Theistic Evolution - My Personal Problem with it

[KWCrazy]

If you want example of a beneficial mutation: Bacteria that eats nylon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

Yep, bacteria, which are designed to clean up the waste of the world, includes something else in its diet and that's proof positive of evolution. Desperate, aren't we? So if a person goes vegetarian we are to assume he's morphing into a cow?

 

[KWCrazy]

That point is solidly backed by biblical scholarship.

BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Until a 4th grader reads the text and realizes that Genesis 2 is not a creation story.
Why continue this lie?

 

[KWCrazy]

I haven't seen one critic here yet of evolution that is not lost in a fog of misinformation about evolution, not one.

No, that is not correct. Refusing to buy into your misinformation is not the same as not understanding your fantastic accounts of molecules to man and your repeated claims that the laws of science are immutable unless they disprove a point you're trying to make; such as origination.

I also think you should reflect on your education and whether or not it is adequate.

And there it is; the condescending arrogance required to be an evolution pushing indoctrinated sponge; incapable of original thought; bound to endlessly repeat the same lies he was taught in high school.
Let me offer you this scenario, if you can grasp it.
Suppose God exists. Suppose there is a Heaven and Hell, and all that which was written in the Bible is true. Suppose you are successful in your intent; that you come to a Christian website and undermine the faith of Christians and those seeking the answers in Christ. Suppose they believe you and reject the Bible, since if any of it is a lie it's all a lie; god could not become man, die and rise again. Suppose you're standing before that Great White throne and God has a list of souls lost because YOU convinced them to reject their faith. And that day, which scientific principle will you rely upon to keep from being cast into the lake of fire with false teachers and false prophets?

I'll make it easier for you. A young retarded boy and a science professor are killed in an accident. The retarded boy has spent his life worshipping the Lord. The professor spent his life telling people God was a myth for the weak minded. The retarded boy is welcomed into Heaven and the professor is cast into Hell. Which, then, was the fool?

If they want me to take their criticisms seriously, then they better have some big, big credentials and big, big evidence.

We have the word of God and the evidence of Scriptures. I think that trumps your degree.

However, that is a stem warning how much more trouble you could get into listening to unqualified amateurs.

Do you think that a person who studies alchemy their entire life is qualified to teach macramé? Learning is a good thing and education is important, but the repeated indoctrination into something which is not correct does not make you more wise. The fact is, you promote discredited theories. Miller Urey demonstrated that abiogenesis is impossible. Cosmology demonstrates that the universe has a deign; something not possible without a Creator. Biology proves that if you force change in a species at some point it becomes sterile. Eradiating fruit flies proved that forced mutations can't evolve a species. Gemology finds C-14 in diamonds, disproving an old earth. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones disproves long ages. The fact that the sun and all stars are burning their fuel source demonstrates the finite nature of the universe and tells us that for the universe to be billions of years old it would have to be contracting as stars burn hydrogen; except the universe is expanding. The Origin of Species never demonstrated the origin of any species. All theories of origination share the same commonality; they are all contrary to the very laws of science they seek to validate.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yep, bacteria, which are designed to clean up the waste of the world, includes something else in its diet and that's proof positive of evolution.

It's proof positive of a beneficial mutation, which was the topic at the moment.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Yep, bacteria, which are designed to clean up the waste of the world, includes something else in its diet and that's proof positive of evolution.

It's evidence of a beneficial mutation. In fact there was an experiment that demonstrated that genetic mutations are random. The researchers who ran this experiment were awarded a Nobel prize.

Desperate, aren't we?

No. I know what scientific evidence is. You don't.

So if a person goes vegetarian we are to assume he's morphing into a cow?

Yikes. Do you have any understanding of evolution at all?

 

[lasthero]

Yep, bacteria, which are designed to clean up the waste of the world, includes something else in its diet and that's proof positive of evolution. Desperate, aren't we? So if a person goes vegetarian we are to assume he's morphing into a cow?

The difference, of course, being that humans can ingest vegatables and process them.

What we're talking about here is an organism that wasn't able to process the substance. It's more akin to human beings being able to eat and digest pennies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that is not correct. Refusing to buy into your misinformation is not the same as not understanding your fantastic accounts of molecules to man and your repeated claims that the laws of science are immutable unless they disprove a point you're trying to make; such as origination.

Yet you continually make claims that show that you are very ignorant of science.

And there it is; the condescending arrogance required to be an evolution pushing indoctrinated sponge; incapable of original thought; bound to endlessly repeat the same lies he was taught in high school.

Right here is a good example. No one has been taught any lies except for creationists. We can demonstrate that our claims are correct. You can't. That is why creationists lose lawsuit after lawsuit no matter how much they dress up their nonsense.

Let me offer you this scenario, if you can grasp it.
Suppose God exists. Suppose there is a Heaven and Hell, and all that which was written in the Bible is true. Suppose you are successful in your intent; that you come to a Christian website and undermine the faith of Christians and those seeking the answers in Christ. Suppose they believe you and reject the Bible, since if any of it is a lie it's all a lie; god could not become man, die and rise again. Suppose you're standing before that Great White throne and God has a list of souls lost because YOU convinced them to reject their faith. And that day, which scientific principle will you rely upon to keep from being cast into the lake of fire with false teachers and false prophets?

A weak and lame threat is all that you have. No one is afraid of this.

<snip of more of the game garbage >

We have the word of God and the evidence of Scriptures. I think that trumps your degree.

The "word of God"? Where? We know that is not the Bible because it does not even make that claim for itself. His degree tells us that he did the work necessary for a basic understanding. You are relying on oral tales that were eventually written down. That does not make them sacred. You still need to defend your scientific claims using the Bible.

Do you think that a person who studies alchemy their entire life is qualified to teach macramé? Learning is a good thing and education is important, but the repeated indoctrination into something which is not correct does not make you more wise. The fact is, you promote discredited theories. Miller Urey demonstrated that abiogenesis is impossible.

And we have our first big error that shows that you are totally ignorant. No, it showed the opposite. It was an incredibly successful experiment. The point of the experiment was not to create life, it was merely to show that the basic building blocks of life could "make themselves". It did. But guess what? It was flawed. He probably had the wrong atmosphere. So it was rerun with a more proper early Earth atmosphere. It still worked. What do you base that incredibly ignorant claim, that it proved abiogenesis to be impossible upon?

Cosmology demonstrates that the universe has a deign; something not possible without a Creator.

What? You better alert the press and get ready for your Nobel Prize because I don't know of any cosmologist that makes that claim.

Biology proves that if you force change in a species at some point it becomes sterile. Eradiating fruit flies proved that forced mutations can't evolve a species.

Oh my, more ignorance. No, irradiating fruit flies shows how mutations can change an animal. There never was an attempt to make a new species with those tests. You need to study what experiments were for instead of listening to fools at creationist websites.

Gemology finds C-14 in diamonds, disproving an old earth.

No, it doesn't. You seem to think that the only possible source of C14 is cosmic radiation high in the Earth's atmosphere. Granted that is where almost all of the organic C14 (that is C14 found in plant or animal cells) comes from there but that is not the only source. Please note that the carbon in diamonds does not come from a source that once was living.

Soft tissue in dinosaur bones disproves long ages.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance here. This is not the case. The Christian paleontologist that found the "soft tissue" disagrees with your profoundly and even found the method of preservation. Again, it seems that you are getting your information from bogus sources.

The fact that the sun and all stars are burning their fuel source demonstrates the finite nature of the universe and tells us that for the universe to be billions of years old it would have to be contracting as stars burn hydrogen; except the universe is expanding.

Oh, and you started out so well. No, the fact that stars burn fuel does not tell us that the universe would have to be contracting. Where did you get that claim from? Yes, stars "burn" hydrogen. Ours has been fusing hydrogen into helium for about 4.55 billion years and it will do so for another four or five billion years at least. You need to talk to scientists. You need to find out how they know what they know.

The Origin of Species never demonstrated the origin of any species. All theories of origination share the same commonality; they are all contrary to the very laws of science they seek to validate.

The Origin of Species explains how life evolved. You are right that it does not make any specific cases, except for Darwin's finches. But man has observed speciation. We can trace through the fossil record the evolution of quite a few species. You do realize that scientists don't stop working just because someone found an answer don't you? They keep adding on to the original work.

If you want to go into any of these in more depth I would be glad to do so. Bring them up one at a time and I will help you out. When you spew a bunch of nonsense I can give only a fast correction.

 

[KWCrazy]

It's proof positive of a beneficial mutation, which was the topic at the moment.

Oh, a bacteria eats something new, therefore molecules to man. I get it. Any reason's good enough, isn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, a bacteria eats something new, therefore molecules to man. I get it. Any reason's good enough, isn't it?

You made a rather silly claim. It was refuted. Why did you take the big jump? The evidence that man evolved are thousand upon thousands of fossils, DNA evidence, ERV evidence, morphology, the list goes on and on. That was merely an example of evolution, but since it shows something happening that creationists say is impossible, in other words surprise surprise the creationists were wrong again, that too supports the claim that man is the product of evolution.

 

[lasthero]

Oh, a bacteria eats something new, therefore molecules to man. I get it. Any reason's good enough, isn't it?

Beforehand, they COULDN'T break it down. After, they could. Like, if you went on an all-rock diet, you'd die, because your body isn't equipped to process rocks or get any nutrients out of them. Similar thing, here.

Evolution.

If human beings gained the ability to eat and digest, say, rocks, wouldn't you consider that something of a big deal?

 

[KWCrazy]

Do you have any understanding of evolution at all?

Oh, sure I do. You don't know the first thing about science, do you?
For example you will say that we haven't yet discovered the first cause of the universe, but you won't admit that the laws of physics disprove origination. Matter/energy cannot be created, only converted.
You can't explain the existence of the supernatural so you pretend it doesn't exist.
You continue to believe that life came from natural causation despite it being proved impossible.
You think that a singular celled being was somehow introduced into a pool in which it could somehow find food and that it managed to reproduce, morph and crawl out of the pool before the mythical food source was exhausted.
You are hopeless because you don't understand enough about science to know what it cannot explore.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Oh, sure I do.

You posts don't demonstrate that. Please tell me, what do you think evolution says?

For example you will say that we haven't yet discovered the first cause of the universe

Not knowing something doesn't mean "god did it" That would be committing the God of the Gaps fallacy.

but you won't admit that the laws of physics disprove origination.

Can you elaborate what you mean by this? Or better yet, can you cite a research paper that makes this claim?

You can't explain the existence of the supernatural so you pretend it doesn't exist.

The supernatural is not testable. What supernatural claim do you think has been demonstrated to be true?

You continue to believe that life came from natural causation despite it being proved impossible.

I don't know how life originated. Would you like to apologize for putting words in my mouth?
How has a natural causation for life been proved impossible? There are several abiogenesis studies that are active. You seem to think science isn't allowed to explore this question.

Creation websites try to claim that RNA is not self replicating. Of course real scientists who work hard on the origin of life demonstrated this to be false. https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/04/rna-enzyme-makes-another-rna-e.html

You think that a singular celled being was somehow introduced into a pool in which it could somehow find food and that it managed to reproduce, morph and crawl out of the pool before the mythical food source was exhausted.

All the evidence points to universal common ancestry of a single cell. The rest of this is a strawman and incredulity.

You are hopeless because you don't understand enough about science to know what it cannot explore.

It cannot explore the supernatural because it is not observable or testable. By definition, it is imaginary. Science explores the natural world. Evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence from several independent lines of study that arrive at the same conclusion. To reject evolution in the 21st century, in my opinion, is the equivalent to thinking the earth is flat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, sure I do. You don't know the first thing about science, do you?
For example you will say that we haven't yet discovered the first cause of the universe, but you won't admit that the laws of physics disprove origination. Matter/energy cannot be created, only converted.

Wrong again, and this is why we know that you are rather ignorant about science. That does not disprove the formation of the universe by natural means. Physicists have measured the total energy of the universe and as closely as they can measure its energy is zero. There is both positive and negative energy. The negative energy balances the positive energy resulting in a net zero energy universe that could have come from "nothing".

You can't explain the existence of the supernatural so you pretend it doesn't exist.

There is no reliable evidence that the supernatural does exist.

You continue to believe that life came from natural causation despite it being proved impossible.

Now you are simply repeating past errors.

You think that a singular celled being was somehow introduced into a pool in which it could somehow find food and that it managed to reproduce, morph and crawl out of the pool before the mythical food source was exhausted.

The Earth is a pretty big pool. The energy that it was consuming still exists naturally so there was no problem there.

You are hopeless because you don't understand enough about science to know what it cannot explore.

Wow! You really have no understanding of science at all. You should be asking the experts, not listening to the Nimrods.

 

[koolair]

Then the question becomes... which of the two accounts is in the best accordance with the evidence?

Given your initial question: if animals were created after fruit trees, then we should be able to locate geological strata that are older than any animal, but that still contain fruit trees. This is not the case.

I believe you're begging the question. You assume the layers of earth represent the passage of time when in fact it is well known that dirt, rocks, and minerals settle according to density after being swirled around in water.

 

[koolair]

There is also clear evidence that humans can't raise from the dead three days later, or turn a handful of fish and loaves into enough to feed a few thousand people with multiple baskets to spare, or walk on the surface water. A lot of people find it pretty irresponsible to believe such things actually happened as well.

Some would say teaching this to kids is child abuse.

 

[koolair]

...
It's a package deal I'm afraid. Not only do you get a 4.54 billion year earth, but along with it you also get a 13.7 billion year universe. And, you also get biological diversity via evolution due to natural selection. All of this for the low, low price of studying the evidence and understanding it.
...

Something tells me you'd buy snake oil from a travelling salesman.

 

[koolair]

Am I not allowed to accept natural selection without also accepting variation via unguided mutation?

That's precisely what he's saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you're begging the question. You assume the layers of earth represent the passage of time when in fact it is well known that dirt, rocks, and minerals settle according to density after being swirled around in water.

No assuming go on in the science side. And the strata of the Earth are not separated by density differences. You need to find out why we know that there was no flood.

 

[koolair]

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. By saying you accept one but not the other is like saying it's possible for you to walk to the end of your driveway but it's impossible for you to walk 20 miles to work.

Just because you can walk 20 ft does not mean you can walk 20 miles. Your attempt to showcase the absurdity is actually a good example of why it's reasonable to accept natural selection but reject evolutionism.

Random genetic mutation and non random selection are the mechanisms for evolution.

What you're doing is assuming the subsequent fallacy. Not good.

 

[koolair]

Natural selection requires random variation via unguided mutation. It's the mechanism by which it occurs, and therefore a fundamental, necessary part of it.
...

This is a complete fallacy. Natural selection occurs as a result of fitness. It's occurance does not validate unguided mutation.