proving evolution as just a "theory"

[rjs330]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm pointing out you don't understand how the process of evolution works. Saying you want to see a cat turn into a dog highlights your ignorance of the subject matter.



Demonstrably false. But humor me. Describe your falsifiable test that would demonstrate your conclusion to be accurate.

Please show your observable verifiable and testable evidence that single celled creature evolved into everything that is.

 

[Aman777]

Umm...no the text says He finished with His work on the sixth day and on the seventh day He rested.

Not in Hebrew since the term finished means brought to perfection. It's the only way a work of the perfect God can and does end. Notice that the text tells us that after God's creation has been finished, God rests or ceases from ALL of His creating. Gen 2:2-3 The question is, Is God still creating today? Yes, which means that we remain at Genesis 1:27 on the present Day/Age of Salvation.

The idea is as in when in a court of law when the lawyer says the defense rests. Meaning they're DONE.

The Hebrew imperfect tense for Gen 1:27 speaking of God "creating" is the word:
בָּרָא bara'.
The imperfect expresses an action, process or condition which is incomplete

IOW, God's creating mankind/Adam, in Christ Spiritually, continues today. Just ask any Gospel preacher. God will NOT rest/cease from creating until Heaven is filled with ALL of it's host as Genesis 2:1 states.

therwise again the command to the Jews to rest every 7th day makes no sense

Sure it does since it's speaking of God's 7th Day which is Eternity. Remember the command to keep it "holy". Mankind is incapable of keeping anything holy while in the Flesh. God's rest is FUTURE to 2017.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

We were made in His image or likeness.

Mankind was made like Jesus BUT Adam sinned and lost his image like Jesus and was found in the image of FLESH, like that of the sons of God (prehistoric people). After Cain killed Abel, Adam and Eve were born again Spiritually or created in God's (Trinity's) Image. Gen 5:1-2

When sin entered the world we took on a foreign nature of death. But after coming to faith in Christ we begin the process of taking on His nature.

Amen, IF we are born of His Spirit. Rom 8:9 Some, on this board, would rather be boiled in oil, than to bow their knees to Jesus. Amen?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not in Hebrew since the term finished means brought to perfection. It's the only way a work of the perfect God can and does end. Notice that the text tells us that after God's creation has been finished, God rests or ceases from ALL of His creating. Gen 2:2-3 The question is, Is God still creating today? Yes, which means that we remain at Genesis 1:27 on the present Day/Age of Salvation.



The Hebrew imperfect tense for Gen 1:27 speaking of God "creating" is the word:
בָּרָא bara'.
The imperfect expresses an action, process or condition which is incomplete

IOW, God's creating mankind/Adam, in Christ Spiritually, continues today. Just ask any Gospel preacher. God will NOT rest/cease from creating until Heaven is filled with ALL of it's host as Genesis 2:1 states.



Sure it does since it's speaking of God's 7th Day which is Eternity. Remember the command to keep it "holy". Mankind is incapable of keeping anything holy while in the Flesh. God's rest is FUTURE to 2017.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.



Mankind was made like Jesus BUT Adam sinned and lost his image like Jesus and was found in the image of FLESH, like that of the sons of God (prehistoric people). After Cain killed Abel, Adam and Eve were born again Spiritually or created in God's (Trinity's) Image. Gen 5:1-2



Amen, IF we are born of His Spirit. Rom 8:9 Some, on this board, would rather be boiled in oil, than to bow their knees to Jesus. Amen?

Yet the Father works to this day, just not creative works.

John 5:17

As does the son

John 5:16
John 9:4

The rest on the seventh day was from works of creation, not cessation of divine works.

Lost his image because of sin?
He gained the other half.

“And the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”

No, man simply could not handle the knowledge of evil without God. The first image was the knowledge of only good.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please show your observable verifiable and testable evidence that single celled creature evolved into everything that is.

Umm, bacteria remain bacteria? Asian remain Asian? As does everything? Every fossil always remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest? Missing common ancestors for every single split?

Oh, FOR evolution, ummm, ummm, nothing, sorry. Oh wait, incorrect classifications of subspecies and ignoring their own definitions, does that count?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you as sure of this as you are of your claims about genetics?

And just to be clear, do you mean "Jesus spoke Hebrew as his everyday language" or "Jesus was able to speak Hebrew"?

Jesus spoke Hebrew as his everyday language. Such is why at age 12 he was able to enter with the priests and astound them with his knowledge. The temple language was Hebrew. The scriptures were at that time written in Hebrew, only later translated into Greek and other languages.

That he also spoke Aramaic and Greek, and any other language he needed to is without doubt.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When you are presented legitimate scientific evidence (after repeatedly claiming you're all about the scientific evidence) and then you handwave it away as "evolutionary PR", you just undercut your own position in the process.

Says the man that won’t even follow his own scientific definitions of subspecies.

Any more PR you want to spout?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Kind of you, and unusual for a creationist. But the truth is, that there are a variety of interpretations of Genesis held to by different Christian groups and they all lead to the faith position you outline above. In fact, it is for all practical purposes the same as that contained in the Nicene Creed, which is a statement of belief adhered to by close to two billion Christians around the world--most of whom reject your interpretation of Genesis. Personally, I don't care what creationists believe about the Bible, any more than I care that Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat or that Mormons wear special underclothing. I do care about the hostility and bumptiousness which seems an ill fit with the message of the Gospel.

Sometimes you just got to call snakes and vipers what they are when they come into your house selling their garbage.

But apparently you don’t see any reason evolutionists need to be respectful considering you might find 10 posts by them in this entire thread where they didn’t insult someone, to which you don’t seem to object to.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Collins also states and quite strongly, the scientific theory of evolution can not be denied, by any reasonable person.

Darwin stated quite strongly that God created everything. That don’t seem to matter to you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Observation in science does not necessarily mean observing the specific phenomenon under investigation, any more than 'reproduction' in science means re-creating the specific event in question.

One can observe the effects of a phenomenon and draw conclusions without having to see the actual phenomenon itself.

You mean like Asian remaining Asian, African remaining African, and when they mate a new variety suddenly enters the record.

We agree, that we couldn’t observe fossil A mate with Fossil B to create fossil C is no reason to ignore how we observe variation to enter the picture, then not apply it to the past.

But that’s why every single fossil found of any creature remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest fossil found, with new variations appearing suddenly.

Because we don’t have to see those fossils mate, because it happens that way now, we just need draw the proper conclusions.

Because neither the Asian nor African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is so wrong as to render all of your commentary in this arena moot.

Is it, are you sure? Last I checked half my chromosomes came from my father and half from my mother.

Ahh I see, only single celled organisms which contain all chromosomes together can split to make half the chromosomes in one and half in the other. Hmmm, that story sounds vaguely familiar.

Why wouldn't a God see that happening down the track?

Such is the price we pay for free will.

Which isn't that hard to achieve really... It can theoretically be possible in just a few short generations. Take you for example. You have two parents. Your parents have two parents each. Their parents have two parents each, so on. Let's count it out from you:
Generation 1 - 1 <== You
Generation 2 - 2 <== Your mummy and daddy
Generation 3 - 4 <== Your grandmummies and granddaddies
Generation 4 - 8 <== Your great grandmummies and great granddaddies
Generation 5 - 16 <== etc.
Generation 6 - 32
Generation 7 - 64
Generation 8 - 128
Generation 9 - 256
Generation 10 - 512
Generation 11 - 1,024
Generation 12 - 2,048
Generation 13 - 4,096
Generation 14 - 8,192
Generation 15 - 16,384
Generation 16 - 32,768
Generation 17 - 65,536
Generation 18 - 131,072
Generation 19 - 262,144
Generation 20 - 524,288
Generation 21 - 1,048,576
Generation 22 - 2,097,152
Generation 23 - 4,194,304
Generation 24 - 8,388,608
Generation 25 - 16,777,216
Generation 26 - 33,554,432
Generation 27 - 67,108,864
Generation 28 - 134,217,728
Generation 29 - 268,435,456
Generation 30 - 536,870,912
Generation 31 - 1,073,741,824
Generation 32 - 2,147,483,648
Generation 33 - 4,294,967,296
Generation 34 - 8,589,934,592

So, by going back only 34 generations, you would very possibly have every mutation from every generation prior to this in your genome at todays population - now That's fixation, and that's also only around 680 years ago if you take average age of family life to begin around 20 years. Obviously this is overly simplistic and doesn't properly model the actual rate of fixation since it isn't possible to have around 16 billion unique ancestors in your lineage, but this certainly is indicative of how soon and how easily beneficial mutations can fixate in a population, even ours at 7.5 billion people.

And I notice you had to start with two to get it fixed into the entire population. I’m not objecting to that at all. But even generation 34 with all its accumulated mutations is still the same species as generation 1. Granted, we may not look the same as we once did (think poodle versus wolf).

Your problem is that once you reach say 50,000, and one aquires a random mutation, how do the descendants of the other 49,998 people acquire that mutation if it is fixed in the population. Do all the others die out in your scenario? You want to start with 8 billion magically acquiring the same random mutation then go down to one. Sorry, for a mutation from one to fix in the population it goes the other way. At least in real genetics and real life where descendants inherit family traits it does.

So just out of curiosity how does a random mutation appearing in generation 24, fix itself in the entire population afterwards? We kill off all the rest and start over from two? But then what about generation 6 and 12 and 28? From two all over again each time?

Or is this the point where magic is inserted and the entire population just aquires this same random mutation?

Well, creationists are wrong, don't need to see an imaginary event like that to know it...

I know, you can not see the events in front of your eyes and not know it. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Huskies remain Huskies, they don’t evolve into Chinooks, nor do Mastiffs.

And hence every fossil type found remains exactly the same from the oldest to the youngest fossil found, and those new variations appear suddenly.

No, I don’t need to see fossil A mate with fossil B to create fossil C, it’s how it happens today.

 

[pitabread]

I know, you can not see the events in front of your eyes and not know it. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Huskies remain Huskies, they don’t evolve into Chinooks, nor do Mastiffs.

And hence every fossil type found remains exactly the same from the oldest to the youngest fossil found, and those new variations appear suddenly.

No, I don’t need to see fossil A mate with fossil B to create fossil C, it’s how it happens today.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The above seems a very "classical" way of viewing the universe, but may not apply based on what we know these days.

1) Laws in physics have specific scope in which they apply. They aren't necessarily universal in scope. For example, Newtonian physics break down at the quantum level; consequently, if the universe began as a singularity then traditional Newtonian physics laws like the laws of motion wouldn't apply.

Or relativity and space time, since that didn’t exist then either and breaks down on the quantum level and macro too. After all, once you leave the solar system that 99% correct theory in the solar system suddenly needs 96% ad-hoc gap filler to work. There is no quantum theory of gravity or space time that makes any meaningful predictions.

2) Law of universal causation isn't a physical law. And in fact, when dealing with quantum mechanics, it's possible that classical views of causality may not even apply: Quantum correlations with no causal order

I’m sure, after we have to take the math, normalize it, then renormalize it again. Not that we might consider how things started might be flawed instead.

3) The idea of something being "external" to the universe if the universe is space-time itself doesn't really make much sense. Furthermore, you haven't really necessitated the existence of anything "outside" of the space-time.

Must be something external, even if it’s nothingness, or what is it expanding into? Itself? So everywhere we can’t observe it’s collapsing into itself, since it is expanding somewhere. Or maybe that theory is flawed to since everything needs normalized, renormalized, adjusted and fitted with ad-hoc theory after ad-hoc theory the second one goes beyond the confines of the solar system. Yet everything works just fine without ad-hoc theory in the solar system.

Not that anyone might consider theories meant for one state of matter may simply not apply to other states of matter.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Please show your observable verifiable and testable evidence that single celled creature evolved into everything that is.

So you cannot provide what I asked for? I didn't think so.

Where would you like to begin though? Comparable anatomy, fossil record, DNA & Genetics, observations in the lab and nature, embryology, etc? There's literally mountains of verifiable facts of evolution. Just let me know what scientific discipline you'd like to address.

 

[rjs330]

Well the conversation was started by claiming I was telling something that was a lie. That by all definitions is calling someone a liar -unless you clarify by saying something to the effect that "they are being deceived into believing a spreading a lie."

As for Mr. Wood I do appreciate that he has a PhD in biochemistry. That does give him some extra clout in my view. Now I am convinced that he is convinced however I am not seeing why. To date no one has yet presented me with the only two forms of evidence that would set evolution out ahead of creation. I see a lot of "beating on the chest" and "belittling" but still nothing in the way of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another. And still not a single example of an observation under a controlled experiment where an information gaining type of a random mutation occurred that was beneficial to the organism. I totally agree with Dr. Woods on the fact that there are "gobs" of evidence for evolution. I'll even go further and wager you could fill several football stadiums with all the evidence that exists in support of the theory of evolution. All you have to do is just wave away the possibility of a creator and presto... all that similarity between various forms has not other explanation but evolution. But I'm not willing to wave away the possibility so easily. Present me with one of the two types of actual evidence I asked for and I will become a converted evolutionist. Until then you can present pages of testimonials from people that would reach from California to New York and it matters nothing to me.

I've been saying the exact same thing. Evolution is the ONLY real option if God is removed. The piles of "evidence" really are nothing more than man trying to figure out how all that is came to be without God. And this whole nonsense is the ONLY explanation and teaching they offer in schools, on educational programs, in scientific articles, and any time the discussion of life comes up. No wonder everyone including ignorant Christians fall for it.

 

[rjs330]

So you cannot provide what I asked for? I didn't think so.

Where would you like to begin though? Comparable anatomy, fossil record, DNA & Genetics, observations in the lab and nature, embryology, etc? There's literally mountains of verifiable facts of evolution. Just let me know what scientific discipline you'd like to address.

We've tried that before. This thread is full of it. None of the evidence that has been presented is testable, verifiable or reproducible evidence that we all came from one thing. None of it. It always points to similarities. It always use nothing but assumptions. Show me one thing that shows we all came from one thing that is testable, verifiable and reproducible. Please show me. I haven't seen it yet.

 

[rjs330]

Observation in science does not necessarily mean observing the specific phenomenon under investigation, any more than 'reproduction' in science means re-creating the specific event in question.

One can observe the effects of a phenomenon and draw conclusions without having to see the actual phenomenon itself.

Ah so it does fall on interpretation. They don't have any real evidence. They interpret what they find. So my point remains. Evolution is the Only viable answer if God and creation are removed from the equation. That's not real science. It's guesswork and assumptions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've been saying the exact same thing. Evolution is the ONLY real option if God is removed.

Whereas, if we remove evolution, God becomes one option out of dozens...

The piles of "evidence" really are nothing more than man trying to figure out how all that is came to be without God.

You mean Odin, right?

And this whole nonsense is the ONLY explanation and teaching they offer in schools, on educational programs, in scientific articles, and any time the discussion of life comes up. No wonder everyone including ignorant Christians fall for it.

Christians who deny Odin can hardly blame the schools, educational programs, scientific articles, etc., for their "ignorance."

Nor can you, for that matter.

 

[Speedwell]

It's actually the theistic evolutionists who have the difficulty with the theology. They are the ones "interpreting". They are the ones with a real theological difficulties. I have never seen so much theological gymnastics in my life than I have seen from the theistic evolution crowd. In fact they don't really have a theological argument. Their only argument is literary. Which IS subject to personal interpretation.

One of the most distinctive characteristics of creationists is the tendency to make things up about what other people believe. With people like you it's merely amusing. Unfortunately, it is also the basis of much meanness and hostility in others.

 

[Speedwell]

I understand that there are other interpretations. When I was a child I can recall coming home from school to a note from my mother that read "No TV before chores are done." I interpreted it to mean as long as my chores got done before she came home from work I could watch my favorite show "Gilligan's Island" now. However that's not what the author obviously meant. When interpreting the Bible we look at what the author was intending for his audience to understand, and we look at how his intended audience understood. The best sense is the obvious sense...any other sense is nonsense. There's obviously only one way that the author meant it and the best interpretation is always going to be the most obvious.

My stake in this matter is that I believe the Bible is entirely trust worthy and when we start monkeying around with it, it breaks down and those who need to trust in the parts that really matter most, wont do so because they see the instability of so called believers molding it to fit whatever new theory pops up. We don't have to defend the Bible. It stands just fine all on its own. God created the heavens and the earth and did all of His work in six days and rested on the seventh day. The same author goes on in Exodus to tell the Jewish people that they are to do likewise. If he meant that God spent six "day ages" creating then he must have been telling the Jews they only have to rest every 7 million years or so...right?

What I just posted to rjs applies to you as well. My point is, that I think that you, as "Bible-believing" Christians have a responsibility to help the rest of us deal with some of your coreligionsists--the Judge Roy Moores, the Gary Norths, the Pat Roberstsons. etc. who actually mean us ill, and would do it, too, if you sit by and do nothing.

 

[pitabread]

And this whole nonsense is the ONLY explanation and teaching they offer in schools, on educational programs, in scientific articles, and any time the discussion of life comes up.

Biological evolution the only explanation on the table.

"Goddidit" is not an explanation for the diversity of life any more than it's an explanation for the weather.