proving evolution as just a "theory"

[rjs330]

A simple "Yes it is impossible for me to be wrong" would have sufficed. There is no reasoning with a man who is unable to admit that he is as fallible as everyone else so I will bow out. While we disagree I wish you well on your journey rjs330.

Thanks Belk, and you as well. And I am very fallible, just ask my family. The Bible isn't.

 

[rjs330]

Let me guess, it is impossible that you may be duped?

Would that be correct?

Yes because it's what the Bible says. No reading into it, no interpretation, no guess work it says God created in six days and he created all things individually according to kinds and he created man unique of all things.

 

[USincognito]

If you are referring to evolution then no because that is not reality. It's an assumption and a belief system.

Do Creationists honestly expect us to take them seriously when they post asinine stuff like this?

 

[USincognito]

Yes. The Bible is as clear as it can be on this subject. And it's not just me. You make it sound like I am some sort of lone wolf in this but I am not. Genesis has been trusted through the centuries as an accurate account of creation. And once again it is not an interpretation. It IS what the Bible says happened. To dismiss what it says and say it isn't accurate in what it says and that it means something else than what it says IS an interpretation. I merely believe what it says plain and simple no interpretation required.

There is no overwhelming evidence. It is all assumption. As evolution from a common IS squarely set against what God says it is a product of the human mind which is set against God. To disbelieve and dismiss what God says is a clear representation of the ungodly mind of humanity who serve the devil in their ungodly ways. Christians can be duped by worldly ungodly influences. And many are.

"Evidence"

"Nothing"

 

[USincognito]

You my friend have fallen into a very bad trap.{snip}

Try and stay focused here. We're talking about Genesis and your wooden, literalist (not really because YECism adds a lot of extra-Scriptural stuff in) interpretation of it vs. what we actually observe in the real world. The real world shows that the earth is very old, that there was no Flood ~4,000 years ago and that life on earth evolved over time. Those are simply the facts presented to us by reality itself.

If you wish to deny reality itself in favor of your interpretation of Genesis, that's up to you. But don't expect those of us who accept reality to call your choice madness.

 

[Jimmy D]

Last I checked Asian mated with Asian and produced only Asian. African mated with African and produced only African.

More or less correct.

Only when the Asian mates with the African does a new variation (Afro-Asian) enter the species

This would suggest africans and asians are separately created wouldn't it? Is that what you think?

Last I checked Husky mated with Husky and produced only Husky. Mastiff mated with Mastiff and produced only Mastiff.

More or less correct.

Only when the Husky mates with the Mastiff does a new variation (Chinook) enter the species.

This would suggest Huskies and Mastiffs are separately created wouldn't it? Is that what you think?

I thought that the you said that the wolf genome contained all the possible variations we see in the different dog breeds, you're contradicting yourself.

Mind you, we know that both of those are wrong - Mutations and natural selection are responsible for variation.

Oh you mean theory in where the Asian or African evolves into the Afro-Asian

Eh? What theory says that, can you cite your source?

or the Husky or Mastiff evolve into the Chinook over millions of years. Sorry, but the reality is that neither the Asian nor the African evolved into the Afro-Asian. The Asian stayed Asian and the African, African. Nor did the Husky or Mastiff evolve into the Chinook. The Husky stayed Husky and the Mastiff stayed Mastiff.

Repeating things doesn't make them true. Especially idiotic things like a dog evolving into an already extent form of dog, where did you get that from?

Even in Mastiffs we see a great deal of variation, why is that?

 

[Ophiolite]

I understand you want to believe things evolve into other things, but sadly that isnt what we observe in reality. The Asian always stays Asian and the African always stays African. The Husky always stays Husky and the Mastiff always stays Mastiff. You simply mistake the appearance of a new form as a new species in the fossil record. Understandable. If we didn't know the lineage of dogs and only had bones, I am sure they would mistakenly call all of them separate species too. An honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Truthseekers should be, let's see, open to the truth. Try it sometime.

 

[Jimmy D]

And this is why every single fossil ever found from the oldest one to the youngest one found remained exactly the same.

Every fossil remained the same? Can you clarify?

The fault lies in your belief that one evolved into the other, when in reality fossil A simply mated with fossil B and fossil C appeared in the record where it did not exist before. Fossil A and Fossil B remained always the same. And this is why your search for transitory species runs dry, they did not exist. There was no transitory species from fossil A or B to fossil C, fossil C was given birth to by A and B.

Well it appears to paleontologists that the fossil record demonstrates common descent, there are tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers supporting this. I thought that you were critical of those who ignore scientific evidence so why are you doing it here?

Can you give us any evidence or an example of your A + B = C claim.

The first thing I thought of was Tiktaalik, how does your theory account for it's appearance in the Devonian?

I understand you want to believe things evolve into other things, but sadly that isnt what we observe in reality.

Funny, it's what biologists and paleontolgists have been observing and recording for 200 years, so who is this "we"? Why do you ignore their findings?

The Asian always stays Asian and the African always stays African. The Husky always stays Husky and the Mastiff always stays Mastiff.

Are you saying that Indians, Han Chinese, Indonesians, Nepalese, Mongolians etc are all the same?

I'd suggest that if several hundred years ago you had journeyed by horse from Central africa to Japan you would spot very minor differences in the indiginous people you encountered as you travelled from west to east. Yet if you lined up a Japanese person, an Indian person and a Nigerian person the difference in appearance would be significant.

How would you account for their differences?

You simply mistake the appearance of a new form as a new species in the fossil record. Understandable. If we didn't know the lineage of dogs and only had bones, I am sure they would mistakenly call all of them separate species too. An honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

If we didn't know the lineage of dogs, we could look at their fossils and infer their relationships and development. How you believe they might be classified in your imaginary scenario is irrelevant.

 

[pitabread]

Do Creationists honestly expect us to take them seriously when they post asinine stuff like this?

I think they're trying to convince themselves, not us.

 

[bhsmte]

I think they're trying to convince themselves, not us.

Nailed it!!!

Typically, folks who claim there is zero chance they are wrong, are trying to convince themselves, they could never be wrong. Really, a quite crude (but effective) defense mechanism.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Granted, a Christian's theology should align with the Bible -- but shouldn't the Bible align with reality?

The Bible takes reality and uses reality as a symbolic representation. Actually we study shadow and types. Paul says that we see dimly as the reflection in a mirror.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you are referring to evolution then no because that is not reality. It's an assumption and a belief system.

They do not use the words assumption and belief, they use the words theory and fact. Same thing though.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Nailed it!!!

Typically, folks who claim there is zero chance they are wrong, are trying to convince themselves, they could never be wrong. Really, a quite crude (but effective) defense mechanism.

We say there is a zero chance the Bible is wrong. Your the one putting your faith in yourself. We trust in God. Once again you are projecting.

 

[Jimmy D]

They do not use the words assumption and belief, they use the words theory and fact. Same thing though.

LOL

 

[gaara4158]

African evolves into the Afro-Asian; or the Husky or Mastiff evolve into the Chinook over millions of years. Sorry, but the reality is that neither the Asian nor the African evolved into the Afro-Asian. The Asian stayed Asian and the African, African. Nor did the Husky or Mastiff evolve into the Chinook. The Husky stayed Husky and the Mastiff stayed Mastiff.

I thought we discussed this already. Even creationists have to accept that a population of Africans, over several generations and a migration to Asia, eventually became a population of Asians. Why are you still parroting this, verbatim, to everyone who explains evolution to you?

 

[xianghua]

Can you detail in what way the first statement (cars and living things share a complexity) assures the validity of the second statement (if a car can't evolve then a living thing can't)? This is not at all obvious to me.

yep. both need at least several parts to some of their systems. as i showed with the gps and a minimal car example. if you will remove some parts from one of their system it will be non-functional.

 

[gaara4158]

yep. both need at least several parts to some of their systems. as i showed with the gps and a minimal car example. if you will remove some parts from one of their system it will be non-functional.

I think what you’re getting at is the argument from irreducible complexity. That’s fine, but then you have to point to something in biology that’s irreducibly complex. Can you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, we do not see a transformation from sea based lifeforms to land based lifeforms and vice versa, because those species who became extinct, just like the many frogs and the many butterfly transitioning within a life cycle, highlight adaptation over time, rather than cross species contamination. If there was an evolutionary process there would be cross species contamination and countless failed neomorphs leading to xenomorphs along the way, too numerous to count and their fossil remains would be the evidence for evolution. We don't see that in all of Creation.

What the heck is "cross species contamination" supposed to be?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is scientifically proven without faith my friend.

Really? Is that why atheism is out-of-proportion higher among scientists and the higher educated, then it is compared with the general population?

If what you said is true, I'ld expect it to be the other way round....
In fact, if that would be a scientific fact, it would be part of science. Yet, it isn't.

(you may begin your conspiracy argument now)

All species must have existed simultaneously and had been incorporated a single embedded algorithm within them that allows them to adapt within their own kind/species.

It's called DNA and reproduction with variation.

Obviously the insurrection is against the intelligent designer in this case. To believe that there is no intelligent designer in the vastly interconnected and detailed processes of life is a faith statement in itself.

About as much a "faith statement" as believing that no undetectable intelligent graviton pixies are what keeps us from flowing into space.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But when they do understand and they acknowledge that they do, then we have a common language to speak in dialogue, otherwise we lie when we continue to say that we do not understand.

There already is a "common language" and a specific jargon to discuss these things. It's called biology. You should learn the basics before you continue.