proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Why would you believe they were identical? Half the chromosomes were removed from Adam and placed into Eve. Their combined genomes held every racial attribute.

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

The problem with a literal and inerrant interpretation of Genesis, is that most, if not all of us do not speak Hebrew as our native tongue, the language the Bible was given to mankind in. That the English and other languages have errors is IMO a certainty.
You can’t even translate a novel from Spanish to English or another language without taking liscence in interpretations and using words that may not have the exact same meaning as they do in the native tongue to someone that speaks only it and understands all the nuances.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

that even if we will see a cat evolving into a dog- evolutionists will claim that the fact its happened prove creationists are wrong.

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

 

[PsychoSarah]

that even if we will see a cat evolving into a dog- evolutionists will claim that the fact its happened prove creationists are wrong.

Nope, since the theory explicitly doesn't allow that type of event, it would disprove it. But hey, you can make empty claims about inane, hypothetical events all you like, because imaginary events are irrelevant to scientific theories.

If you will never be able to accept that a theory can be disproven without it actually being disproven, then leave. Science is not for you.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

So are you now claiming all life didn’t evolve from single celled organisms, to fish, to land animals and eventually to man?

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.

I’m glad you understand that impossibility and that each was created separately.

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

 

[BradB]

I did not call you a liar - I indicated that this:

"All you need do is point out that all all evolution has to support it are arguments based in similarities between the different forms."

is a lie.

If that is what you truly believe then you are profoundly ignorant.

Observe what Todd Wood, creationist, PhD, has written:

The truth about evolution
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)​

So what do you know that he doesn't?

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.

 

[BradB]

You seem to have managed it.

How so?

 

[BradB]

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

If you have faith in Christ who was God the Son manifest in the flesh, who died on the cross for your sins, and believe He rose bodily from the grave on the third day... then I absolutely regard you as a fellow Christian and a brother. But I'm still going to love my brother and tell him the truth when I have to.

 

[BradB]

^^ This is why I'm not a Christian ^^ I simply can't set aside my critical faculties to accommodate this...

On another note, Jesus also said you have to hate everyone in your family, and yourself too (Luke 14:26) - do you hate everyone and yourself, or do you have an 'interpretation' of that passage?

A text without a context is only a pretext. Jesus, in context, was talking about our love for God. By comparison to our love for God, our love for all others should look like hatred. This is not my interpretation, but rather the interpretation that His disciples give us in their other writings. Paul the apostle even said that a man who does not provide for his family especially of his own household is worse than an infidel. He also command that husbands should love their wives.

 

[BradB]

I am asking you. My opinion on what it means to be a christian is irrelevant. Can you answer the question or not?

If your definition of a Christian varies from what the teachings Christ say it is then it is very relevant. I need to know what you call a Christian before I can answer. Some people thing being born an American automatically makes them a Christian. It doesn't.

 

[BradB]

But Jesus spoke Hebrew, not English.

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

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

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

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

Yes we have to consider the fact that both Jews and Christians alike believe that because of Adam's sin in the garden, sin came upon all of humanity. 1 Corinthians 15:22. This view makes no sense if you believe the creation of Adam was merely the creation of the Jewish race or some other metaphorical meaning. How would his sins have effected other living humans? David expressed his understanding of Genesis 1 as literal when he describes God speaking the word and the stars were created. Psalm 33:6. Psalm 148:4-5. This demonstrates that he did not see the Genesis 1 account as merely a fable. Also we must not forget that the same person who wrote Genesis also wrote Exodus. In Exodus 20:8-11 it describes the sabbath in context with a literal 7 day week and clearly compares it to the creation week. This shows us that he did not intend for it to be taken as a fable but rather to be taken as 7 literal days. In the Old Testament genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1:1-7 Adam is listed as the very first man, and this theme is carried on into the New Testament genealogy of Luke 3 where all the men are assigned human fathers with the exception of the first man Adam who is called a direct descendant of God. Also I would direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 where the issue is settled "Biblically" and we are clearly told that Adam was in fact the first living being.

A variation on the theme of evolution is theistic evolution. It states that God initiated life on earth and allowed evolutionary principles to bring man to where he is--maybe with a little help from God here and there. At least this theory includes God. But this theory was developed in part by Bible believing people who thought that evolution had some merit. In addition, it is an attempt to answer the many problems existing not only in the fossil record but also with how life could somehow randomly form out of nothing. Because of problems like this, some believe they can be explained by simply adding God to the picture: God directed evolution. For those who hold to the Bible as the word of God, theistic evolution should not be a viable option. The Bible says, "Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us..." (Psalm 100:3). The Scriptures state that God created. God said, "Let there be..." and there was. The Scriptures speak of the creative word of God. When God speaks; it occurs. He said "Let there be" and it was so. It does not say, "Let there be a slow development through an evolutionary process."

God said in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." The Hebrew word for "make" in this verse and in verse 25 where God makes the beasts is "asah." It means to do, work, make, and produce. This is not simply the limited Hebrew understanding of evolutionary principles. The land animals were made differently than man. The animals were made from the ground but man was made directly by God: "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7). Evolution states that man evolved from life forms that developed in the ocean. Here, God made man from the dust of the ground--not the water of the ocean. If evolution is true and the Bible is true then how is the formation of Eve explained? She was created out of one of Adam's ribs (Gen. 2:22). There is no way to explain this if theistic evolution is true; that is, unless you want to say that Eve wasn't made from Adam's side. Then, if you do that, you are doubting the very word of God. Again, Jesus said in Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.'" The beginning was not evolutionary slime; in the beginning of creation there was Adam and Eve.

 

[Ophiolite]

How so?

I have no doubts that you are a Christian, but your interpretation of the Gospels and the Bible in general differs from interpretations by many other Christians. If you feel it is acceptable to question their interpretations, it would be hypocritical to refuse criticism of your own interpretation. I was illustrating this point by implying that you do not necessarily fully understand the Gospels of Christ and yet can still be a Christian.

 

[bhsmte]

If your definition of a Christian varies from what the teachings Christ say it is then it is very relevant. I need to know what you call a Christian before I can answer. Some people thing being born an American automatically makes them a Christian. It doesn't.

I am asking DO YOU consider christians who agree with evolution, as to whether you consider them real christians.

Why would need to know my opinion, to give your own personal opinion? If i asked you whether you liked a certain food, would you need my opinion before you could answer?

 

[PsychoSarah]

To date no one has yet presented me with the only two forms of evidence that would set evolution out ahead of creation.

Sounds like you are letting your personal opinions get the best of you. Any evidence puts evolution ahead of creationism because there isn't any evidence for creationism at all. However, I am performing an evolution experiment with Triops, feel free to participate... or not.

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.

You mean these?

People post them here all the time.

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 refer you to this E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

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.

Dude, a creator doesn't explain the degree of similarity, due to how unnecessary it is. Codons are so redundant that there are uncountable combinations that could produce a human; it would take extra effort to make things genetically similar to each other by design.

But, alas, no evidence for a creator to begin with. It's just pragmatic to not constantly account for things for which there is no evidence, such as giant purple people eaters.

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.

Watch it happen for yourself with my Triops evolution experiment. I even designed it to be cheap enough that people could reasonably do the experiment themselves if they wanted to.

 

[HitchSlap]

Two words: T. roseae

 

[BradB]

Deleted

 

[BradB]

Sounds like you are letting your personal opinions get the best of you. Any evidence puts evolution ahead of creationism because there isn't any evidence for creationism at all.

There is and I presented some of it in post #3570. Perhaps you missed it?

I will discuss the skulls in another post.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is and I presented some of it in post #3570. Perhaps you missed it?

I will discuss the skulls in another post.

Number 3570 of this thread? Because the post I am making right here is number 3536

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, it would, but why would an evolutionist think that such a ting is even possible? we generally do not accept strawmen.

A dog evolved from a cat, who'd imagine a strange thing like that!
Or cat giving rise to a dog, now there's a hard thing to flog.
Yet creationist chatter, means the fact do not matter,
So here we are, mired deep in bog!

 

[BradB]

Number 3570 of this thread? Because the post I am making right here is number 3536

Are sure? It's reading as 3736 on my screen?

 

[Ophiolite]

I also see 3736.

 

[pitabread]

The Bible claims the universe and life are the result of an external source and that this source is infinite in nature. If this were true we predict to observe evidence that the universe is finite in nature having a beginning point. This is because an infinite universe would obviously not require an external source. Isaac Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And in the First law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed or changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. The Law of universal causation states that every event or phenomenon results from, or is the sequel of, some previous event or phenomenon, which being present, the other is certain to take place. Combining these basic laws brings us to the logical conclusion that if anything, including the universe itself, had a beginning it would require an external source.

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.

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

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.