proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Aman777]

-_- fyi, Aman777 would agree with you on this... well, the idea that the "sons of god" aren't human, that is.

Amen, but I think he's trying to tell us that the sons of God were Angels. The sons of God were created from WATER by God the Trinity. Gen 1:21 Humans (Heb-Adam) were made from the GROUND by God the Son. (Lord God/YHWH/Jesus). Gen 2:7

 

[Kenny'sID]

That untrained people such as yourself would pontificate on what natural scientists are doing incorrectly, is laughable.

Please, carry on. The lulz are strong.

Very strong. What if the shoe were on the other foot. I mean are you so smart you dare disagree with bible scholars, or even the word of God?

You have to know by now that one will always end in a touché. cancels itself out as an argument.

It actually seems like you are saying unless we are all scientists, we should just accept evolution...kinda like you accept the bible because you are no scholar? Right?

 

[Hieronymus]

False Scripturally since Angels are not made of flesh as the sons of God (prehistoric people) WERE. Gen 6:3 Jesus tells us that Angels don't marry. Mat 22:30 Also, the Angels who left their first estate (heaven) are held in chains under darkness until the Judgment. Jde 1:6

Chapter and verse on the giants from Gad? Amen?

Goliath and his brothers were from Gad (weren't hey?)

But, sorry, your anthropocentric view on the matter just doesn't cut it.
You have to go through strange loop holes to make it work, whereas i just read the text and see how it makes sense (mind you, i did have some help from exegetes and ancient language scholars, of course).

You assume angels have no physical presence or body, but this is not consistent with other texts.
And again. God's people were sent out by God to eradicate giant tribes quite a few times.
The Nephilim, weren't humans, at least not fully.

We're not gonna agree on this here, it's off topic too.
I have learned a lot from Michael Heiser about these things, maybe if you're interested you could look his work up.
He also has many excellent lectures on Youtube.
(He's a ancient languages buff, known for refuting Sitchin for example)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where do you think Asians came from? Did God create someone in Asia looking "Asian" or did people migrate to Asia from somewhere else? I'm utterly bewildered as to where you're going with this as someone arguing against common descent. Even as a creationist you have to agree that Asians, Europeans, Africans, Latinos, Indians, and every other variety of human you can imagine originated with some common ancestor. A population of Africans eventually became a population of Asians by moving to Asia. Somewhere between the first generation and now, the population resembled something you'd identify as "Afro-Asian." Again, even creationists have to accept this.

Sigh, have you not learned anything from watching life propagate? We will use dogs, since they clearly show you what you call evolution in a timeframe of a few hundred years instead of million if left to natural occurrences.

We will do this slowly, since repeatedly being shown the truth has failed to sink in.

Husky........mates........with........Husky........and.........produces........only........Husky. Mastiff........mates........with........Mastiff........and........produces........only........Mastif. Only........when........Husky........mates........with.......Mastiff........is........new.........forms........produced. The........Chinook.

Since over 100 breeds of dogs came about from wolf stock, those original wolf genes contained within them all the genetic code necessary for the creation of all the breeds we see today. Whether you want to admit to it or not, the Husky and Mastiff genome contains within them everything needed to create the Chinook. There was no mutation involved, no evolution.

Now, as to the Asian, you may like to pretend in fantasy land they came about from one evolving into more than one. But like the original wolf, the original human genome contained all the genetic code needed to create every race we see today. There was no mutation involved, no evolution. Learn the lesson dogs teach you and apply it.

Variations from one generation to the next will almost always be minimal, that's true. But over time, small variations build into large ones. Let's take the dog for example, since you mentioned different breeds. It's accepted by creationists and scientists alike that nearly if not all dog breeds today evolved from ancient wolves. No wolf ever gave birth to a chihuahua, but over hundreds of years of selective breeding, chihuahuas have in fact emerged. Selective breeding works precisely because like begets like, with only slight variation or mutation. Natural selection is exactly the same mechanism, only the selector is environmental pressures like climate, predators, and food availability rather than people purposely causing only certain individuals from each generation to reproduce.

Supposition and heresay. Have you seen with your own eyes these minimal mutations cause changes over millions of years? No.

Yes chihuahua's have emerged, from breeding, not mutations, not evolution. Again, what you see in dogs is what you believe evolution to be except in a small time frame due to man bringing them together instead of waiting for famine or geological changes to bring them together. And this is what you wont admit to yourself, even when you admit it is the same process except for timescale, they are all still the exact same species....... Learn the lesson dogs have taught you and apply it.

We have directly observed that kind of change over time. This can be considered "proof of concept" for evolution. Yes, there are limits to how much change we can directly observe simply because it takes more than a human lifetime for those changes to occur. Even so, because the concept of evolution is proven and the concept of a life-designer is not, universal common descent - even at face value as a hypothesis - is a better explanation than "common design."

Your task here is to provide an example of a life-designer you can demonstrate exists.

You have observed the emergence of new subspecies. That you incorrectly classify them as a new species is the error. Just as you refuse to accept those finches are the same species, even if they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of the researchers noses. Even if the DNA told them they had always been interbreeding and so were never reproductively isolated and so never underwent speciation. You deny the truth even to yourself. Are you so lost that you cant even face the truth set before your eyes?Do you need people that lie to you to tell you what to think? Learn the lesson dogs have taught you and apply it. Think for yourself.

They know the truth........

Defining a species

"For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."

But continue the lie for their own purposes which has nothing to do with science.

Nor does anyone on here that continues the lie when they know the truth, have anything to do with science.

 

[Aman777]

I have long since given up on refuting your "truth". I more seek to establish internal consistency within your bible interpretation, because a story that confuses itself is much, much harder to remember and tell other people about.

It's really simple since the OUTLINE of Genesis chapter 1 is the entire HISTORY of the Creation, including future events at the end of the present 6th Day. Gen 1:28-31 is prophecy of events at the end of the 6th Day AFTER Jesus returns. Humans (descendants of Adam) are given dominion or rule over ALL living creatures Gen 1:28 AND ALL living creatures are changed into Vegetarians. Gen 1:30 Then, God says, it is very good. Gen 1:31 Then He rests or ceases to create Humans Eternally. The 7th Day is Eternity since it has NO end.

ALL of the rest of the Bible, from Gen 2:4 to the end of Revelation "adds details" to the 7 Days/Ages in God's perfect Creation. God Bless you

 

[HitchSlap]

Very strong. What if the shoe were on the other foot. I mean are you so smart you dare disagree with bible scholars, or even the word of God?

You have to know by now that one will always end in a touché. cancels itself out as an argument.

It actually seems like you are saying unless we are all scientists, we should just accept evolution...kinda like you accept the bible because you are no scholar? Right?

Wrong, Kemosahbee.

It actually seems like I'm saying, you should have a rudimentary understanding of the basic principles of any discipline, before you criticize it. I'm actually saying that a hallmark of the scientific method is falsifiability. In this case, ToE has not even been close to showing it's false. In fact, at this point in time, ToE is considered to be a fact. I'm actually saying that it's not enough to say something is wrong, but in the real world, you have to demonstrate it's wrong.

Do kind of get what I'm actually saying?

 

[Aman777]

The Nephilim, weren't humans, at least not fully.

Amen. They did not change from prehistoric to Human until they married and produced children together. This is ALSO why today's Humans (descendants of Adam) have God's superior intelligence Gen 3:22 AND the DNA of prehistoric people inside our bodies. Gen 6:3 explains the the sons of God and Adam were BOTH made of flesh. Science agrees and so do the bones of prehistoric people who were on planet Earth for Millions of years before the Ark arrived.

Who else could Noah's grandsons marry since there were NO other Humans? Amen?

 

[Hieronymus]

Amen. They did not change from prehistoric to Human until they married and produced children together. This is ALSO why today's Humans (descendants of Adam) have God's superior intelligence Gen 3:22 AND the DNA of prehistoric people inside our bodies. Gen 6:3 explains the the sons of God and Adam were BOTH made of flesh. Science agrees and so do the bones of prehistoric people who were on planet Earth for Millions of years before the Ark arrived.

Who else could Noah's grandsons marry since there were NO other Humans? Amen?

O, so now you just mix some atheistic / naturalistic beliefs into the mix?
No, sorry, not amen.
But let's not bicker about this, i don't think it's that important.
I will agree it's strange there is little to no mention of female children though, but when you have 8 people 4 male and 4 female, the grandsons had to have married their nieces.

 

[Aman777]

And we’ve come full circle. If you’re not interested in substantiating your wild claims, just say so. Don’t jerk us around with bible verses and non sequiturs.

I have God's Word for it while you have nothing, nada, zip to offer. It's because today's Science has rejected God's Truth that Humans first occupied a world surrounded by water, which was later totally destroyed in water. ll Peter 3:6 How can you get the Bumpkins to realize that their incomplete view of the origin of Humans is nothing but a made up Lie which can NEVER tell us of our true beginnings?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do kind of get what I'm actually saying?

Eeeyup, just what I thought you were saying. Just trying to figure out who is the Pot and who is the kettle.

 

[Aman777]

O, so now you just mix some atheistic / naturalistic beliefs into the mix?
No, sorry, not amen.
But let's not bicker about this, i don't think it's that important.
I will agree it's strange there is little to no mention of female children though, but when you have 8 people 4 male and 4 female, the grandsons had to have married their nieces.

I post of the AGREEMENT of Scripture, science and history. IF Genesis is True (and it is) then it MUST agree, in every way, with every discovery of mankind. IF it does not, then one's interpretation is wrong. Scripture tells us that ONLY the people of the last days have the increased knowledge to understand. Dan 12:4

Adding females to God's Holy Word does NOT explain who Cain nor Noah's grandsons married. The bones of prehistoric people do. God Bless you

 

[Shemjaza]

What specifically did you like about it?

It creates a fascinating narrative of antideluvian Earth. There's magic and warfare; monsters and holy scribes; beautiful women and their cannibal abominations; all ruled over by indolent fallen angels handing over forbidden knowledge to humanity.

It's like if Genesis was written as a back story for Conan the Barbarian.

 

[HitchSlap]

Eeeyup, just what I thought you were saying. Just trying to figure out who is the Pot and who is the kettle.

Maybe you can articulate what you think your point is?

If you broke your arm, and an orthopedic surgeon recommended surgery, or you would lose the arm, what would you think if someone else, with zero knowledge of orthopedics, told you that the orthopedist didn't know what he was talking about, and to ignore him? Get it?

 

[Hieronymus]

Look, the grandsons couldn't have married women who were born from anyone other than the sons of Noah, BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL KILLED BY THE FLOOD.
You have a blessed day too.
(yes i end this here)

 

[gaara4158]

Since over 100 breeds of dogs came about from wolf stock, those original wolf genes contained within them all the genetic code necessary for the creation of all the breeds we see today.

What do you mean they had all the "genetic information?" Genetic information is just its DNA coding, which is unique to the individual. Wolves had the genetic instructions to spawn another wolf, an imperfect clone of themselves. They had very specific genes dictating their size, snout length, tail length, fur color, fur thickness, etc. These traits varied slightly by MUTATION each generation and over hundreds of generations resulted in the dramatic differences we see in modern dog breeds. The existence of cross-breeding is completely irrelevant to this.

Now, as to the Asian, you may like to pretend in fantasy land they came about from one evolving into more than one. But like dogs, the original human genome contained all the genetic code needed to create every race we see today. There was no mutation involved, no evolution. Learn the lesson dogs teach you and apply it.

Take what I just told you about the "genetic information" of wolves and apply it to humans. Mutation was what allowed this evolution to occur. If it weren't for mutation life would likely have gone extinct long ago. Educate yourself before you start spewing nonsense all over the internet.

Supposition and heresay. Have you seen with your own eyes these minimal mutations cause changes over millions of years? No.

I have proof of concept. What concept? This one that you just acknowledged:

You have observed the emergence of new subspecies.

What do you have? No creator, no designer, just denial after denial after denial.

That you incorrectly classify them as a new species is the error. Just as you refuse to accept those finches are the same species, even if they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of the researchers noses. Even if the DNA told them they had always been interbreeding and so were never reproductively isolated and so never underwent speciation. You deny the truth even to yourself. Are you so lost that you cant even face the truth set before your eyes?Do you need people that lie to you to tell you what to think?

I never said they were a new species. I was merely providing proof of concept; change over time by natural selection is a demonstrable fact. You, on the other hand, have offered no creator, no designer, nothing in support of intelligent design. Your reading comprehension needs work. Remember what I said to you about trying to answer your own questions?

Conclusion: Learn the lesson dogs have taught you and sit down.

 

[gaara4158]

I have God's Word for it while you have nothing, nada, zip to offer. It's because today's Science has rejected God's Truth that Humans first occupied a world surrounded by water, which was later totally destroyed in water. ll Peter 3:6 How can you get the Bumpkins to realize that their incomplete view of the origin of Humans is nothing but a made up Lie which can NEVER tell us of our true beginnings?

You have no god to offer so its alleged word is worth nothing. Sorry.

 

[The Times]

It creates a fascinating narrative of antideluvian Earth. There's magic and warfare; monsters and holy scribes; beautiful women and their cannibal abominations; all ruled over by indolent fallen angels handing over forbidden knowledge to humanity.

It's like if Genesis was written as a back story for Conan the Barbarian.

If you are looking for Conan the Barbarian, then look at the reality of this current civilisation you are living in and discern that it is one big LIE. This fictional story has been under your nose the whole time and your looking to a book for your inspiration of fictional characters. If you are looking for fictional characters, look to the fictional characters in the media, in politics, in Hollywood and in your own Australian Greens circles.

Neo, you have been sold a lie all your life and it is High time to make a choice, either you choose the truth of Jesus Christ or the LIE of the world.

Either way.....

After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I'm offering is the truth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think evangelical churches and Fox News provides the confusion factors.

Try school with its evolutionists teachings.....

Yes, all domesticated dogs are of one species.
What about foxes?
Jackals?
Are they their own Kind?

If so, why?

What was the plan to have so many so very similar 'kinds'?

All canidae are of the same species/Kind. You may if you wish divide them into subspecies if it helps you keep track of them.

There was no plan to have so many similar Kinds. There is only one Kind of canidae. The reason they contain such variability built into the genome is surviveability. What disease may decimate one subspecies may not affect them all. What genetic degradation leading to a dead end that affects one may not affect them all.

Who is 'they'?

Those that couldnt even bring themselves to call races subspecies....

Can cheetahs interbreed with ocelots?

PUMA/OCELOT HYBRIDS

Dont know, why dont you try it?

CHEETAH HYBRIDS

"The two species could only meet in a zoo or menagerie and I have found no reported attempts to breed cheetah/puma hybrids."

Yup. But they are descended from a single species. Sorry - Finch Kind.

No, they are the same Kind/species, not several.

Speaking of birds, is "kind" at the level of the Finch? Or are ALL birds of one Kind?

Can parrots breed with emus?

If not, why not?

You contradict yourself. You see finches interbreeding right in front of the reasearchers noses, yet refuse to accept that they are the same species. Then want not being able to interbreed to be an indication they are separate species. You must first make up your mind and be willing to accept one or the other. If interbreeding is not indicative of same species, then not interbreeding is not indicative of separate species.

Your bible classifies bats as birds. Can creationists admit that even THAT is in error?

No, my Bible classifies a bat as a flying creature. You chose to put the term bird in the Hebrew word for flying creature in its place.

Strong's Hebrew: 5775. עוֹף (oph) -- flying creatures

And each was made according to its Kind.

It is so cute, in an 'aw, look at that little feller' sort of way, that you seem to think that because subspecies exist that evolution is false and the creation tales of Hebrew tribesmen are therefore correct.

Whats cute is your repeated denial of what is right before your eyes.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of even Darwin's 'primitive' version of the ToE was that he proposed a mechanism for change. Genetics provided the raw material (the discovery of the hereditary material, mutations, etc.) for selection to work on.

Yet the only change in form in the species you have ever observed is when two mate and produce a new form...

All you are offering is an assertion in which you co-opt evidence of variation and declare, in effect, 'Kinds gave off sub-kinds'.

An observational fact. And all you assert is that one can split into two, even if never once observed in the real world.

How?

Where did the variation come from if they were 'created' AS a 'kind'?

From the genome, where that variation already existed. Variation is nothing but what already existed copied into a different format.

WHAT IS A KIND???

All canidea are of one kind. All felidae are of one Kind. Surely you can figure out the rest.

Are there any living examples of created Kinds, and how can you tell?

Are there any living examples of common ancestors or even any fossils of them? How can you tell?

Anything other than very, very misplaced and unwarranted declarations of victory?

Agreed, this is what evolutionists are fond of doing.

And why, if genetic analysis should come to an arbitrary HALT when going from one Kind to another, does this not actually happen?

Why should it, they were all created from the same dust. The same protons, neutrons and electrons.

Many years ago, a creationist declared that if I could show a 'smooth gradation of genetic identity between 2 species' that she would be forced to reconsider her rejection of evolution. I did just that. Did she re-think her position? of course not - she made excuses.

Sort of like you refuse to rethink your position about finches, declaring as above they are many species, even when presented with the DNA evidence they were never reproductively isolated?

Will you make excuses, too? Or will you provide evidence FOR your claims (as opposed to declarations of victory based on rejecting evidence for evolution)?

You cant admit to the truth of the mistake in classification with finches, even with the DNA evidence. As stated in my post above, if they cant or wont admit to what is before their eyes, when it is clear they are lying, how are you going to convince me anything else they say has any truth?

Copy-pasting your own previous posts that do not actually support your position is a rather sad way to engage in grown-up discussion.

Havent copied or pasted a single sentence. I am just forced to retype Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is a new race seen in the species. Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is a new form seen in the species.

Believe me I am tired of having to retype it every other post, but it still doesnt seem like you understand or accept the truth of direct empirical evidence. Dont blame me because you all cant understand from empirical observation that it takes two, not just one to morph into a new variation. And even when a mutation might change the number of hairs, shape of nose, etc, the creature still remains exactly what it was. This is what you wont admit to yourself.

 

[gaara4158]

All canidae are of the same species/Kind. You may if you wish divide them into subspecies if it helps you keep track of them.

Factually incorrect. Canidae is a family, not a species. There are in fact 34 diverse species that fall under the family Canidae. Look it up. You can't make up your own taxonomy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wrong, Kemosahbee.

It actually seems like I'm saying, you should have a rudimentary understanding of the basic principles of any discipline, before you criticize it. I'm actually saying that a hallmark of the scientific method is falsifiability. In this case, ToE has not even been close to showing it's false. In fact, at this point in time, ToE is considered to be a fact. I'm actually saying that it's not enough to say something is wrong, but in the real world, you have to demonstrate it's wrong.

Do kind of get what I'm actually saying?

Wont do no good to demonstrate even classification errors, which then would lead to the rest.

How can anyone falsify it, you wont accept anything but the lies because they tell you to believe them. Finches separate species, the lie by DNA testing and what is happening right in front of their noses.

Defining a species

"For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."

But then you makes excuses in your own mind to continue to believe the lie. It cant be falsified because you accept no evidence against what your high priests of evolution tell you to believe, even if in contradiction to what they understand is the truth.