proving evolution as just a "theory"

Justatruthseeker · Nov 2, 2017

tas8831 said:
So is it your position that all humans alive today, being the descendants of Adam and identical Eve, with their A/A and A/A genetic strains, have only fixed 'allies' that Adam and eve possessed?

Except you start from the wrong premise. The genome was perfect. Adam was not A/A. Adam was A/B/C/D. Half was put into Eve, making two separate races, A/B and C/D for example.

Why did you find it necessary to change what I wrote to A/A and A/A, especially when we don’t observe that today?

You seem to have finally admitted that mutant 'allies' exist, but insist that those in possession of the new 'allie' must all be direct descendants of the original mutant allie possessor, and that all others must die out.

For the entire population to posses a specific mutation as is claimed, why yes.

You seem to forget that ALL members of a species contribute to the gene pool of that species. Down-the-line offspring that possess the 'mutant allie' will ALSO possess many allies that the mutant-father did not possess.

But for the entire population to posses the same mutation that the mutant father had, they must all be descendants of that father.

Yours is a common problem among creationists - you latch onto something you think is a great anti-evolution argument, but, lacking the relevant background knowledge, you fail to take into account any of the many factors that undercut your argument. and when these factors are explained to you, you have a cognitive meltdown and just double-down no matter what. Pretty common thing to see from creationists.

Yours is a common problem among evolutionists. You ignore continually that for a specific random mutation to be fixed in the entire population, the entire population must be descended from the one originally carrying that random mutation.

Pshun, for example, is still ranting and raving about how he thinks elephants have clavicles, for crying out loud... You people are a hoot!

I wouldn’t expect them too. What does someone else have to do with my point that Asian remain Asian, African remain African, and when they mate a new variant appears suddenly.

That we see the same thing in the fossil record, that every one remains always the same and new variants appear suddenly.

It appears that you want that one is wrong, all is wrong. So the fact Darwin was wrong about finches being reproductively isolated, under your own premise, all of you are wrong....

You people don’t have much practice at logical thinking do you, never thinking your arguments through before making them. Forgetting that what you apply to others can be applied right back. A bad tactic at that, sort of like arguing that because many believe it to be correct, it must be correct, the favorite argument of evolutionists which is listed as the number one logical fallacy....

What is a hoot is that apparently some evolutionists like to ignore that for a random mutation that exists in me to become fixed in the entire population, that population must be comprised solely of my descendants.

Speedwell · Nov 2, 2017

rjs330 said:
Why do you believe anything the Bible says if it was written by men? Men claim they were inspired. Why do you believe the claim?

Why do you believe that the Bible was written word-for-word by God? That claim is made by men; why do you believe the claim?

What difference does it make, anyway? If the Bible is inspired by God or directly written by God it is the book God wants us to have and we need to take it seriously in either case.

rjs330 · Nov 2, 2017

Speedwell said:
We certainly don't believe what you think the Bible says--not the same thing as not believing the Bible. What you believe about the Bible is what you believe about the Bible. But you don't own the Bible or Christianity. Your beliefs about the Bible are not necessarily the only possible beliefs and are not normative for the rest of Christianity.

What I think the Bible says? It's not what I think. It's what the Bible actually says. No interpretation needed. Those that do not believe what it says are those that are believing what they THINK it says. The Bible says how God created. If you are disbelieving that it's based upon what YOU think. It's not based upon what it says. I've said this before but it astounds me hat people will wholeheartedly trust what the Bible says about the birth and death and ressurrection of Christ because the Bible says it happened, but when it comes to Genesis they don't. It's funny how they just utterly discount some things but completely believe others.

And this whole normative stuff is just foolish. It's also becoming normative for churches and whole denominations to support homosexuality as well. What a disaster to form our beliefs or support our beliefs based upon majority rule. You might read the first couple of chapters in Revelation. Jesus himself judges the churches for following false beliefs even though it was the normative. Before you get all crazy I'm not saying you will be judged for not believing Genesis. I'm making a point that normative belief is not a measuring stick as too the truth. Paul got after a number of churches for following normative beliefs. Jesus condemned Pharisees for following normative beliefs.

Jimmy D · Nov 2, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
There is no such thing as two unrelated members of a species. It’s the fact that they are related that makes them the same species.

You know very well what I mean.... closely related / family members.

Justatruthseeker said:
They are each and every one of them distantly related.

Of course they are, and that means they aren't "inbreeding".

Justatruthseeker said:
Except as we just discussed, there is no such thing as a species that is unrelated to other members of that species.

You know very well what I mean.... closely related / family members.

Justatruthseeker said:
I don’t need to produce any, since you already understand every member in the species is related to every other member. Nor was I the one attempting to imply active avoidance, even when no evidence of such was found.

No, you were trying to imply "inbreeding", the facts demonstrate you are wrong.

Justatruthseeker said:
Except you still haven’t refuted my ideas. You keep ignoring that Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. That for the genetic trait of Asian to be set into the population, the descendants must all come from one family.

Stop obfuscating. I was responding to your implications that black bears, wolves etc are suffering a loss of genetic variation because they're all inbreeding and therefore all genetic variation comes from sub species interbreeding.

You were wrong.

Just man up and admit it.

Justatruthseeker said:
Even you have to accept this, even under your own theory. Because for a mutation that benifits me and is passed to my descendants, then if it is fixed in the population, all the population must come from me and my descendants.

Or is this where you go into the realm of magic and start claiming random mutations magically fix themselves into the entire population without needing to be descended from the one with the mutation?

Sorry, did I mention this in my post? I don't believe I did.

Maybe if you focused on what people are saying instead of going off on these tangents you could learn something.

As you brought it up though I wouldn't disagree, I'm glad you are accepting descent with modification.

rjs330 · Nov 2, 2017

Speedwell said:
Why do you believe that the Bible was written word-for-word by God? That claim is made by men; why do you believe the claim?

What difference does it make, anyway? If the Bible is inspired by God or directly written by God it is the book God wants us to have and we need to take it seriously in either case.

Please answer my question rather than avoid it. By the way I didn't say I believed God wrote the bible. I merely asked you why you believe a book written by men?

Speedwell · Nov 2, 2017

BradB said:
To you what does it mean to be a Christian?

Never mind, we get it. There are limits to what you can say on the board, even for Bible Christians. I know, I 've lived in the Bible Belt and understand that to people like you I'm nothing but a "Bible-hating, Christ denying (epithet for communist) (epithet for homosexual) lover" with a rock through my front window if I don't keep my mouth shut about it. That is why you get so much pushback on creationism here, even from Christians. I do regard you as a fellow Christian (even though I know you won't return the favor) but as a practical matter also as a dangerous enemy.

Jimmy D · Nov 2, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Please show me where I ever claimed a mutation could not change skin color. As a matter of fact I stated that clearly. But the point you then ignored is for that mutation to fix in the population, all the population must be descended from the one with the mutation....

Right, right, it can change skin colour but not race, you are a confused individual.

Justatruthseeker said:
No mutations created the Afr-Asian, just the mixing of two different genetic strains from two subspecies.

Justatruthseeker said:
No, your mutation theory having any significant affect is dead, as soon as all of you let it die a peaceful death.

Justatruthseeker said:
Only you with your false theory needs mutations and millions of years. I need but “two” and nine months for humans and about 28 weeks for dogs.

Justatruthseeker said:
For mutations do nothing, but every single time you mate two variations in the species you get another. And never something new each time, but the same breed, strain, subspecies, whatever you want to call them today, every single time.....

No, mutations play no important role at all. Except in the realm of make-believe.

Justatruthseeker said:
You see Asian remaining Asian despite mutations at every birth. You see African remaining African despite mutations at every birth. The only time you have seen even a change in race was when those two interbreed.

Justatruthseeker said:
About as hilarious as one race becoming another through mutation, when you have only observed a new race come about from mating.... but empericial evidence of real life is not evolutions strong point.

Speedwell · Nov 2, 2017

rjs330 said:
Please answer my question rather than avoid it. By the way I didn't say I believed God wrote the bible. I merely asked you why you believe a book written by men?

I thought I did. Sacred Tradition confirms II Tim 3:16. But since that does not seem enough to you, that's why I asked why you believe it.

Justatruthseeker · Nov 2, 2017

BradB said:
"When" you were a Christian? Jesus said if you continue in my word then you will truly be my followers. John 8:31 What He means here is that there are some who do not continue, who start but don't become grounded in His teachings. Had you continued you would have seen that both He and His disciples all clearly taught that the Genesis account of creation was not just a metaphor but a literal historical event. The entire gospel of Christ is hinged upon that event being literal. You cannot believe sin literally entered the world through one man's transgression if you reject Genesis as literal. You cannot believe that therefore God literally promised us One would come who would crush the head of the serpent and be bruised in the process. You must make God a sadist because if death entered the world millions of years before the first man sinned then God looked down upon death and said "it is good." And without a literal transgression by Adam you render the whole point of the cross meaningless. Jesus came to save us from sin and "death." He came to correct the first Adam's mistake in the Garden and to be the last Adam through whom grace comes.

How can one be a Christian if they don't understand the gospel of Christ?

But Jesus spoke Hebrew, not English.

I think we can both accept that even if I translate a Spanish novel into another language, I must take liscence with certain words, as some words can only be understood fully in the original tongue of one who understands all the nuances.

But you are correct, if sin entered through one man, then if all men are not descended from him, then God would not be worth worshipping to apply sin to men that did not descend from that one.

But I can understand their confusion, believing as they do that a random mutation in me, even if you and I understand only my descendants receive this mutation, and if fixed in the entire population, the population would have to be comprised solely of my descendants. But since they believe one need not be related to inherit said mutation, I understand their confusion.

They talk of the impossibility of all coming from two' then ignore their own claims that mutations fixed in the entire population shows relatedness and to be fixed so, all must have descended from two.

rjs330 · Nov 2, 2017

Speedwell said:
I thought I did. Sacred Tradition confirms II Tim 3:16. But since that does not seem enough to you, that's why I asked why you believe it.

But why believe sacred tradition and II Timothy? Sacred tradition is man saying something and I Timothy was written by a man. Why do you trust and believe that?

Justatruthseeker · Nov 2, 2017

Jimmy D said:
Right, right, it can change skin colour but not race, you are a confused individual.

I’ve never seen a new race appear until the Asian mated with the African, have you? So who is claiming something against all observations but you? Africans are not Africans because they have dark skin, but because of specific genetic and other attributes. As Asians are not Asians because they have lighter skin, but because of certain genetic and other attributes.

You should know this. We can perform DNA testing and know if an African, Asian, Latino, etc committed a crime, before even seeing what color their skin was, and none of it had to do with skin color as the proof....

Why do you keep trying to turn this into an issue of skin color or racism? When my contention has nothing to do with the color of ones skin. That isn’t what designates an African and Asian apart genetically. I simply use them as an example, but it wouldn’t matter if they were red and green instead, or both red, we would still be able to distinguish between them.

Justatruthseeker · Nov 2, 2017

rjs330 said:
But why believe sacred tradition and II Timothy? Sacred tradition is man saying something and I Timothy was written by a man. Why do you trust and believe that?

Evolutionary theory was written by man, yet evolutionists trust it, what is the difference?

xianghua · Nov 2, 2017

HitchSlap said:
You might want to read Dawkin's "The Blind Watch Maker."

i already read it. at least a big part of it. dawkins main a rgument is false, since even a self replicating watch is evidence for design rather then evolution.

rjs330 · Nov 2, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
But Jesus spoke Hebrew, not English.

I think we can both accept that even if I translate a Spanish novel into another language, I must take liscence with certain words, as some words can only be understood fully in the original tongue of one who understands all the nuances.

But you are correct, if sin entered through one man, then if all men are not descended from him, then God would not be worth worshipping to apply sin to men that did not descend from that one.

But I can understand their confusion, believing as they do that a random mutation in me, even if you and I understand only my descendants receive this mutation, and if fixed in the entire population, the population would have to be comprised solely of my descendants. But since they believe one need not be related to inherit said mutation, I understand their confusion.

They talk of the impossibility of all coming from two' then ignore their own claims that mutations fixed in the entire population shows relatedness and to be fixed so, all must have descended from two.

What's interesting the evolutionists will deny the ability of all humans coming from two, but will wholeheartedly believe that all things human or not came from one thing.

Jimmy D · Nov 2, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
I wouldn’t expect them too. What does someone else have to do with my point that Asian remain Asian, African remain African, and when they mate a new variant appears suddenly.

I'm curious, according to your argument all these (sub)species of Galapogos finches interbreed, is that correct?

And when two subspecies interbreed an new one is created, is that correct?

Have there been any new (sub)species recorded since Darwin's first visit?

Jimmy D · Nov 2, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
I’ve never seen a new race appear until the Asian mated with the African, have you?

LOL, Of course I haven't seen a new race appear, you say some very strange things.

Justatruthseeker said:
So who is claiming something against all observations but you?

No, I go along with the scientific consensus, modern understanding of population genetics etc.

Justatruthseeker said:
Africans are not Africans because they have dark skin, but because of specific genetic and other attributes. As Asians are not Asians because they have lighter skin, but because of certain genetic and other attributes.

You should know this. We can perform DNA testing and know if an African, Asian, Latino, etc committed a crime, before even seeing what color their skin was, and none of it had to do with skin color as the proof....

As I said, I happily accept the findings of modern science, don't you?

Speedwell · Nov 2, 2017

rjs330 said:
But why believe sacred tradition and II Timothy? Sacred tradition is man saying something and I Timothy was written by a man. Why do you trust and believe that?

Sacred Tradition is man saying something with the guidance of the Holy Sprirt.

Speedwell · Nov 2, 2017

rjs330 said:
What's interesting the evolutionists will deny the ability of all humans coming from two, but will wholeheartedly believe that all things human or not came from one thing.

Not the ability, the actuality. That old smear tactic no longer works. No one here is saying God couldn't have done it, only that He didn't.

Justatruthseeker · Nov 2, 2017

Jimmy D said:
Stop obfuscating. I was responding to your implications that black bears, wolves etc are suffering a loss of genetic variation because they're all inbreeding and therefore all genetic variation comes from sub species interbreeding.

Who’s obfuscating. Have you ever seen a black bear become other than a black bear unless it mates with another variant of bear?

You were wrong.

Just man up and admit it.

I am manning up, I’ve never seen a Mastiff become anything other than a Mastiff. No new breed appears until it mates with the Husky.

Maybe you should look in the mirror when you utter the words man up and admit it.

Sorry, did I mention this in my post? I don't believe I did.

Maybe if you focused on what people are saying instead of going off on these tangents you could learn something.

As you brought it up though I wouldn't disagree, I'm glad you are accepting descent with modification.

Through interbreeding yes. Mutations to skin color don’t affect the Mastiff at all except to make it black or brown, doesn’t change what a Mastiff is, or the Husky. The only thing that makes a new variation is when those two mate.

But I’m glad you are beginning to accept that before a mutation, like skin or hair color to become fixed in the population, they must all be descended from two. At least that is a start in the right direction.

Justatruthseeker · Nov 2, 2017

rjs330 said:
What's interesting the evolutionists will deny the ability of all humans coming from two, but will wholeheartedly believe that all things human or not came from one thing.

I know, amazing isn’t it. They talk of bottlenecks if from two, but then ignore that for every new mutation fixed in the population, they have to start with one....

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency