Understanding Evolution

[Davian]

No, I mean the truth that atheistic Darwinist creationism isn't true.

Who says it is?

 

[justlookinla]

When you say "created", are you talking about an individual giving birth to another species?

When I say created, birds for example, I mean that non-bird life form from which the first bird came. Something created it....the first bird.

 

[justlookinla]

How can I be the victim of something that, by all objective measures to date, is simply imagined?

You're a victim of the guesses and suppositions, the imaginations, of a faith based Godless creationist 'gospel'.

If they are only evidence for your beliefs if you believe, it is not really evidence, is it?

The source has been accurate for other areas of my life, therefore I trust it to be accurate for this area of my life.

Argument from incredulity is a fallacy.

It's not an argument from incredulity. It's an argument that when we see complex designs on earth, produced by designers for a purpose, we can determine that more than time and chance created the design. The same goes for the incomprehensible machines that we see in creation.

Only of the straw man arguments your drag through here.

No, you're mocking the very basic belief in God and Jesus.

Have you *ever* opened a book on biology?

Have you *ever* produced any evidence for atheistic Darwinist creationism?

Do you think that homes were decorated like that 2000 years ago?

Does't have a thing to do with creation and evolution. You're a mocker yielding to the antichrist sprit.

No, it is a straw man argument.

Anytime you're able to give evidence for creation of all life by only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago, by all means do it. It's certainly not science.

 

[justlookinla]

Who says it is?

Those who promote the view that all of creation is simply a product of time and chance.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

The truth is nothing to fear.

All I see you do is promote your own understanding of scripture, in a very off-putting belligerent and egotistical way, that doesn't actually teach anyone and instead just exasperates Christians and nonbelievers alike. It just seems like your hobby out of ennui and a form of ego-onanism.

It certainly doesn't work towards fulfilling the Great Commission. You behave so contrarily to Christ's teachings it just dismays me. At your age you should be setting a positive example of being a Christian rather than consistently behaving so poorly. I'm not at all ashamed of Christ and never will be, but I am embarrassed to even have the Christian icon because of how people like you behave. I can't even describe how much you've discouraged me.

 

[justlookinla]

All I see you do is promote your own understanding of scripture, in a very off-putting belligerent and egotistical way, that doesn't actually teach anyone and instead just exasperates Christians and nonbelievers alike. It just seems like your hobby out of ennui and a form of ego-onanism.

My position is that God created humanity, as well as all creation, and than the current alternative to that, i.e., the view that humanity is simply a product of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged life form of long long ago is nothing more than a Satanic, antichrist, teaching which devalues humanity to nothing more than just another life form. The bible teaches just the opposite. The battle is between good and evil, light and darkness.....and has always been.

If it offends you that I stand for God as creator, without apology, without exception, and will not condone or accept teachings contrary to that, then I suggest you engage the iggy button for my posts.

It certainly doesn't work towards fulfilling the Great Commission.

Condoning, accepting, not speaking out against Godless creationism surely doesn't contend for the gospel once delivered to the saints.

You behave so contrarily to Christ's teachings it just dismays me.

Give an example. Surely you're not suggesting that Christ condoned rejection of God as creator, are you?

At your age you should be setting a positive example of being a Christian rather than consistently behaving so poorly.

What's not positive about presenting God as creator while rejecting the view of Godless creationism?

I'm not at all ashamed of Christ and never will be, but I am embarrassed to even have the Christian icon because of how people like you behave. I can't even describe how much you've discouraged me.

What have I said about God as creator which has discouraged you?

 

[TheBear]

Something created it....the first bird.

You can't use a term to describe the same term.

When you say "create", what do you mean? Is it a natural process over time, or is it something supernatural? And, how do you make the distinction? Where is the line drawn between natural processes and supernatural agency?

 

[justlookinla]

You can't use a term to describe the same term.

When you say "create", what do you mean? Is it a natural process over time, or is it something supernatural?

Yes, that's the question. Did a life form produce, create, make a new life form by natural or supernatural means? "Create" means to make something which didn't exist before, in the case of a non-bird life form producing, creating, making a bird from itself. And of course the life form which produces, creates, makes the new life form then ceases to exist? Or does it continue to exist, continually producing, creating, making birds from itself, with itself not being a bird?

There's certainly no evidence that natural impetuses can do, and has done, such a thing, is there?

And, how do you make the distinction? Where is the line drawn between natural processes and supernatural agency?

Evidence?

 

[Davian]

You're a victim of the guesses and suppositions, the imaginations, of a faith based Godless creationist 'gospel'.

Nope. I am not an advocate for evolution.

The source has been accurate for other areas of my life, therefore I trust it to be accurate for this area of my life.

The bible is a science book?

It's not an argument from incredulity. It's an argument that when we see complex designs on earth, produced by designers for a purpose, we can determine that more than time and chance created the design.

It's not when you move the goalposts like you did right there.

The same goes for the incomprehensible machines that we see in creation.

Argument from incredulity is a fallacy.

No, you're mocking the very basic belief in God and Jesus.

Where did I do that?

Have you *ever* opened a book on biology?

Have you *ever* produced any evidence for atheistic Darwinist creationism?

Is that a no, you have *never* opened a book on biology?

Does't have a thing to do with creation and evolution. You're a mocker yielding to the antichrist sprit.

I would like to think that if there were such a thing as an "antichrist spirit" that it would have better things to do than spend time on the internet pointing out the common misconceptions of popular Christmas memes.

Anytime you're able to give evidence for creation of all life by only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago, by all means do it. It's certainly not science.

Agreed. It is a straw man argument you have there.

 

[Davian]

Those who promote the view that all of creation is simply a product of time and chance.

I haven't seen anyone here promoting that view.

 

[TheBear]

Yes, that's the question. Did a life form produce, create, make a new life form by natural or supernatural means? "Create" means to make something which didn't exist before, in the case of a non-bird life form producing, creating, making a bird from itself. And of course the life form which produces, creates, makes the new life form then ceases to exist? Or does it continue to exist, continually producing, creating, making birds from itself, with itself not being a bird?

Are you under the impression that the evolution model has individual species giving birth to different species?

There's certainly no evidence that natural impetuses can do, and has done, such a thing, is there?

There are mountains of evidence. You just choose to ignore/dismiss it all.

Evidence?

Exactly.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope. I am not an advocate for evolution.

Why not?

The bible is a science book?

The bible is a life book.

It's not when you move the goalposts like you did right there.


Argument from incredulity is a fallacy.

I've neither moved the goalposts nor presented an argument from incredulity.

Where did I do that?

You're finding great humor and mockery in the spiritual things, such as the antichrist spirit, aren't you?

Is that a no, you have *never* opened a book on biology?

Is that a 'I don't wish to provide a point about a book on biology'?

I would like to think that if there were such a thing as an "antichrist spirit" that it would have better things to do than spend time on the internet pointing out the common misconceptions of popular Christmas memes.

It's present wherever God and Jesus are rejected.

Agreed. It is a straw man argument you have there.

It's an argument against the pseudo-science of atheistic Darwinist creationism. That's not a strawman.

 

[justlookinla]

I haven't seen anyone here promoting that view.

What else is there to create new life forms other than time and chance?

 

[justlookinla]

Are you under the impression that the evolution model has individual species giving birth to different species?

I didn't ask about 'species', I asked about a non-bird life form producing, creating, making birds. Again....

Yes, that's the question. Did a life form produce, create, make a new life form by natural or supernatural means? "Create" means to make something which didn't exist before, in the case of a non-bird life form producing, creating, making a bird from itself. And of course the life form which produces, creates, makes the new life form then ceases to exist? Or does it continue to exist, continually producing, creating, making birds from itself, with itself not being a bird?

There are mountains of evidence. You just choose to ignore/dismiss it all.

"Mountains of evidence"? Well, that sure sounds familiar. Just another empty claim.

Exactly.

Give it. Show us the non-bird life form which produced a bird and how it did it. And address the questions above.

 

[TheBear]

"Mountains of evidence"? Well, that sure sounds familiar.

It should sound familiar, because its true.

Just another empty claim.

When you ignore and dismiss any and all evidence which conflicts with your a priori assumptions, (based only on religious beliefs and willful ignorance), I can see how things seem empty.

Show us

Who is this "us" you speak of? Never mind that. How about dropping all the church groupthink mentality, and start thinking for yourself. (It's never too late, ya know.)

 

[Davian]

Why not?

It does not shape my worldview.

The bible is a life book.

Not a science book, then?

I've neither moved the goalposts nor presented an argument from incredulity.

What's the name of the big river in Egypt?

Where did I do that?

You're finding great humor and mockery in the spiritual things,

I asked, where did I do that?

such as the antichrist spirit, aren't you?

First, I was the antichrist spirit, now I am mocking it. Where did I do that?

Is that a no, you have *never* opened a book on biology?

Is that a 'I don't wish to provide a point about a book on biology'?

I asked, is that a no, you have *never* opened a book on biology?

It's present wherever God and Jesus are rejected.

Then it must be following you around, because you are definitely inoculating me and my kids against religion.

It's an argument against the pseudo-science of atheistic Darwinist creationism. That's not a strawman.

No, "atheistic Darwinist creationism" is the strawman.

 

[Davian]

What else is there to create new life forms other than time and chance?

Dunno. Ever tried reading a biology textbook?

 

[TheBear]

I didn't ask about 'species', I asked about a non-bird life form producing, creating, making birds.

Not quite sure what you mean. Are non-birds the same species as birds?

 

[TheBear]

Ever tried reading a biology textbook?

Yeah. I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Gene2memE]

Yes, that's the question. Did a life form produce, create, make a new life form by natural or supernatural means? "Create" means to make something which didn't exist before, in the case of a non-bird life form producing, creating, making a bird from itself. And of course the life form which produces, creates, makes the new life form then ceases to exist? Or does it continue to exist, continually producing, creating, making birds from itself, with itself not being a bird?

From the abstract of a recent Science paper 'Sustained miniaturization and anatomical innovation in the dinosaurian ancestors of birds' (Lee, Cau, Naish & Dyke, 2014):

"The theropod lineage directly ancestral to birds undergoes sustained miniaturization across 50 million years and at least 12 consecutive branches (internodes) and evolves skeletal adaptations four times faster than other dinosaurs. The distinct, prolonged phase of miniaturization along the bird stem would have facilitated the evolution of many novelties associated with small body size, such as reorientation of body mass, increased aerial ability, and paedomorphic skulls with reduced snouts but enlarged eyes and brains."

Its behind a pay-wall, but there are some others that aren't. Downsized Dinosaurs: The Evolutionary Transition to Modern Birds (Luis M. Chiappe, 2009) is a short (9 pages) intro into the subject of the therapod to avian transition, and its freely available for download.

Again, from the abstract:

"The origin of modern birds from animals similar to Tyrannosaurus rex is among the most remarkable examples of an evolutionary transition. A wealth of recently discovered fossils has finally settled the century-old controversy about the origin of birds and it has made the evolutionary saga toward modern birds one of the best documented transitions in the history of life. This paper reviews the evidence in support of the origin of birds from meat-eating dinosaurs, and it highlights the array of fossils that connect these fearsome animals with those that fly all around us."


Read. Learn. Enjoy.