Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[lasthero]

I doubt if it would even get that far. They would not even be given the time or the venue to back their claim. They wouldn't even have to be in support of creation. Just stating that they believe evolution is not true would have them done in.

At which point they can go on to have lucrative careers at places like the Discovery Institute, who will pay them money to do very little.

It's not as if people like Behe and Dembski are living in the poor house.

 

[lasthero]

So, if the Bible speaks of giants and then people start digging up skeletons of giants all over north and south America, where are the skeletons now?

There are numerous giant skulls around that did not get destroyed or hidden.

And, strangely enough, all of the one's that have been seriously analyzed have turned out to be fakes.

Also, how does finding giant skulls in South and North America, which the Bible doesn't depict at all, give credence to anything in the Bible?

 

[DerelictJunction]

So, if the Bible speaks of giants and then people start digging up skeletons of giants all over north and south America, where are the skeletons now?

I don't believe you can show evidence that skeletons of giants have ever been dug up in North and South America.

There are numerous giant skulls around that did not get destroyed or hidden.

I don't believe you can show evidence of any giant's skull, anywhere outside of the Bible.

 

[JacksBratt]

I would say that our environment is changing at such a quick rate that evolution is having a tough time keeping up. The most deleterious mutations are still being eliminated, but alleles that would have been detrimental in the past are no longer as detrimental due to modern medicine.

What part of our environment is changing at this quick rate?

They weren't around? How do you figure?

My father is 87 years old and has one sharp mind. In his years he has saw some changes in society, politics and health.

In his day nobody had peanut allergies, shell fish allergies, etc. Some may be allergic to hay but it was just a minor thing when in a barn full of dust. Not the allergies we see every spring and fall here with antihistamines on every other tv ad. Chrones disease, celiac, irritable bowel.... the human body is not getting better.

 

[lasthero]

What part of our environment is changing at this quick rate?




My father is 87 years old and has one sharp mind. In his years he has saw some changes in society, politics and health.

In his day nobody had peanut allergies, shell fish allergies, etc. Some may be allergic to hay but it was just a minor thing when in a barn full of dust. Not the allergies we see every spring and fall here with antihistamines on every other tv ad. Chrones disease, celiac, irritable bowel.... the human body is not getting better.

So, let me see if I understand this correctly.

You claim that the human body is getting less and less healthy as time goes on. To show this, you don't cite a study, or a medical journal, or a paper, or even some rambling blog.

Your source is an 87 year old man. That's it. On his memory and limited experience alone, you make a blanket statemetn on the entire human race.

Jack, you fascinate me.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't believe that creation should be taught in schools. However, I don't believe that evolution should be in schools either.

Why shouldn't a theory that biologists use be taught in biology class?

I doubt if it would even get that far. They would not even be given the time or the venue to back their claim. They wouldn't even have to be in support of creation. Just stating that they believe evolution is not true would have them done in.

Nice story bro. I hear it all the time here in this forum... funny thing is, in all my years in academia, I have never seen it.. not even once.

It is logical that if you cannot show where life originated from you have a problem.
It is logical that if a grand designer created life, they would create it's final form. What artist starts with a blank canvas or lump of clay and then leaves it to time to create the work of art?

Funny how "God works in mysterious ways," yet you guys seem to know how he created life. Maybe he decided it would be better to make a universe that would unfold the way he wanted without him having to tinker with it along the way.

There is a bucket of evidence out there. Creationists come to their conclusions. Evolutionists come to their conclusions. There is no hard proof that either is true. However, the creationists have an eye witness account in the scriptures.
The DNA molecule stores so much data and in precise locations and is so complex, it screams logic, design and therefore designer.

A bucket is what creationists use to collect the evidence they like, and ignore the evidence they don't like. The scripture you refer to was written by fallible men, translated by fallible men, transcribed repeatedly by fallible men and is now interpreted by fallible men. It is a work of man. No man was there when humans came to be... therefore there is no "eye witness account."

As far as I'm concerned, all of these discussions belong in a philosophy class and not in the lab or any other classroom. There should also be no pressure to follow one belief or the other. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of where it all began and nobody has concrete factual evidence of what that is.
Evey class of importance can be taught and learned and progress made, without adding creation or evolution to the mix.

Strange then that evolutionary theory is used so often by biologists.

Well, in some areas, that would be called prejudice.

Which areas?

I said that professional educators or scientists get bullied if they take any other view than evolution. You said that that was "bull". I said "go ahead, deny it".

Like I said above, I have never seen in and I have been in academia since 1991. So yeah, I deny it.

Your post:

Originally Posted by Split Rock

Bull once again. Your narrow-minded interpretation of scripture is not "Truth."
​

You attack my interpretation of scripture, yet I have not done such a thing in my post. You assume that I have misinterpreted something but cannot show what original scripture you are referring to and place it along side my interpretation to show my errors.

This is just a sucker punch. If you want to say someone has interpreted something wrongly, I suggest you have an example.

Of course I have arrived at my belief through scripture, but also through application of the scriptures in my life.

So the short answer is , yes you get your "truth" from your interpretation of scripture. Why are you arguing with me about that point?

Science used to be something that was "knowledge of something that was observable, testable and repeatable". By this definition, scripture is science.

You remind me of another creationist who posts here. He likes to lament about how in the Middle Ages, Theology was considered "The Queen of the Sciences." Science is different now.

 

[JacksBratt]

Proof of what? What kind of motif? A middle eastern motif?

Proof that evolution occurred at all.
Motivation for even having evolution take place. What would motivate a grand creator to just create on life form and leave it to chance for the rest of them to form over billions of years. It states that He made us in His image. Why would He leave it to someday maybe evolving into a creature with His image.

With a creator, there is absolutely no need for evolving of anything.

What is "Middle Eastern Motif"?

I don't see why not. Simple RNA replicators probably don't fill God's grand vision of biodiversity. You need some way of producing biodiversity, and evolution would certainly fit that bill.[/qutoe]

If He can create this wonderfully made universe, I am certain that He could make RNA with all the necessary replicators He needed to start with just two of any and every "kind" of animal and get all the biodiversity we have today

Could God create one simple life form and then allow the laws in his creation produce the biodiversity we see today?

Yes. Of course.

If God were creating each species separately, why would we see a nested hierarchy? Why don't we see mammal/bird intermediates, or species with three middle ear bones and feathers? Why do we only see the pattern of homology that we would expect from evolution?

I would think that mammal/bird intermediates would only be seen if there was evolution. The fact that there isn't is not proof of evolution but proof that it is false.

Many animals share similar structures, body parts and systems. This is not proof of evolution but proof of a common designer.

If the evidence in the creation were consistent with evolution, could it be considered true?

Could "what" be considered true, evolution or creation? Any and all evidence is used to support both camps. This is due to the fact that we only have one bucket of evidence and two theories who both use it as evidence for their theory.

 

[lasthero]

I would think that mammal/bird intermediates would only be seen if there was evolution. The fact that there isn't is not proof of evolution but proof that it is false.

The fact that you think this speaks volumes. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. At all.

Why do you think evolution would predict something that's half bird and and half mammal?

 

[Split Rock]

I would think that mammal/bird intermediates would only be seen if there was evolution. The fact that there isn't is not proof of evolution but proof that it is false.

Many animals share similar structures, body parts and systems. This is not proof of evolution but proof of a common designer.

No. According to evolution theory, mammals and birds are not closely related. Therefore, there should not be any intermediates between them. These would be considered chimeras, and chimeras are engineered, not evolved. So yes, the lack of such chimeras, does support evolution.

 

[Aman777]

Cowards and Liars and their False story:>>And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, who come of the giants. And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

So, if the Bible speaks of giants and then people start digging up skeletons of giants all over north and south America, where are the skeletons now?

There are numerous giant skulls around that did not get destroyed or hidden.

This is proof of scripture. Yet, in many cases, a lot of data, evidence and ancient artifacts and such has been hidden, destroyed and discounted as myth.
​

Dear Readers, The story is about a bunch of liars and cowards who invented the "giants". They later became known and died with the Plague.

Num 14:37 Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD.

God Bless you

 

[JacksBratt]

"I don't believe that creation should be taught in schools. However, I don't believe that evolution should be in schools either."

What should be taught is schools?

Everything else. We don't need to tell a kid that the giraffe evolved from "whatever" or anything to do with creation in order to study the giraffe, it's habits and habitat.

Similarly, we don't have to know anything about evolution or creation to study the parts of plant cells, animal cells, the water cohesion tension theory, xylem and phloem cells, aerodynamics of airplane wings, Boers laws of gasses, stiochiometry, that water boils at 100 degrees C unless the barometric pressure changes, and how metals are smelted and hardened.

All of these things can be taught without muddying the water with what happened 6000 or more years previous. That is irreverent.

 

[whois]

Seems to be a pattern with this poster.

I am still waiting for her to show the laws she claims exist, that force the teaching of evolution.

and this seems to be a pattern of yours, accusing posters of not providing explanations.

i have explained the laws in one of my posts.
find it.

if you ever say i didn't explain them again, i will search my posts, find it, and include it in a report.

i almost did that with this post, but thought i would warn you first.

 

[bhsmte]

Everything else. We don't need to tell a kid that the giraffe evolved from "whatever" or anything to do with creation in order to study the giraffe, it's habits and habitat.

Similarly, we don't have to know anything about evolution or creation to study the parts of plant cells, animal cells, the water cohesion tension theory, xylem and phloem cells, aerodynamics of airplane wings, Boers laws of gasses, stiochiometry, that water boils at 100 degrees C unless the barometric pressure changes, and how metals are smelted and hardened.

All of these things can be taught without muddying the water with what happened 6000 or more years previous. That is irreverent.

Some really smart people would disagree with you, including this devout Christian: Francis Collins. Not his remark; "trying to do biology without evolution, would be like doing physics, without math."

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

 

[JacksBratt]

At which point they can go on to have lucrative careers at places like the Discovery Institute, who will pay them money to do very little.

It's not as if people like Behe and Dembski are living in the poor house.

Yes, I heard, the Discovery Institute is a treasure trove of jobs where you can get gobs of money for doing nothing at all but promoting creation.

Really? Show me some evidence for this claim...LOL

 

[JacksBratt]

And, strangely enough, all of the one's that have been seriously analyzed have turned out to be fakes.

You find that strange? I find it predictable. Get rid of all the legitimate evidence, present the fake and then write off every other piece as a fake based on that "fact".

It's quite elementary.

Also, the skulls they are finding, all over the world as a matter of face, and are so numerous in south America that they are almost everywhere, are not fakes.

Maybe a quote of Abe Lincoln, talking about Niagara Falls, will bring this fact more to light...

"But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent---when Christ suffered on the cross---when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea---nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker---then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as"

Also, how does finding giant skulls in South and North America, which the Bible doesn't depict at all, give credence to anything in the Bible?

Grab a bible, check out where the people of Israel left Egypt after the plagues brought by God. They end up ready to go into their promised land. However, Israeli spies report back to Moses that there are giants so big in this land that they felt like grasshoppers. So, they doubt the fact that God can hand them this land. So, the story goes, God punishes them for this lack of faith and they wander in the desert for 40 years until all the faithless die. Then they come back and try again. This time they take Jericho by walking around it ant finally blowing their trumpets. They start, systematically taking the land, obviously, to all their foe, with a Great God on their side doing great works.

It is at this point, that the Giants get out of dodge so to speak. Some of them anyway head for the land we call North America to flee form this group of people taking up the land with the help of God.

So, they end up here in North and South America. The idians have stories about them and the pioneers found evidence of them. Finally, the Smithsonian sent a team to investigate all this evidence and they preformed their "David Copperfield" antics and now all that is left is mostly news paper articles, pictures, stories, legends and some fakes that they left as leverage.

Don't worry though, this whole archeological scam is going to mean nothing when the prophecies of the Bible start to unfold in the near future.

 

[JacksBratt]

So, let me see if I understand this correctly.

You claim that the human body is getting less and less healthy as time goes on. To show this, you don't cite a study, or a medical journal, or a paper, or even some rambling blog.

Your source is an 87 year old man. That's it. On his memory and limited experience alone, you make a blanket statemetn on the entire human race.

Jack, you fascinate me.

Why is Allergy Increasing?

The latest surveys show that the rates of allergy are increasing throughout the world, affecting up to 30-35% of people at some stage in their lives.

And,

According to a study released in 2013 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, food allergies among children increased approximately 50% between 1997 and 2011.

And,

The number of people who have a food allergy is growing, but there is no clear answer as to why.

And,

Autoimmune Disease…is a major health problem.
• The National Institutes of Health (NIH estimates up to 23.5* million Americans suffer from autoimmune disease and that the prevalence is rising.

One more, You should listen more to wise old men.....

Scientists worldwide puzzle over an alarming and unexplained rise in the rates of autoimmune disease. Yet the media remain mute on this crisis.

 

[Split Rock]

Everything else. We don't need to tell a kid that the giraffe evolved from "whatever" or anything to do with creation in order to study the giraffe, it's habits and habitat.

Similarly, we don't have to know anything about evolution or creation to study the parts of plant cells, animal cells, the water cohesion tension theory, xylem and phloem cells, aerodynamics of airplane wings, Boers laws of gasses, stiochiometry, that water boils at 100 degrees C unless the barometric pressure changes, and how metals are smelted and hardened.

All of these things can be taught without muddying the water with what happened 6000 or more years previous. That is irreverent.

Interesting... lets look at some questions related to your comments to avoid in school because you don't like the theory of evolution:

1. How did the giraffe get such a long neck?
2. Why do mitochondria and chloroplasts have bacteria-like chromosomes and ribosomes?
3. Why do we have salt water running through our blood vessels?

Here are some more to avoid:

4. Why is the current vaccine against influenza only 50% effective?
5. Why should farmers rotate herbicides?
6. How do pathogens develop resistance to antibiotics?
7. Why are fossils in South America similar to ones in Africa?
8. Why is the greatest human genetic diversity in Africa?
9. Why did mammoths become extinct?
10. What happened to the dinosaurs?

Some goodies based on your "6,000 years" hint:

1. How old is the Earth?
2. How did the Himalayas get so tall?
3. Where did the Great Lakes come from?
4. Why do the continents fit together and why are they moving apart?
5. Why is the moon heavily cratered on one side and Earth is not?

Yes, let's avoid all the questions that threaten your religious dogma... and yet you claim you aren't afraid.

 

[JacksBratt]

Some really smart people would disagree with you, including this devout Christian: Francis Collins. Not his remark; "trying to do biology without evolution, would be like doing physics, without math."

Francis Collins is a believer in Biologos. This is an example of a great deception in the church.

Romans 1:22New International Version (NIV)

22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

This group is an apostate group. They fall into the group that this scripture speaks about.

 

[pgp_protector]

I would guess that as fewer people Die from Anaphylaxis shock due to improved treatment, the genetics that cause it are spread more & more throughout the population.

 

[pgp_protector]

Francis Collins is a believer in Biologos. This is an example of a great deception in the church.

Romans 1:22New International Version (NIV)

22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

This group is an apostate group. They fall into the group that this scripture speaks about.

I've noticed this never applies to those trying to use it though.