The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

[Loudmouth]

I find this idea that science must be immutable to be very strange.

The completely opposite claim made by the same creationists, that scientists cling to the dogma of evolution and won't consider creationism, makes it even stranger.

 

[AV1611VET]

Our knowledge of the natural world is shaped by data found in the natural world, and so our knowledge of the natural world is going to change the more we learn about it.

If the natural world is subject to vanity, will the data be subject to vanity as well?

And if subject to vanity, will that mean our knowledge is subject to vanity as well?

 

[ViaCrucis]

If the natural world is subject to vanity, will the data be subject to vanity as well?

And if subject to vanity, will that mean our knowledge is subject to vanity as well?

And if a tree in the forest poops on a bear, does it make a sound?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

And if a tree in the forest poops on a bear, does it make a sound?

There's nothing like using the Scriptures to bring out the true ...

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There's nothing like using the Scriptures to bring out the true ...

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Do you know the difference between the use of Scripture and the not using Scripture?

See what you did was not use Scripture, what you did was speak gibberish. Because Romans 8:20 has absolutely nothing to do with anything here, but apparently you think just vaguely using superficial language with Scripture has scored you some sort point here.

That creation has been subject to futility, under the labor of sin and death, is a fair enough point to make. But it has absolutely nothing to do with science or a scientific approach to understanding the natural world.

But if you would like to argue that because we, being part of creation, likewise suffering under sin and death and thus being completely fallible and fallacious creatures cannot, therefore, know anything about the world around us, then I will be more than happy to hear you explain how the computer you are typing on works using only biblical revelation, i.e. an explicit use of Scripture which--I imagine--would be how you seem to think is the only way we can know anything about anything. If that isn't the case and you can accept natural knowledge that permits us to understand, say, how computers work, then you freely concede that any point you may have been trying to make is rendered null. In which case, I will happily point you to my previous post which, quite nicely if I say so myself, addressed the basic substance of yours.

However, you and I both know that you are unable or at least unwilling to be consistent, because consistency can take a hike, am I right?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

Because Romans 8:20 has absolutely nothing to do with anything here,

It doesn't, huh?

"Vanity" is equivalent to "futility." Because of sin, the creation was made to operate under a law which specifies a universal process of decay and death. This law of morpholysis is recognized by science as a basic principle pervading the whole universe. It is also called the law of increasing entropy (meaning turning inward) or the Second law of Thermodaynamics. Every system in the physical and biological worlds has a tendency to turn inward and feed on itsef to maintain its structure and activity, but this simply causes it to run down, disintegrate and die, unless it somehow becomes opened to outside sources of energy, information, food, etc. Even if it does remain an open system, this internal tendency continues to act in opposition to the incoming energy. Since even the latter will eventually be exhausted, the whole creation is thus in bondage to this principle of futility or vanity. But since this law has been imposed by God, He aso can remove it, and there still is "hope."

Source: Defender's Study Bible, footnote to word "vanity" in Romans 8:20.

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

My questions remain:

If the natural world is subject to vanity, will the data be subject to vanity as well?

And if subject to vanity, will that mean our knowledge is subject to vanity as well?

 

[lifepsyop]

My one and only message in this thread, and only because threadstarter is so spot on, on the issue of evolution "theory".

Evolution is not a theory. it is an explanation. I will not accept to call evolution a theory, because that normally in science a theory has to have some predictive power, to point towards new experiments, to further technology or some other positive goal for science.

Evolution "theory" has no predictive power in my field of science (molecular biology). You cannot tell from the protein structure of glutathion-S-transferase in mouse, what will be the structure of glutathion-S-transferase in a dog. It might be similar, in most cases, but it might also be very different. And one other thing, you cannot tell which species have the enzyme and which have not.

Molecular biology should be a core science for evolution "theory", because we are the ones with the DNA you know !? So if evolution "theory" is not good science in molecular biology, why do people still call it science? It is an explanation, for the common man, it is not something that researchers are seriously building their predictions upon.

Having realized the abuse of the term "theory" and "science", I became angry with the masses of people who use those words like so easy and with so little intention of ever following it up scientifically. If anything, it lends the credibility of science to their selfsufficient lifestyles.

best regards ....

That's Evolution "theory" in a nutshell. Predicting nothing while accommodating everything. Meanwhile the faithful Darwinian mystics actually believe Evolution is constantly being successfully tested in every facet of the Life sciences. These are mantras they all repeat to each other like some sort of self-induced cult mind control.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's Evolution "theory" in a nutshell. Predicting nothing while accommodating everything. Meanwhile the faithful Darwinian mystics actually believe Evolution is constantly being successfully tested in every facet of the Life sciences. These are mantras they all repeat to each other like some sort of self-induced cult mind control.

We have already shown you what evolution would not accomodate. Numerous and obvious violations of the nested hierarchy in complex eukaryotes could not be accomodated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nah, I prefer to remain ignorant and one sided in my opinion and will therefore reiterate that evolution has never been observed either in a lab or in the field. All you will ever observe is speciation and not evolution, regardless how many times you say it is. as for natural selection and mutations? really? I have absolutely no issue with either except where evolutionary acolytes use them as "proof" of evolution.

But evolution has been observed occurring in many ways. It has been observed in the lab, in the field, in the fossil record, in our DNA, I could go on. If you want to keep yourself ignorant that is your prerogative. But you will only look silly when you try to argue against it.

 

[Strathos]

Expecting a complex evolved feature to reverse itself precisely would be like shuffling a deck of cards twice and expecting it to end up in the exact order it started.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And if subject to vanity, will that mean our knowledge is subject to vanity as well?

#129

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DogmaHunter]

I could try to explain it, but I'd rather let an authority. Try this link;

Respectfully,
Kev

I just died a little inside...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hmm, must be stuck in Law and traditions of men. Break free and run to the grace God provided in this dispensation. You can do it, just believe that Christ died for your sins according to scripture, was buried, and rose again the third day according to scripture. His grace is waiting for you!

"just believe", ey?

Could you "just believe" that muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse and split the moon in two?

I can't "just believe" anything. I need actual reasonable reasons to justify the beliefs that I hold.
I can only believe what convinces me. I don't "choose" my beliefs like I choose a steak over chicken wings.

Perhaps you should think about that.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

"just believe", ey?

Could you "just believe" that muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse and split the moon in two?

I can't "just believe" anything. I need actual reasonable reasons to justify the beliefs that I hold.
I can only believe what convinces me. I don't "choose" my beliefs like I choose a steak over chicken wings.

Perhaps you should think about that.

"Just believe" is all they have. When people challenge the "just believe" demand, they tend to get scared and aggressive and usually resort to threats like 'you'll go to hell', which clearly frightens them much more than it does anyone else as they don't seem to have twigged that it's on a par with 'Thor will strike you with a thunderbolt' in the knee trembling threats stakes. When their threats elicit nothing more than derision some of them even start to make extraordinary claims about the evilness of thinking itself. They claim that questioning one's beliefs is the devil himself interfering with their very thoughts and they must close their mind to such wickedness being carried out in their heads. At that stage one must concede it is hopeless as you are no longer dealing with what we would call a rational, sane human being.

 

[lifepsyop]

We have already shown you what evolution would not accomodate. Numerous and obvious violations of the nested hierarchy in complex eukaryotes could not be accomodated.

Uh huh. Like if a dog was more genetically similar to a spider than another mammal. That would falsify evolution wouldn't it? Who but evolutionists could ever have predicted that similar animals would be similar?

It's sad that you believe falsification criteria this weak is actually impressive. But then, it's all you have...

 

[lifepsyop]

Expecting a complex evolved feature to reverse itself precisely would be like shuffling a deck of cards twice and expecting it to end up in the exact order it started.

An evolutionist comparing natural selection to random card shuffling. Brilliant.

And it doesn't have to "reverse itself precisely" as you are only seeing sparse fossilized snapshots of the supposed "transition". If it makes you feel better you could imagine that there was some measure of variation before selection pressures produced the morphological traits in a reversed state. In case you didn't realize, Evolutionists are imagining transitional sequences anyways based on extremely ambiguous and fragmentary data.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Uh huh. Like if a dog was more genetically similar to a spider than another mammal. That would falsify evolution wouldn't it? Who but evolutionists could ever have predicted that similar animals would be similar?

It's sad that you believe falsification criteria this weak is actually impressive. But then, it's all you have...

Well, yes, all we have is reality on our side.

 

[lifepsyop]

Well, yes, all we have is reality on our side.

Yep, you *predicted* that "things change" and "that which survives, survives", and "similar things are similar".

We are very impressed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yep, you *predicted* that "things change" and "that which survives, survives", and "similar things are similar".

We are very impressed.

Now go the extra mile and think about the implication, the inevitable consequence of a system where:
- what survives, survives
- what reproduces, passes on its genes
- the new generation is slightly different from the previous one

And that in a loopmode of a few trillion iterations using a global population of many more trillions of individuals, in an extremely diverse environment.

Think. It. Through.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Yep, you *predicted* that "things change" and "that which survives, survives", and "similar things are similar".

We are very impressed.

Now all you have to do is take those simple ideas, see how, why and where they fit the theory, and then, given time, you may be able to start seeing the implications in the natural world around you. The real world may even start to come alive for you instead of just being a a source of awe-inspiring mystery.