Top 2 reasons why man evolved from prior life.

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It is still called a "theory", and keeps changing every time it is disproved.

 

[Shemjaza]

It is still called a "theory", and keeps changing every time it is disproved.

"Disproved" is so strong a statement that it's dishonest. Especially when compared to the special pleading and nonsense that gets presented as creation evidence.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Disproved" is so strong a statement that it's dishonest. Especially when compared to the special pleading and nonsense that gets presented as creation evidence.

They themselves admit and accept that it is disproved (specific claims) ,
when they change their "claims" to try to not be disproved .

 

[Shemjaza]

They themselves admit and accept that it is disproved (specific claims) ,
when they change their "claims" to try to not be disproved .

"Claims", as if it's just ideas they made up. It's explanations and conclusions from evidence and it is always ready to be adjusted, because that's what honest people do when they learn new things.

 

[bhsmte]

It is still called a "theory", and keeps changing every time it is disproved.

LOL

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Claims", as if it's just ideas they made up. It's explanations and conclusions from evidence and it is always ready to be adjusted, because that's what honest people do when they learn new things.

They did not learn new things, nor true things. You might be able to catch on soon.
They took information , sometimes true information, sometimes made up information (they didn't care often, it seems)
and tried to prove God did not exist,
and tried to prove God did not DO what God Says He Did.

When they have false information, and false hopes, and false goals,
their conclusions are not going to come out true nor right nor good (as verified so far throughout recent history and all history) ....

 

[Shemjaza]

They did not learn new things, nor true things. You might be able to catch on soon.
They took information , sometimes true information, sometimes made up information (they didn't care often, it seems)
and tried to prove God did not exist,
and tried to prove God did not DO what God Says He Did.

When they have false information, and false hopes, and false goals,
their conclusions are not going to come out true nor right nor good (as verified so far throughout recent history and all history) ....

You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for actual examples or evidence of this false information.

Typically all we get is lies (no transitional fossils), misunderstandings (only a theory) and meaningless statements (no new information).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for actual examples or evidence of this false information.

Typically all we get is lies (no transitional fossils), misunderstandings (only a theory) and meaningless statements (no new information).

You don't have to wait at all. You already probably read things they published. If you choose to think they tell the truth, that's that.
If you ever come to realize they don't, then you already yourself have all the actual examples and evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

You don't have to wait at all. You already probably read things they published. If you choose to think they tell the truth, that's that.
If you ever come to realize they don't, then you already yourself have all the actual examples and evidence.

That's the thing about truth. If it can't be demonstrated, then it can't be separated from fantasies or lies.

 

[DogmaHunter]

common similarity explain it. by a common designer of course.

The bare assertion of "god-dun-it", doesn't explain anything at all.

Evolutionary genetics, that explains it. In testable ways.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is still called a "theory", and keeps changing every time it is disproved.

www.notjustatheory.com


Please read the 15-ish sentences on the webpage and let them sink in.
It will prevent you from saying such ignorant things in the future.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They themselves admit and accept that it is disproved (specific claims) ,
when they change their "claims" to try to not be disproved .

It's called learning.
It's why science makes progress.

You don't like learning and progress?

 

[DogmaHunter]

They did not learn new things, nor true things. You might be able to catch on soon.
They took information , sometimes true information, sometimes made up information (they didn't care often, it seems)
and tried to prove God did not exist,
and tried to prove God did not DO what God Says He Did.

When they have false information, and false hopes, and false goals,
their conclusions are not going to come out true nor right nor good (as verified so far throughout recent history and all history) ....

When you are going to post such severe accusations at the address of thousands of scientists, you better be able to back it up with strong evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

They did not learn new things, nor true things. You might be able to catch on soon.

Such as?

They took information , sometimes true information, sometimes made up information (they didn't care often, it seems)

Such as?

and tried to prove God did not exist,

Such as?

and tried to prove God did not DO what God Says He Did.

Such as?

When they have false information, and false hopes, and false goals,
their conclusions are not going to come out true nor right nor good (as verified so far throughout recent history and all history) ....

It seems that you're just blowing hot air.

 

[Ophiolite]

www.notjustatheory.com


Please read the 15-ish sentences on the webpage and let them sink in.
It will prevent you from saying such ignorant things in the future.

Hmm. I'm pretty sure that is not going to work. Denial of logic, strong in this one is.

 

[Ophiolite]

Please read.

List the top 2 reasons why man MUST have evolved from a primate or X rather than specially created by God. This is specifically contrasted with Genesis 2:7, not theistic evolution. The default will be a literal interpretation, but please feel free to present your own. Please summarize your reasons as stand alone points, don't just link stuff. No videos please, but charts are fine. If you don't have a logical proof give your best 2 reasons against it. If you have a logical proof against Genesis 2:7 please open your statement with the following phrase. "Genesis 2:7 can't be true because...." By proof I dont mean to get into epistemic philosophy here, a simple disjunctive approach (not A therefore B) will suffice.

Please avoid petty remarks on all sides, please do not make ad hominems against links. Please don't overwhelm a poster by bulk or by too many respondants. Please address your rebuttals according to the statements made and resist going too far off topic from the 2 reasons given. This is a huge topic and it's easy to drift away. General evolution is NOT the topic. The topic is only regarding man and only what is written in Genesis 2:7, so evidence of the evolution in fish is not evidence against Gen2:7 here unless you can make the point that there is some remnant of a prior evolution in man. Oh, 1 last prerequisite, naturalism (only the natural world exists) is not assumed here. Assume that God is metaphysically possible and Gen 2:7 is metaphysically possible. So in other words anything you say must compete to be a good explanation, it's not automatically the only explanation.

I'm making all these restrictions because I'd really like to know what cases can be made and what the strength of thoses cases are when you strip the rhetoric and bravado from it which is prevalent here. For example I was really interested in the recent article about 90% of animals appearing at the same time but despite two long threads very little substance was given to it.

I am a creationist but I doubt I will be able to add much in rebuttal due to preparation and the fact that my intent is exploratory here. I will try to personally moderate the progression, so thank you to both sides in advance.

You have excluded general evolution from the discussion. This creates an impasse. Your request then becomes analagous to this:
"Please provide the two strongest reasons you have for believing that gravity effects humans, but do so without reference to the work of Galileo, Newton or Einstein. I am not interested in the general aspects of gravity."

For me the two reasons must include general evolution and the reasons then are:
1. There is overwhelming evidence from multiple independent sources confriming the reality of evolution within the biosphere and no alternative explanation begins to offer the wealth of confirmed detail (experimental and observational).
2. The evidence from DNA, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, ethology,embryology, etc for humans is entirely consistent with what is observed for the rest of the biosphere.

Note that the convincing thing is the weight of evidence from so many quarters rather than any single piece of evidence. However, if you want a single piece, spend some time with chimpanzees then try telling me we are not related.

 

[Job 33:6]

You have excluded general evolution from the discussion. This creates an impasse. Your request then becomes analagous to this:
"Please provide the two strongest reasons you have for believing that gravity effects humans, but do so without reference to the work of Galileo, Newton or Einstein. I am not interested in the general aspects of gravity."

For me the two reasons must include general evolution and the reasons then are:
1. There is overwhelming evidence from multiple independent sources confriming the reality of evolution within the biosphere and no alternative explanation begins to offer the wealth of confirmed detail (experimental and observational).
2. The evidence from DNA, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, ethology,embryology, etc for humans is entirely consistent with what is observed for the rest of the biosphere.

Note that the convincing thing is the weight of evidence from so many quarters rather than any single piece of evidence. However, if you want a single piece, spend some time with chimpanzees then try telling me we are not related.

@Sanoy

Yea, this is it right here^. Its not just one individual piece of evidence. Rather, its a multitude of various independent lines of evidence, all pointing at the same direction.

I remember, years ago, when i was studying geology for the first time, as a geologist, I actually learned about the earth and rocks, before knowing anything about biology. And of course, over the years, I performed research and have been on many fossil hunts and, even just in my spare time, on many occasions ive just gone out to study rocks on my own.

But what was interesting was that, simply by understanding the earth, it became quite apparent that evolution were true, even without knowing anything about biology. Little did I know, that biologists actually had an explanation for the things that I had been seeing in the earth. Then over the years, I learned about the theory of evolution.

But the point is that, independent fields of study are deriving the same answer. And, its an answer that demonstrates a direct temporal correlation between the earth, and life. Earth, and life on earth, have shared almost like a symbiotic relationship. The earth changes, life changes, life changes, the earth changes. And the two, earth and life, are closely intertwined and have been for hundreds of millions of years.

But it can take a lot of time to understand all the information that is needed to derive this conclusion. Because it requires at least some basic understanding of multiple fields of science.

"DNA, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, ethology,embryology, etc ", I would add, of course geology and paleontology as a team, you have your ERV trees, your morphological cladistics, you have things like cytocrome C and observed instances of speciation, such as the 60,000 generation e.coli experiment. And the list goes on and on.

Across many fields of science, they are all pointing at the same thing.

 

[Juvenal]

You have excluded general evolution from the discussion. This creates an impasse. Your request then becomes analagous to this:
"Please provide the two strongest reasons you have for believing that gravity effects humans, but do so without reference to the work of Galileo, Newton or Einstein. I am not interested in the general aspects of gravity."

With respect, I disagree that this presents an impasse, even by analogy. While the general evolutionary (mut. mut. gravitational) processes remain, there's no more impediment to an independent discussion of the evolutionary origins of any particular species, including our own, than there is to measuring Michael Jordan's hang-time, independent of the orbits of the planets around our sun.

The fossil record shows that seven million years ago, there were primates but no hominids. Three million years ago, there were hominids, but no humans. And throughout that time, primate species have appeared and disappeared as branches have radiated and become pruned, leaving markers in the DNA of the survivors. If every other species on earth were specially created, the evidence written into the genome within each of our cells would still show that humans evolved from our primate ancestors.

There is also a natural interest in the evolution of our species on "Christian Forums" that goes beyond our natural self-regard. Christians have a specific, theological interest in the evolution of our species quite apart from the evolution of our evolutionary cousins. The evolutionary path from birds to dinosaurs, for example, does not, and indeed can not, challenge the fall of man and consequent need for a vicarious atonement by their god-become-man.

 

[Sanoy]

You have excluded general evolution from the discussion. This creates an impasse. Your request then becomes analagous to this:
"Please provide the two strongest reasons you have for believing that gravity effects humans, but do so without reference to the work of Galileo, Newton or Einstein. I am not interested in the general aspects of gravity."

For me the two reasons must include general evolution and the reasons then are:
1. There is overwhelming evidence from multiple independent sources confriming the reality of evolution within the biosphere and no alternative explanation begins to offer the wealth of confirmed detail (experimental and observational).
2. The evidence from DNA, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, ethology,embryology, etc for humans is entirely consistent with what is observed for the rest of the biosphere.

Note that the convincing thing is the weight of evidence from so many quarters rather than any single piece of evidence. However, if you want a single piece, spend some time with chimpanzees then try telling me we are not related.

The intents is not to debate whether evolution happened. I'm trying to get your thoughts so that I can compare it to mine to help me decide how to view this section in Genesis. I hope that there is debate here, but it's not a 'prove your world view' thread, it's a request to help me refine my thoughts on that verse.

 

[Sanoy]

@Sanoy

Yea, this is it right here^. Its not just one individual piece of evidence. Rather, its a multitude of various independent lines of evidence, all pointing at the same direction.

I remember, years ago, when i was studying geology for the first time, as a geologist, I actually learned about the earth and rocks, before knowing anything about biology. And of course, over the years, I performed research and have been on many fossil hunts and, even just in my spare time, on many occasions ive just gone out to study rocks on my own.

But what was interesting was that, simply by understanding the earth, it became quite apparent that evolution were true, even without knowing anything about biology. Little did I know, that biologists actually had an explanation for the things that I had been seeing in the earth. Then over the years, I learned about the theory of evolution.

But the point is that, independent fields of study are deriving the same answer. And, its an answer that demonstrates a direct temporal correlation between the earth, and life. Earth, and life on earth, have shared almost like a symbiotic relationship. The earth changes, life changes, life changes, the earth changes. And the two, earth and life, are closely intertwined and have been for hundreds of millions of years.

But it can take a lot of time to understand all the information that is needed to derive this conclusion. Because it requires at least some basic understanding of multiple fields of science.

"DNA, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, ethology,embryology, etc ", I would add, of course geology and paleontology as a team, you have your ERV trees, your morphological cladistics, you have things like cytocrome C and observed instances of speciation, such as the 60,000 generation e.coli experiment. And the list goes on and on.

Across many fields of science, they are all pointing at the same thing.

I am a Creationist, but I'm mostly on board with what you are seeing, that the earth is old, and that we have a series of emergent species but I don't know how it happened. I'm not a Theisitic Evolutionist because I don't think God used or guided evolution. I'm still forming my thoughts but for now I think God caused the changes directly, either in fully completed chunks, or whole cloth. If we look at the curse in Genesis literally, then we have to believe God changed the DNA of plants and ourselves instantly with a word. I don't know if science can bare that out, but it gives us an example that can orient our thoughts on how God makes changes in the world - that He can change our DNA directly. Machines operate our DNA, and He programed them, and they will do whatever He says. I believe there is a good trajectory of evidence for Evolution, but it's too much for me to believe that trajectory occurred naturally. Even if Christianity disappeared I could believe we evolved, but it's too much for me to think it happened randomly, so I guess the furthest I could be is a deist. There are too many things left over that it won't explain like consciousness, free will, the richness of our intelligence, qualia and experiences. Evolution is on target, it's aimed at the bullseye, if it can pull it's own trigger it will hit the bullseye, but the caliber is such that it will leave the majority of the red intact so even with God supervening it, He's going to have to be putting in the lions share of the work so what does He need randomness and selective pressures for. Thats where I am on my figuring this out.