proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Aman777]

No, ToE does not know the first man came from. That's why. unlike religious beliefs, scientific research continues.

That's WHY I call it Godless, since Science has REJECTED God's Truth that Adam, the first Human, was made long BEFORE any other living creature. Adam was made BEFORE the plants, herbs and trees IF you believe God's Truth in Gen 2:4-9. Since Adam was FIRST made, the ToE is a satanic lie since it falsely assumes that we Magically evolved from Apes. Please don't tell me it's not Magic unless you can explain the process...while remembering Occam's Razor.

 

[Aman777]

Sorry but I can't get past this statement. Where do you get this "day/age" notion from? Specially since the Bible makes it crystal undeniably clear that the creation week was 6 literal 24 hour days not day ages.

False, since God is STILL creating Adam/mankind in His Image or In Christ Spiritually today. We live today at Genesis 1:27 and we will NOT experience the prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 until AFTER Jesus returns to this Earth.

The Hebrew word translated day here is yom occurs over 2000 times in the Old Testament. It is almost always associated with an actual 24 hour day and in every single case where it is modified with a number it does in fact mean a literal 24 hour period. It is found this way 359 times. So why would Genesis 1 be any exception?

The Hebrew word Yowm means ANY period of time including Eternity since the 7th Day IS Eternity. It has NO morning (beginning) and NO evening (end). I have bolded the usage of yowm in the Bible which includes ever, year, always etc.

The KJV translates Strong's H3117 in the following manner: day (2,008x), time (64x), chronicles (with H1697) (37x), daily (44x),
ever (18x), year (14x), continually (10x), when (10x), as (10x), while (8x), full 8 always (4x), whole (4x), alway (4x), miscellaneous (44x).

Can yom mean a long period of time? Absolutely it can. So context is everything. In Genesis 1 Moses had several other words he could have used to mean long periods of time if that was what he was trying to convey. However he used the one and only Hebrew word that can mean a literal 24 hour day. He also carefully couched this word in the phrase "evening and morning" which he knew we would associate with a literal 24 hour day. And in case we were still a little fuzzy on what he meant, when he wrote down the ten commandments in Ex.20:8-11 he told them that in six days God worked and rested on the seventh and so they were to do likewise. Obviously he didn't mean the Jews were only to rest every 7 day/ages.

Exodus 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. ... “Remember
the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. ...

The only thing holy about flesh is the Holy Spirit living inside us. That is WHY we receive our perfect bodies at the Rapture.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Tell us HOW men of flesh can keep anything holy. The Sabbath, when God rests from ALL of His creating, is in the FUTURE, when mankind CAN keep it holy.

 

[tas8831]

Not sure why I waste the time...

After the kind is proved thousands of times every day. That refutes evolution.

Nope.

DNA does not link species, it separated them into their exact species.

What does that even mean?

Our DNA will show we are not related biologically but that we are the same species.

Oh... OK....

What is a silent mutation? How does it provide the means for a change of species? The only tenable truth is that evolution is genetically impossible.

That you do not know what a silent mutation is means that you have no business commenting on anything relating to genetics.

That simply isn't true.

Yes, it is.

How else do alleles arise, junior?

Take your won advice.

9 years of college and ~20 years teaching it are, I think, enough.

Talk is cheap. Provide your evidence. Just make sure it is scientific and can be verified.

You are incapable of verifying - or even understanding - evidence presented.

I suggest you take a few months to review basic biology, then come back.

 

[BradB]

Right, the point being that intention (design) cannot be directly detected. What is detected is evidence of intentional manufacture. For example, if I go camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer--but you would not be able to find it after I moved on. Even if I shaped it a little for the purpose by banging it against another rock you would be hard-pressed to find it after I moved on. Ask any paleontologist who tries to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for is not evidence of purpose, but evidence of manufacture--production by non-natural forces. Consequently, when presented with an object or phenomenon we can reach only two conclusions: we know it was designed, or we don't know whether it was designed or not.

You are only touching on one aspect of specificity. Truly something which an observer could tell was manufactured by non natural forces would be specificity however there are other aspects to this. For example when marine biologists observe those dolphins make certain sound patterns which correlate with certain behaviors they can be certain they are observing an intelligent language...even though they do not understand it. Your rock hammer example would be observed specificity if an observer could witness your use of the rock in action and understand what you were intending to do with it. So besides the manufacture of something it is the actual use or function that is specified. We would never see a rock lifted by natural wind forces and pounded back down by gravity perfectly on the head of eight to ten tent stakes around a tent in such a way as to drive them into the ground and hold the tent down but cause no harm to the tent. So just because we (the later observer) couldn't pick the rock out of a line up to save our life later, doesn't mean that the one was not used at one point for a very specific purpose. Sometimes we observe "manufacture" where we don't expect it and this is what gets atheists really flustered. For example the arrangement of the code in DNA creates an incredibly intricate and code that is highly specified. It warps our most sophisticated software programs by comparison. It is called by some scientists the language of life. Though today we are merely seeing copies of copies of copies hundreds of times over, there is simply no way to logically account for the originals apart from an intelligent source.

 

[BradB]

You had made a similar remark about the 'specificity' of a key being designed to fit a lock. I pointed out that there are many key-like objects not built to actually fit locks: props, jewelry, etc.

I also remember asking if an object can lose its specificity. For example, if a key is built to fit a specific lock, does the key lose its specificity if the lock is destroyed? Is the specificity of a key dependent on the lock?

Thank you for repeating this for me. First to approach your question let me ask a question. If a murderer's finger prints accidently get wiped off of the gun by a rookie cop does that mean he didn't commit the murder? The obvious answer is of course not. The finger prints were merely a clue that investigators could have used to detect the murderer. Likewise just because a lock gets destroyed doesn't mean there is no intelligent source, it only means that that particular clue "of specificity" is gone. It just means that we would have to search for specificity elsewhere.

As for prop keys and jewelry made to look like keys...we (as an observer) immediately recognize they were specifically designed to look like what we know independently to be a real key. A fake key is specified just in its artistic merit. The key to specificity (pardon my pun) is that an observer has to be able to make the connection between the two independent phenomena. Just because no observer makes that connection doesn't mean specificity isn't there, it only means it hasn't been detected in order to be a clue that infers intelligence. The finger prints missing from the gun doesn't mean the murderer is innocent, it merely means there is no observable evidence that can be detected on the gun. Specificity is our clue that connects creation to its guilty Creator.

 

[Speedwell]

You are only touching on one aspect of specificity. Truly something which an observer could tell was manufactured by non natural forces would be specificity however there are other aspects to this. For example when marine biologists observe those dolphins make certain sound patterns which correlate with certain behaviors they can be certain they are observing an intelligent language...even though they do not understand it. Your rock hammer example would be observed specificity if an observer could witness your use of the rock in action and understand what you were intending to do with it. So besides the manufacture of something it is the actual use or function that is specified. We would never see a rock lifted by natural wind forces and pounded back down by gravity perfectly on the head of eight to ten tent stakes around a tent in such a way as to drive them into the ground and hold the tent down but cause no harm to the tent. So just because we (the later observer) couldn't pick the rock out of a line up to save our life later, doesn't mean that the one was not used at one point for a very specific purpose.

Exactly so. If we observed a rock behaving in that way we could reasonably assume that there was intention. The problem with ID is that, in effect, they want to assume intention just by observing the rock lying there. Again, the point is this: design can be inferred under certain circumstances. Under other circumstances it cannot. Denying the validity of ID is not the same as denying the presence of design, it is only a denial that design can be inferred without the usual indications. Sometimes we can detect design, sometimes we can't; that's all. Design is purpose. It is not complexity or functionality or superficial resemblance to objects known to be designed. If we can determine that an object is produced by intention, we can infer design. Sometimes we cannot reasonably so infer--but even then design cannot be ruled out.

Sometimes we observe "manufacture" where we don't expect it and this is what gets atheists really flustered. For example the arrangement of the code in DNA creates an incredibly intricate and code that is highly specified. It warps our most sophisticated software programs by comparison. It is called by some scientists the language of life. Though today we are merely seeing copies of copies of copies hundreds of times over, there is simply no way to logically account for the originals apart from an intelligent source.

And that gets us back to the issue: scientists believe they have identified a competent natural mechanism for producing that code.

 

[rjs330]

Design is purpose. Complexity is not design; functionality is not design. Design is purpose. I am a believer; I believe that the universe embodies God's purpose. In that sense, everything that exists is "designed." But design cannot be directly detected in an object. It is an unfalsifiable proposition and cannot be tested for.
The problem with ID is that it is an attempt to demonstrate the presence of design directly, by falsely conflating design with functionality so that the existence of God may be forced onto non-believers in aid of a political agenda.

Once again in what reality do we ever see a complex thing and say it was not designed? No complex thing is ever not designed. Every complex thing has a design and the design is built for a purpose for the thing to exist and function. Yet we can look at the most complex thing in existence as we know it and suddenly see no design? It is a purposeful failure to see reality. Like I said, Paul told us it would happen.

 

[Speedwell]

Once again in what reality do we ever see a complex thing and say it was not designed? No complex thing is ever not designed. Every complex thing has a design and the design is built for a purpose for the thing to exist and function. Yet we can look at the most complex thing in existence as we know it and suddenly see no design? It is a purposeful failure to see reality. Like I said, Paul told us it would happen.

In this one. We look at a complex thing and say, "are there any signs of intentional manufacture?" If, not, we can't tell if the object was designed. Notice, there can be no claim that it was not designed, only that we can't tell.

 

[BradB]

What God? Also, you do know we experience the actual effects of relativity (i.e. different things at different locales, velocities and distances) Otherwise GPS for one thing, wouldn't work. I think you conflate "man made" with the label we give something we observe. Do you understand that time, space and matter as we understand it came into being at the beginning of this universe? Do you also understand we have observations all over that time does indeed tick over at different rates relative to the observer? Do you understand why a black holes are not visible to us?

You say we experience the effects of relativity and then say I am conflating man made label with something observed. So let me ask you how does one observe time? Can we cut a slice off and put it under a microscope? No we use "man made" devices that measure what we have all agreed to call the passage of a second or micro second, and then we use those man made devices to measure the passage of man made seconds at various velocities and found that what we have agreed to call a second passes slower at higher velocities than it does at slower velocities. Time is relative to the observer and what his baseline is and is even hotly debated as to what it is between physicists.

So what would time be to an infinite mind? From His baseline no time exists. He would be time...less. What this means is He could experience time in a way we can barely imagine. We are temporal beings and only experience it in chronological order. We are born, go through childhood, high school, college, get married, have kids, grand kids and then retire and die. But what if someone took a snapshot of every minute of your entire life and arranged the pictures all on one giant board, and you had the ability to see and experience every minute of your entire life all at once. That is how the timeless God would experience what we call time -past, present, and future, infinitely in both directions. However in order to relate to us He also interjects Himself into time in a temporal way.

We cannot say we "know" that what we have "labeled" as time began at the beginning of the universe. We can only logically say there would have been no ability for us to measure the passage of time prior to the existence of matter.

 

[rjs330]

Exactly so. If we observed a rock behaving in that way we could reasonably assume that there was intention. The problem with ID is that, in effect, they want to assume intention just by observing the rock lying there. Again, the point is this: design can be inferred under certain circumstances. Under other circumstances it cannot. Denying the validity of ID is not the same as denying the presence of design, it is only a denial that design can be inferred without the usual indications. Sometimes we can detect design, sometimes we can't; that's all. Design is purpose. It is not complexity or functionality or superficial resemblance to objects known to be designed. If we can determine that an object is produced by intention, we can infer design. Sometimes we cannot reasonably so infer--but even then design cannot be ruled out.


And that gets us back to the issue: scientists believe they have identified a competent natural mechanism for producing that code.

And those same scientists do not adhere to reality. ID is the only reality based understanding of the complex system of life. You may look at a single stone and not see a purpose for that stone. And maybe for the single stone there is none. But we are not talking about a single stone. We are talking about a planet and life. The purpose of stone. It's the foundation of land and mountains which effect the winds and water flowing through the land. There is much more to a stone. There is a purpose to water, to stone, to all things. I may not readily be able to identify a specific purpose now, but that only shows my inability or lack of understanding. Like I said, ID, points to the design of all things and the complexity of life. It's only thing that fits reality. In all other cases we recognize the purpose and design of things, but for some reason some refuse to acknowledge the most complex system of all as designed.

 

[rjs330]

Uh, no, that is not all that is really said in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

The one page you quoted from shows that all life has the same basic structures for basic functions, indicating a common source. You might argue that common source is a common creator, but then why do creatures not share other things in common? For instance, Cytochrome C is a common protein in animals, but there are many different codes for making this protein. The closer animals are together in the evolutionary tree, the closer their codes are for making this protein. If a common creator used the exact same basic structures for all life, why would he not use the exact same structures for making Cytochrome C?

This difference is expected with evolution. Basic structures cannot change without radically reworking the organism, so they remained constant with time. Protein coding could change with evolution, so it did. Evolution would expect basic codes to remain the same, but coding for things like proteins to change with time. This is what we find.

Creationism would predict the creator uses the same basic structures, and the same coding for proteins that is known to work. This is not what we find.

If all creatures were being created from scratch, then a creator could have easily used different basic structure for each creature, just like he used different coding for proteins. But no creator did that. Instead the basic structures remain constant, while the protein coding varies.

Do you have any way of explaining this from Creationism?

You fully acknowledged the truth here. The creator did use the same basic structures. All life has the same basic structures. Yet all life also has codings that could change upon necessity. It designed that way in order to function as needed. It is not evidence that all life came from a common ancestor. It is evidence that there was a design involved in order for life to exist and continue to exist including the ability for life to change, such as a bird's wing changing to accommodate the need for longer flights. We would not say a computer that learns and changes with its needs is not designed to do so. But we will accept the most complex system does? That is not based upon any reality that we have ever seen.

 

[rjs330]

How many millions of years will you give me to do the demo? Cat evolution took a long time.

How do you know? I thought the cambrian explosion was fast evolution. Couldn't the cat have been the same. And by the way, please show the evolution of a cat all the way back to it's ancestor please.

 

[rjs330]

I have quit reading evo links. The never provide any evidence for what the say. Without reading your link, I will say it offers no scientific evidence for what they say. Cut and paste the evidence they offered and prove me wrong.

I read three of the so called evidences, and they provided none actually. I quit reading. All they provided was a bunch of speculation. I too have quit reading many links for the same reason. All they do is assume evolution happened and then go on to speculate without any real evidence.

 

[Dirk1540]

Probably because you don't get what is behind the act of plagiarism.

Remember Monica Crowley? Fox News darling, Trump lover. Was pegged to be an advisor of some kind for Trump, citing her 'expertise' due to her having received a PhD. Then someone scanned her dissertation and found that she had plagiarized a bunch. tsk tsk tsk. No longer a Trump advisor.


I sit on a college honor committee. Students suspected of cheating or plagiarism come to this committee. If we find them guilty, they go before a student honor committee.
Students plagiarize for 3 main reasons in my experience - they procrastinated to the point that, out of desperation, they copy-paste from the internet or a friend; they start out trying to do the work themselves, they soon discover they are in over their head and copy-paste; they want to try to impress their instructor, but realize that their own writing is falling short of their desires, so they copy-paste.
And if we find the accused guilty, the student honor committee generally fries them - even students realize how sleazy plagiarism is.
That is why it annoys me so much in discussions like this - it is lazy and dishonest and is often used to try to 'impress' those that that the plagiarist suspects will not know any better.



What discussion?

It was presented as a major 'gotcha' - Uber simply assumes that whatever his heroes wrote is 100% true and accurate - did you not see his lead-in posts? Taunting and condescending?

"You could find all major phyla arriving in a period of only 40-50 million years (known as the Cambrian Explosion) utterly destroying the Neo Darwinian gradualism inference.

Did you mean to call attention to the recalcitrant fact of those data, or their knock down capability? Opps. [sic] "​

and

"So you are unfamiliar with the findings since the late 1980s and respond with "50 million years seems like a long tme [sic] to me."

30-seconds of research is all I ask. Not even one college class. It's so simple.

Think we are way past opps [sic] here. "
​

And that one was, in fact, to this comment - from me:

"How so?

Do you not think 50 million years is along time?


Are you ignoring the Precambiran on purpose?

Oops..."​

And then out came the plagiarism.




Why waste time with a plagiarizer?

Especially one that should 1. know better and 2. tries to justify it?


Where was his move to explain why the plagiarized material was so important? Why did he ignore the actual citations I provided showing that HIS source was behind the times?

Why the double standards?

I think we agree on the deceit involved as a student, but disagree towards the seriousness of posting. I actually talked about this with another member that there are Christians in here who don't view it as trying to win an argument as much as thinking about the non-participants reading along. They might feel like if they can't say it any better that it's best to post the most articulate way of saying something possibly. Keep in mind that conversion is the ideal scenario for a lot of Christians. But I do agree with you that you should however 100% understand the material that you are posting from your 'Hero.'

I found myself in a funny position once where the person I was talking to had this intense hatred for WLC. I understood why, but it actually had nothing to do with WLC material that I thought the person would find very interesting. I made a long post where I spent a bit of time bringing WLC points together from my notes because I personally found that Craig had my favorite arguments for the topic we were on (a little bit from me was sprinkled into it). I also spent a bit of time reorganizing the material to what I thought would flow a lot better. The funny thing is that I felt weird not commenting that it was WLC because it was so brutally plagiarized, however I felt like the WLC hatred bias was so strong with the person that it would actually hurt to mention him lol. I didn't mention him to avoid it being shrugged off without giving it a fair read.

I actually find myself intrigued by your position on the college honor committee. That sounds difficult if you have a determined plagiarizer. For instance there are times where I try very hard to track down material in search engines and just have no luck. Hmm, can't a motivated plagiarizer just select material that they know does not show up online?

Better you than me lol that sounds tough if the plagiarizer is determined to seek out obscure sources. I think about DVD courses that I have from The Great Courses. Hmm I haven't looked into it but I'm thinking that only members have access to the transcripts of the courses. If that's true that could be a candy store of plagiarism for them!

 

[rjs330]

LOL

Similarities do not validate evolution. You have to show that the evolution actually took place. And you can't.

 

[BradB]

False, since God is STILL creating Adam/mankind in His Image or In Christ Spiritually today.

So you don't believe the Bible then? Okay then let me tell you about the God of the Bible which is easily demonstrated to be divinely inspired rather than human in origin. He tells us He created us to have relationship with Him and finished with all of His creation and rested from all work on the 7th day. Adam sinned by yielding to the deception of the serpent who was the devil, and sin and death entered into the world. But God predicted that a Savior would come, born of the seed of the woman, who would crush the head of the serpent but receive wounds in the process. Later other prophecies came telling us of this Savior saying He would be born of the Jewish lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He would be born of a virgin mother, and born in the town of Bethlehem. He was given called by the Jewish term "Messiah" which is translated in Greek as "Christ." This means that the first true "Christ-ians" were Adam and Eve because they demonstrated their faith in the predicted Christ to come. Christianity is not the newest kid on the block it is actually the oldest of all faiths.

The prophets said that the Christ would begin His ministry on the shores of Galilee. They predicted that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. They prophesied He would be treated like a common criminal. That His hands would be pierced through, that He would be wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities and by His stripes we would be healed. These are all prophecies concerning the crucifixion that the Christ would endure to atone for our sin. All who would trust in the work done on the cross, rather looking forward to it as in Abraham's day, or looking back to it as in ours, would be accounted as righteous in God's sight. As sinners saved only by God's grace we are now being conformed daily to His image, but we are NOT being "created." Not in the sense of the creation of Adam and Eve. We are being conformed...big diff. Us who are in Christ will one day be resurrected and our bodies transformed to be like Him, but still not "created."

 

[Speedwell]

And those same scientists do not adhere to reality. ID is the only reality based understanding of the complex system of life. You may look at a single stone and not see a purpose for that stone. And maybe for the single stone there is none. But we are not talking about a single stone. We are talking about a planet and life. The purpose of stone. It's the foundation of land and mountains which effect the winds and water flowing through the land. There is much more to a stone. There is a purpose to water, to stone, to all things. I may not readily be able to identify a specific purpose now, but that only shows my inability or lack of understanding. Like I said, ID, points to the design of all things and the complexity of life. It's only thing that fits reality. In all other cases we recognize the purpose and design of things, but for some reason some refuse to acknowledge the most complex system of all as designed.

No, only that design can be proven in the absence of evidence of intentional manufacture. You and I are believers. In common with all other believers--including scientists who are believers--we understand that everything in the universe is designed, that is, everything is infused with divine Telos. We believe this is true of everything, even those objects and phenomena which have "natural" causes. But, like the existence of God, that is an unfalsifiable proposition, which science cannot deny.

What is being denied is the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute (whose creature ID is) which says, in effect, "We can prove this unfalsifiable proposition and therefore you must believe in our God and tolerate the political agenda that goes with it."

 

[Aman777]

So you don't believe the Bible then? Okay then let me tell you about the God of the Bible which is easily demonstrated to be divinely inspired rather than human in origin. He tells us He created us to have relationship with Him and finished with all of His creation and rested from all work on the 7th day.

Not according to Jesus. Jesus was threatened with death for doing work on the Sabbath because He healed a man:

Jhn 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

Hitherto in Greek means "up to the present time". He was saying that God had NOT yet rested from ALL of his creating like He will do on the Sabbath.

Adam sinned by yielding to the deception of the serpent who was the devil, and sin and death entered into the world. But God predicted that a Savior would come, born of the seed of the woman, who would crush the head of the serpent but receive wounds in the process.

Who made Adam of the dust of the ground? It was YHWH in the Old and Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The KJV translators called Him Lord God. Gen 2:7 YHWH gave up His image as God and came to Earth as Jesus.

Later other prophecies came telling us of this Savior saying He would be born of the Jewish lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He would be born of a virgin mother, and born in the town of Bethlehem. He was given called by the Jewish term "Messiah" which is translated in Greek as "Christ." This means that the first true "Christ-ians" were Adam and Eve because they demonstrated their faith in the predicted Christ to come. Christianity is not the newest kid on the block it is actually the oldest of all faiths.

It is the oldest since Eve is the mother of ALL living. Those who have NOT been born Spiritually by God the Trinity are dead to Him and will never be among the living.

The prophets said that the Christ would begin His ministry on the shores of Galilee. They predicted that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. They prophesied He would be treated like a common criminal. That His hands would be pierced through, that He would be wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities and by His stripes we would be healed. These are all prophecies concerning the crucifixion that the Christ would endure to atone for our sin. All who would trust in the work done on the cross, rather looking forward to it as in Abraham's day, or looking back to it as in ours, would be accounted as righteous in God's sight. As sinners saved only by God's grace we are now being conformed daily to His image, but we are NOT being "created." Not in the sense of the creation of Adam and Eve. We are being conformed...big diff. Us who are in Christ will one day be resurrected and our bodies transformed to be like Him, but still not "created."

False, since it takes the AGREEMENT of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to create a New Creature in Christ. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 AND John 14:16 God will NOT rest at the end of the present 6th Day until the last sinner to be saved is saved and safely in Heaven. Gen 2:1

 

[xianghua]

Here are two examples of evolution repurposing something existing for a new function:

Reuse, recycle, repurpose …. how evolution makes do.

How evolution repurposed a bone gene for brain development | November 10, 2016 Issue - Vol. 94 Issue 45 | Chemical & Engineering News

not realy. the hand in both a watch and a compass is used for a different function. but it doesnt mean that we have a stepwise way from a compass into a watch:

into:

in the watch its tell the time and in the compass its tell the north direction. but you cant change the compass into the watch by small steps.

(images from Compass – Android Apps on Google Play and One Hand Watch - The Original from Germany | Botta-Design)

 

[xianghua]

How many millions of years will you give me to do the demo? Cat evolution took a long time.

so if you will have a billion years the cat must be change into something that isnt a cat? are you sure about that?