believe things you have no evidence for.

We have evidence that supports evolution. Repeatable observable evidence. Your evidence is practically nonexistent.

Now if your story makes you feel better more power to you. But don't make the mistake of thinking that just because it makes you feel good that there is any support for your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And KW, you don't know how evolution is evolved so your claim that it has not been observed is not valid. It has been observed many many times. And in several different ways. You are demonstrably wrong on your claim that evolution has not been observed.

 

[KWCrazy]

And KW, you don't know how evolution is evolved so your claim that it has not been observed is not valid.

Evolution has never been observed. Adaptation has been observed. Adaptation is a conservative process. Natural selection requires information to select from. Increasing complexity does not happen, has never happened, and cannot happen. You know this. You just deny it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This isn't a trial.
There is no proof that increasing complexity could ever happen.
There is no proof that we live in a purely physical, purely natural world.
It ll comes down to where you put your faith; in God or in naturalism.
The trial will come when you stand before God and explain to Him why you rejected His word, His son and His offer of salvation.

You can tell Him at that time that the testimony of His Son is meaningless hearsay.

You write about "repeatable, observable, scientific evidence," all the time ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that evolution has none of the the above. Nothing has ever been observe to evolve into anything else. Irradiated fruit flies remain, you guessed it, fruit flies. You put your faith in molecules-to-man. I put my faith in God. In the end, I may have to explain myself to a molecule, but you'll have to explain yourself to God.

And you might have to explain yourself to Allah, or Vishnu, who says your god is the right one? If there is a god that cares about very specific religious views, chances are we would both be in big trouble.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution has never been observed. Adaptation has been observed. Adaptation is a conservative process. Natural selection requires information to select from. Increasing complexity does not happen, has never happened, and cannot happen. You know this. You just deny it.

No, there are many different ways to observe and evolution has been observed.


There is no doubt that evolution has happened and is happening, just as there is no doubt that gravity has happened and is happening.

And what do you mean by using the word "complexity"? Using poorly defined terms is a sign that you can't hold up your end of the argument.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And what do you mean by using the word "complexity"? Using poorly defined terms is a sign that you can't hold up your end of the argument.

Genetically speaking, humans are less complex than some kinds of plants and are only slightly more complex than earthworms, so clearly complexity is not really much of a factor.

 

[KWCrazy]

There is no doubt that evolution has happened and is happening, just as there is no doubt that gravity has happened and is happening.

I can drop a rock and observe gravity. I can't irradiate fruit flies over thousands of generations and observe evolution. The two are not the same. I don't know why evolutionists all insist on making themselves look silly by claiming that gravity and evolution are equally proven. It's almost as bad as the profoundly stupid idea that rejecting evolution means rejecting everything that science has ever discovered.

If evolution is true, why don't pearl divers have gills? These people have been doing the same thing for generations. According to you they must have had gills at one time, so it's a simple matter of turning on the genetic code to allow for their formation. So where are their gills?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I can drop a rock and observe gravity. I can't irradiate fruit flies over thousands of generations and observe evolution. The two are not the same. I don't know why evolutionists all insist on making themselves look silly by claiming that gravity and evolution are equally proven. It's almost as bad as the profoundly stupid idea that rejecting evolution means rejecting everything that science has ever discovered.

If evolution is true, why don't pearl divers have gills? These people have been doing the same thing for generations. According to you they must have had gills at one time, so it's a simple matter of turning on the genetic code to allow for their formation. So where are their gills?

Genetic mutation doesn't work that way, genes mutate, and some happen to be beneficial. There is no telling what mutations will necessarily appear, which is why evolution tends to be such a slow process and why creatures do not develop all the best traits for their environments, and why unhelpful traits still can be seen in populations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can drop a rock and observe gravity. I can't irradiate fruit flies over thousands of generations and observe evolution. The two are not the same. I don't know why evolutionists all insist on making themselves look silly by claiming that gravity and evolution are equally proven. It's almost as bad as the profoundly stupid idea that rejecting evolution means rejecting everything that science has ever discovered.

If evolution is true, why don't pearl divers have gills? These people have been doing the same thing for generations. According to you they must have had gills at one time, so it's a simple matter of turning on the genetic code to allow for their formation. So where are their gills?

As Sarah told you that is not the way that evolution is done.

I could put a cake in a cold oven and I would never see it bake. Does that mean that baking is impossible or that I did not know what I was doing.

Unfortunately you do not know what you are doing. The purpose of irradiating fruit flies was never to observe evolution.

 

[KWCrazy]

As Sarah told you that is not the way that evolution is done.

There is no Sarah. That deleterious sequencing has been obfuscated.

I could put a cake in a cold oven and I would never see it bake. Does that mean that baking is impossible or that I did not know what I was doing.

It would mean that you had faith in a proven process to work absent your monitoring. It also means that if you didn't take the cake out of the oven you have an inedible lump of charcoal.

The purpose of irradiating fruit flies was never to observe evolution.

Intentional falsehood.

"The researchers were looking for the fixation of positive mutations within the genome and within the whole population. This is referred to using the term "selection sweep". When it occurs, the new mutation at a base pair (a novel single nucleotide polymorphism or SNP) not only experiences replication to be transmitted to the descendants of the organism, but the gene pool of variation is effectively swept clean as the new mutation becomes dominant in the whole population. However, such sweeping was conspicuous by its absence."
source

"There is no doubt that a great deal has been learned about genetics and mutation from the experiments on fruit flies. They have been treated with many kinds of chemicals and radiation in attempts to accelerate an evolutionary change and determine the effects on future generations.

However, despite the experiments and 100 years of opportunity, no evidence has been demonstrated of evolution. Although mutations can be induced by intelligent manipulation, after all the experiments into the potential mechanisms of evolution the resulting fruit flies were either dead, unchanged or monsters - but always still fruit flies."
source

"The biological effects of radioactivity have been known since 1920. Soon evolutionary scientists started with enthusiasm these kind of experiments with the sincere hope to prove evolution in the lab. Unfortunately, differently from the picture, the results of their countless experiments with irradiated fruit flies have shown no species different from flies in output. After near a century and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays causing mutations, all they have been able to produce are: fruit flies. To be precise, the flies that remain normal flies are the lucky individuals. The unlucky ones becomes anomalous, damaged flies: they develop diseases, abnormities, malformations, cancers, death. Far now, hundreds of different kinds of mutation were identified in the radiation experiments, but none of these characteristics formed a new organism."
source

Do you deny reality often?

 

[juvenissun]

A good question, poikilotherm.

Let me ask you this?

Why don't non-believers ask how they got to the Ark in the first place?

Once it's established how they got to the Ark, don't you think it can be established how they got back to their points of origination?

This is a good argument.

 

[driewerf]

A good question, poikilotherm.

Let me ask you this?

Why don't non-believers ask how they got to the Ark in the first place?

That has been asked, the answer wasn't satisfacting.

Once it's established how they got to the Ark, don't you think it can be established how they got back to their points of origination?

No. Because we don't see any evidence of animals going from the Middle East to Australia (or anywhere else). Not a single panda footprint on his way to China, not a single kangoroo foot print. No coprolites (fossilized excrements) etc.

Now, I know one christian who attempted to answer Poikilotherm's question. But I don't think many people (even evagelical christians) are happy with the answer:

Picture this as an oversimplified example:

The Ark comes to rest with just the aforementioned animals (plus Noah and his family) aboard.

The unicorns disembark -- go out -- get pregnant and give birth to another unicorn, a horse, a cow, a lion and a tiger.

They get pregnant again and give birth to a hippopotamus, a platypus, an aardvark, etc.

See where I'm coming with this?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Now, I know one christian who attempted to answer Poikilotherm's question. But I don't think many people (even evagelical christians) are happy with the answer:

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Picture this as an oversimplified example:

The Ark comes to rest with just the aforementioned animals (plus Noah and his family) aboard.

The unicorns disembark -- go out -- get pregnant and give birth to another unicorn, a horse, a cow, a lion and a tiger.

They get pregnant again and give birth to a hippopotamus, a platypus, an aardvark, etc.

See where I'm coming with this?
​

This must be a Monty Python outtake surely...

I think it's the over-confident beginning "Picture this.." that gives the subsequent surreal nonsense its comedic edge. Pure quality.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a good argument.

Thank you, bro!

 

[AV1611VET]

That has been asked, the answer wasn't satisfacting.

What else is old?

Now, I know one christian who attempted to answer Poikilotherm's question. But I don't think many people (even evagelical christians) are happy with the answer:

The quote you provided had nothing to do with how the animals on the Ark got back to their points of origination.

You guys, I take it, are assuming they disembarked, then died almost immediately.

Why would God bring kangaroos to the Ark from [what is now] Australia, bring them through the Flood, then let them hang around and die outside of their ecological niche?

 

[AV1611VET]

This must be a Monty Python outtake surely...

I think it's the over-confident beginning "Picture this.." that gives the subsequent surreal nonsense its comedic edge. Pure quality.

I think he's trying a derail.

Can't say as I blame him.

 

[SkyWriting]

Patterns of animal distribution were one of the principal evidences that inspired Darwin to formulate the Theory of Evolution. Biogeogaphy is not only observable evidence for evolution but also poses grave difficulty for the Noachian paradigm. I assert that these patterns are irreconcilable with, and therefore observable evidence against, the historicity of the story of Noah. For example;Australian mammals are almost exclusively marsupials found nowhere else on earth. These marsupials are extremely varied in terms of morphology and the ecological niches they inhabit, species as varied as marsupial "mice" "moles" "wolves" "bears""squirrels" "tigers" and various marsupial grazers, carnivores, tree dwellers and burrowers.The usual question raised is "how did they get from the Ark to Australia" I find this a most uninteresting query which misses a more profound point; Why were almost all the many varied mammals, that found their way from the Ark to Australia, marsupials? and why did no placental mammals succeed in joining them, and why did most all of theses marsupial species not succeed anywhere else? Why did no mice, moles, bears, squirrels,tigers,goats, sheep, lions, cattle, monkeys, antelope, dogs, etc mammals found all over the rest of the world find their way there?Moreover, when placentals are introduced by man, they thrive; introduced mice, rats, dogs, camels, horses, goats, rabbits etc, all do very well. Similar patterns of endemic species are found elsewhere, most notably Madagascar.
I assert that these particular, observable non-random patterns of distribution are irreconcilable within a Noachian paradigm? Can any creationists explain the above using a Noachian worldview?

You answered your own question.
Some, or many marsupials
found their way to Australia.

The others did not or did not survive
the trip or the climate at the time.

It's fun to make up stories based on Science-y facts.
It is called Science-Fiction.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sorry, I do not understand. I thought all the animals were released from the Ark in the middle east some 4000 years ago, after the flood, and all animals not on the Ark were killed. Can you clarify?

Jesus nor his disciples make mention of any dates or dating methods that people should use.
Best to follow their example.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I think he's trying a derail.

Can't say as I blame him.

Why would I want to derail creationists in full flow? I was just enjoying some of your best material. You do realise that the best way to frighten the audience is just to let creationists speak unhindered don't you? In fact, encouraging them to say what's on their minds and really let themselves go always provides the best argument against creationism there is. No, keep up the good work is what I say.

 

[poikilotherm]

That is correct.

Does It have to?

Then how else did they get there, if not by an Acts 8 miracle?

Okay.

You mean like saying the Flood was local, as opposed to global? or the Flood didn't occur at all? or assuming evolution?

I don't believe I did.

That, in my opinion, came in Genesis 10.

Suit yourself.

So you have to add to the bible story to explain why the animal species are distributed in a pattern consistent with evolution and at odds with a Noachian worldview?
This method of argumentation is entirely consistent with someone who is defending the indefensible.