proving evolution as just a "theory"

tas8831 · Nov 28, 2017

xianghua said:
here are several kinds of aircraft:

as you can see- all of them shared wheels.

And they all shared being made of aluminum, etc.

What does that have to do with common ancestry?

of course, since those objects were made by different designers.

Ferdinand Porshe designed both the VW Beetle and the turret for the Tiger tank.

But they have nothing in common.

Again, what do cars and planes have to do with living things?

ruthiesea · Nov 28, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
Exactly, the God that gives us the Moral Laws is the same God that gives us the laws of physics. Also He gives us free will. So the problem is when we use our free will to break or violate the law. That is why God has a plan of redemption and restoration to redeem and restore all of creation back to God's plan and purpose.

If your car is broken and does not run right would you consider it a miracle if a mechanic would fix the problem and restore the car back to the performance the car was designed to have?

We have tons of evidence that the Bible is 100% accurate and true. If your so evidence based then why do you not believe the evidence that testifies for the Bible as the Written word of God.

The Bible is 100% accurate, so long as you do not consider it to be a history book or a science book. We are taught that the Bible is a book of G-d's moral and ethical teachings. However, it does not give us all of the answers, but poses many questions. The Bible is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning. Science, on the other hand, studies His universe, how it was created, what it is composed of, and challenges us to learn about His creation.

There is no conflict between science and belief in G-d.

rjs330 · Nov 28, 2017

Min

omega2xx said:
All men used by God are just men. Do you have any evidence Paul just made it all up?

God told him all Scripture is inspired by God. Teh OT is Scripture.

When one is converted they receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth.

The same way all Christians know He does.

The same way little know Jesus loves them---the Bible tells us so. Do you have any evidence it did not happen just as Paul describes

He read the OT and believed what he read.

How do you know God exists?

Apparently Paul was mistakenbabout a great many things. Since he trusted the accuracy and the history of the OT including Adam and Eve. So did Jesus. So how do we know Paul wasnt mistaken about the inspiration of the prophets?

Speedwell · Nov 28, 2017

rjs330 said:
Min

Apparently Paul was mistakenbabout a great many things. Since he trusted the accuracy and the history of the OT including Adam and Eve. So did Jesus. So how do we know Paul wasnt mistaken about the inspiration of the prophets?

That's quite a number of people to be mistaken then, including all the Jews and such Christians were around then, as the divine inspiration of the prophets was universally believed. Indeed, that is the very definition of the word "prophet."

As to what Paul and Jesus believed about the historicity of Adam and Eve, we have no specific information. They used the story in their preaching, is all we know about it. That said, they, or Paul, at least, may well have believed that Adam and Eve were real people--everybody else at the time did. But even if they did, it would not support your claims, which are about the text of the story, not about the characters or their historicity.

rjs330 · Nov 28, 2017

Speedwell said:
What strange notions people get when they tie the truth of the Bible to a literal and inerrant Genesis. Such a thing certainly would not occur to me.

Why not? Why do those notions come to you when it comes to Genesis? It seems inconsistent.

Speedwell · Nov 28, 2017

rjs330 said:
Why not? Why do those notions come to you when it comes to Genesis? It seems inconsistent.

What notions? That because one book on my shelf is an allegory, all the rest must be allegories, too? That's your notion. (Of course, I don't think the Genesis stories are all allegories, either, but you creationists seem to think that there are only two forms of narrative: "100% accurate literal history" and "allegory" and I don't want to vex you right now with the notion that there might be more options than that.)

Aman777 · Nov 28, 2017

Speedwell said:
My view has been serving me and billions of Christians like me for two millenia.

Amen, and that is one of the proofs of the literal God. Christians are those who believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ by FAITH, which is the Gift of God. Eph 2:8 The difference in my view is that it is of a man who lives with the "increased knowledge" of the educated people of the last days of this world.

God hid the scientific Truth in Genesis chapter one, and this same scientific Truth will be known only to the people of the last days. Daniel 12:4 God will pour out His Spirit of Truth upon "all flesh" in the last days. Act 2:17 This means that atheists, agnostics and even Darwinists, will be exposed to God's Literal Truth which agrees in every way with every discovery of mankind.

God knew that only by FAITH can one become a Christian, which happened to both of us, thousands of years after He stated it. Seek the agreement of Scripture Science and History and you will be able to go beyond Faith into the world of the Literal Truth of God's Holy Word. Faith plus Fact equals God's Truth. God Bless you

Aman777 · Nov 28, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
Anti Theists are always wrong, so they serve as an antithesis: exact opposite - contrasting words or ideas. This is why people have to be in or out with God. They can not jump back and forth. There is no middle ground and there are no fence sitters.

Amen. Either God is inside you or NOT. Those apart from God are lost. Amen?

Aman777 · Nov 28, 2017

TerryWoodenpic said:
The users of the Didache in the first century, soon after jesus death, believed they were in the last days, and were impatient for the second coming. They were wrong, as have been every generation and group of Christians who believed the same thing for their own time.
It is just as unlikely that we are in the end of times now.
I have no idea how God accomplishes anything. But every thing will come to pass that he intends.

The people of the first century were correct since today remains the 6th Day, the last Day of the Creation. ALL Humans (descendants of Adam) live and die on the present 6th Day/Age, the Day of Salvation according to Jesus. 2Co 6:2 To the 152,000 people who enter will Eternity in the next 24 hours, today is the last Day. Amen?

Aman777 · Nov 28, 2017

rjs330 said:
That's been my point all along. We are are the descendents of Adam. We do not have a common ancestor with spiders and monkeys.

Amen, but we contain the DNA of prehistoric mankind because there were NO Humans for Noah's grandsons to marry. Like Cain, on Adam's Earth, they married and produced the Humans of today. Gen 6:4 Scientists have mistakenly classified these prehistoric people as Humans (descendants of Adam) since they rejected God's Truth in Genesis. Amen?

doubtingmerle · Nov 28, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
We have tons of evidence that the Bible is 100% accurate and true. If your so evidence based then why do you not believe the evidence that testifies for the Bible as the Written word of God.

Years ago I had a prolonged discussion with a lady who tried to convince me that there was abundant evidence that the Koran was the written word of God. I saw right through her arguments. She tried to read amazing scientific evidence into forced reading of Koran verses. I bet you could have seen right through her arguments also.

And I think, if you would apply the same skepticism to the Bible that you do to the Koran, you would see right through the arguments for the Bible also.

rjs330 · Nov 28, 2017

tas8831 said:
Getting tired of having to re-present this to you guys:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.

The only 'assumptions' are those that even creationists admit are true - mutations happen; some mutations are heritable; patterns of shared inherited mutations are indicative of parent-offspring/ancestor-descendant relationships.

Yes mutations happen. But the mutations do mean one creature eventually evolved into all creatures. All it means is that a creatures can mutate but still remain of the same group. Cats are cats and k9s are k9s. Spidera have always been spiders from the beginning. They did not evolve or mutate from the same creature we did.

rjs330 · Nov 28, 2017

Speedwell said:
That's quite a number of people to be mistaken then, including all the Jews and such Christians were around then, as the divine inspiration of the prophets was universally believed. Indeed, that is the very definition of the word "prophet."

As to what Paul and Jesus believed about the historicity of Adam and Eve, we have no specific information. They used the story in their preaching, is all we know about it. That said, they, or Paul, at least, may well have believed that Adam and Eve were real people--everybody else at the time did. But even if they did, it would not support your claims, which are about the text of the story, not about the characters or their historicity.

Yes and since Paul was devinely inspired and Jesus was Devine and they were mistaken in their beliefs how do we know they weren't mistaken about it her things such as Devine inspiration? There is great inconsistency in believing they were right about some things but wrong about others. Then you get to pick and choose what they were right and wrong about.

rjs330 · Nov 28, 2017

Speedwell said:
What notions? That because one book on my shelf is an allegory, all the rest must be allegories, too? That's your notion. (Of course, I don't think the Genesis stories are all allegories, either, but you creationists seem to think that there are only two forms of narrative: "100% accurate literal history" and "allegory" and I don't want to vex you right now with the notion that there might be more options than that.)

Then it is up to you to show where the allegory starts and stops and where history starts and stops and how you know the difference. And please use scriptures to support your arguments.

Speedwell · Nov 28, 2017

rjs330 said:
Yes and since Paul was devinely inspired and Jesus was Devine and they were mistaken in their beliefs how do we know they weren't mistaken about it her things such as Devine inspiration? There is great inconsistency in believing they were right about some things but wrong about others. Then you get to pick and choose what they were right and wrong about.

How were they mistaken? We don't know what they believed about your claim that the text of the Genesis stories was either 100% accurate literal history or "allegory."

Speedwell · Nov 28, 2017

rjs330 said:
Then it is up to you to show where the allegory starts and stops and where history starts and stops and how you know the difference. And please use scriptures to support your arguments.

(Accepting for purposes of argument your notion that "allegory" is a portmanteau word for "anything other than 100% accurate literal history" rather than a literary term with a specific meaning)

I couldn't do it just with scripture. I probably couldn't even keep a firm hold on my faith just with scripture.

Justatruthseeker · Nov 28, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Are you seriously looking for evidence of a split?

If you had, I would think you would have heard of ring species by now.

A widely accepted definition is that of Mayr and Ashlock (1991:43): “ A subspecies is an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species.”

Can we say your mistaken ring species...

Justatruthseeker · Nov 28, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Is this what you are looking for? This is representative of the common ancestor of the zebra, the hipparion, the sinohippus, and the donkey.

Was it this exact fossil? Probably not. Maybe his brother was the ancestor of all. Maybe his distant cousin. Maybe a distant member of the same species. Maybe a member of the same genus. Maybe a member of a closely related genus, but quite likely it was this genus, hyracotherium.

But at any rate, some creature closely related to this four-toed, fox sized, nut and leaf eater became the ancestor of all those different species and genera, including the modern horse.

That what you are looking for?

Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe. What if’s and maybes. If pigs had wings they would fly. Maybe, they are awful fat.

I see nothing but conjecture and wishful thinking. From the same people that claim the fossil record is too sparse as their excuse for lack of common ancestors.

Now you show me one you claim maybe is, or maybe it’s cousin, or maybe this, or maybe that. Quite a lot of maybes to be stating definates.

How about I believe or have faith this is a horse ancestor?

And so what if it is? The most ancient dog has six toes of which are merely vestigial dew claws in wolves and all dogs.

If it is an ancestor of the horse, then it is the same species as horse today, they are merely subspecies of this horse.

But what else split off from it?

We are not debating that horse remained horse, regardless that it may not look the same, like poodle looks different than the wolf. We asked for common ancestors where this split in species, such as missing common ancestor A that led to both human and chimp. Or missing common ancestor that led to a split in forms.

Instead you show me for example a wolf, and claim look, it became dogs..... so you showed me a horse, that through breeding changed in variation, like the wolf through breeding became over 100 breeds. But IF it is an actual horse ancestor than you just showed me a horse, just like showing me a wolf, which I already know can vary widely in appearance, but I also know they are of the same species.......

Of course over the years we have been told lots of things led to horses.

Hyracotherium - Wikipedia

So they were wrong then, but correct now, right?

Justatruthseeker · Nov 28, 2017

rjs330 said:
Evidence that what you claim is true. How do you know that is the common ancestor? If it is, that doesn't prove common ancestry between men and spiders. Let's just for argument sake say your right. It's still a member of the horse family. Just like the wolf is a member of the dig family and the bobcat a member of the cat family. It does not show evidence of a common ancestor of men and fish or birds and worms.

But again the claim you make is assumed. You have no evidence that the creature actually is the common ancestor of horses and zebras. You have no evidence that it split at some point to become them. In fact you have no evidence from where it came from itself.

The distinction is beyond them. They show you what they believe led to the horse, then claim lookie see, fish became men.

We agree that IF it is a horse, then all horse are still the same species, as all dogs are the same species as wolves.

They can’t comprehend that showing me a wolf that led to dogs and claiming it proves something became man and ape, is the same as showing me a horse that led to horses and making the same ridiculous claim of common ancestors splitting to become more than one thing.

Next they’ll be showing you a whale ancestor and claiming look, it became a whale, so it proves something else became man and ape.

doubtingmerle · Nov 28, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
I see nothing but conjecture and wishful thinking.

Are your eyes open?

Now you show me one you claim maybe is, or maybe it’s cousin, or maybe this, or maybe that. Quite a lot of maybes to be stating definates.

What are you looking for? A fossil with a birth certificate that declares this fossil is indeed the descendent of that fossil? Sorry, there are no birth certificates down there. But we can be quite certain the Hyracotherium in that picture was a cousin of an ancestor of the horse and zebra. Was it a fourth cousin? A thousandth cousin? A millionth cousin? We don't know. But in all likelihood the ancestors looked very much like this Hyracoteherium.

How about I believe or have faith this is a horse ancestor?

How about you look at the evidence?

And so what if it is? The most ancient dog has six toes of which are merely vestigial dew claws in wolves and all dogs.

This is not merely a horse with more toes. It is not even classified in the same genus as the horse. It is not even classed in the same family of genera as the horse. It is more like a hyrax than a horse.

So if a hyrax-like creature evolves into a zebra, you yawn?

If it is an ancestor of the horse, then it is the same species as horse today, they are merely subspecies of this horse.

Uh, this is also ancestor of the zebra and donkey. Is the Zebra just a subspecies of the horse? Is the donkey a horse?

But what else split off from it?

Anchitherium, Callipus, Sinnohippus, etc.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Christian

Christian

Christian

Christian

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

I'll think about it.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency