Why I don't believe in evolution...

[Sam Saved by Grace]

So what is your elaborate explanation then for how the fossil succession mirrors phylogenetic trees of genetics studies? (If not what I would consider the obvious answer of evolution).

Easy answer - confirmation bias. People see what they want to see. Whether it be faces in clouds, astrological signs in stars, or proof for darwinism is a handful of decrepit old fossils.

 

[Job 33:6]

Easy answer - confirmation bias. People see what they want to see. Whether it be faces in clouds, astrological signs in stars, or proof for darwinism is a handful of decrepit old fossils.

Could you explain what you mean? Just curious about why phylogenetic trees mirror one another. Are you suggesting that the data is forged and made up? Or that the data is true and that there is another explanation beyond the obvious (evolution).

For example, regarding fish, amphibians and reptiles, why do they appear in the fossil record in the order in which they are genetically related? Do you think that maybe we are overlooking a mammal or two in Devonian strata? Or maybe you think it's just a coincidence? Each option being terribly unreasonable when investigated. But what else could you mean?

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

Could you explain what you mean? Just curious about why phylogenetic trees mirror one another. Are you suggesting that the data is forged and made up? Or that the data is true and that there is another explanation beyond the obvious (evolution).

For example, regarding fish, amphibians and reptiles, why do they appear in the fossil record in the order in which they are genetically related? Do you think that maybe we are overlooking a mammal or two in Devonian strata? Or maybe you think it's just a coincidence? Each option being terribly unreasonable when investigated. But what else could you mean?

No, I have already adequately expressed my position throughout this thread. I don't owe you or anyone else a "scientific" explanation, seeing as how I do not recognize the authority of man-made science, and doing so would only serve to provide it false legitimacy. You might as well ask an atheist to defend his attack on Christianity by providing a biblical explanation.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, I have already adequately expressed my position throughout this thread. I don't owe you or anyone else a "scientific" explanation, seeing as how I do not recognize the authority of man-made science, and doing so would only serve to provide it false legitimacy. You might as well ask an atheist to defend his attack on Christianity by providing a biblical explanation.

You haven't said a single word in this thread about why the fossil record mirrors phylogenetic trees of genetics studies.

Shrugs. As expected.

You don't appear to actually know about the theory.

You criticize scientists for having confirmation bias, including myself. Then when asked to elaborate you act as if it's an unreasonable request.

"Could you explain what you mean? Just curious about why phylogenetic trees mirror one another. Are you suggesting that the data is forged and made up? Or that the data is true and that there is another explanation beyond the obvious (evolution).

For example, regarding fish, amphibians and reptiles, why do they appear in the fossil record in the order in which they are genetically related? Do you think that maybe we are overlooking a mammal or two in Devonian strata? Or maybe you think it's just a coincidence? Each option being terribly unreasonable when investigated. But what else could you mean?"

If you ever reach a point where you are able to science, I'll be here. Until then, if you aren't able to discuss science, then your opinion on science can't be taken seriously.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

So unless I practice the delusion, I have no right to call it a delusion. Gotcha.

 

[Job 33:6]

So unless I practice the delusion, I have no right to call it a delusion. Gotcha.

Nobody said you have to be a scientist to call science delusional. But to be fair, you at least have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

"Could you explain what you mean? Just curious about why phylogenetic trees mirror one another. Are you suggesting that the data is forged and made up? Or that the data is true and that there is another explanation beyond the obvious (evolution).

For example, regarding fish, amphibians and reptiles, why do they appear in the fossil record in the order in which they are genetically related? Do you think that maybe we are overlooking a mammal or two in Devonian strata? Or maybe you think it's just a coincidence? Each option being terribly unreasonable when investigated. But what else could you mean?"

These are simple questions for people who understand the subject noted above in blue. But here, I could ask you a dozen times and I see nothing in response. It is telling of the situation. Why don't you even try to respond?

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

Oh please. The only reason you are claiming that I don't understand the so-called science is because I flat out reject it. It has nothing to do with the fact that I won't humor you. In your mind, no one who truly understands it could ever possibly reject it. That's the hypocricy, and I refuse to play ball.

But let it be known that I have indeed looked at the "evidence", and I remain entirely unconvinced. Now just maybe if I went into it with the presupposition that there was no God, along with a strong motive to demonstrate as much, I might "understand" things more to your liking. But as it stands, I have no more reason to impose with my own imagination so-called "correlations" in order to please darwinists then I have to recognize shapes in stars in order to please astrologists.

 

[Job 33:6]

Oh please. The only reason you are claiming that I don't understand the so-called science is because I flat out reject it. It has nothing to do with the fact that I won't humor you. In your mind, no one who truly understands it could ever possibly reject it. That's the hypocricy, and I refuse to play ball.

But let it be known that I have indeed looked at the "evidence", and I remain entirely unconvinced. Now just maybe if I went into it with the presupposition that there was no God, along with a strong motive to demonstrate as much, I might "understand" things more to your liking. But as it stands, I have no more reason to impose with my own imagination so-called "correlations" in order to please darwinists then I have to recognize shapes in stars in order to please astrologists.

If you really do understand the theory (I get the impression that you don't), then answer the question:

"Could you explain what you mean? Just curious about why phylogenetic trees mirror one another. Are you suggesting that the data is forged and made up? Or that the data is true and that there is another explanation beyond the obvious (evolution).

For example, regarding fish, amphibians and reptiles, why do they appear in the fossil record in the order in which they are genetically related? Do you think that maybe we are overlooking a mammal or two in Devonian strata? Or maybe you think it's just a coincidence? Each option being terribly unreasonable when investigated. But what else could you mean?"

Again, it's a simple question. I'm not asking for much here.

From what I gather, there are two possibilities here. A. Perhaps you don't understand the theory and don't understand what I am asking. Or;
B. You don't know how to answer (because there is no answer but evolution). And because you can't answer the question, you would rather just act like it's unreasonable to ask.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you really do understand the theory (I get the impression that you don't), then answer the question:

"Could you explain what you mean? Just curious about why phylogenetic trees mirror one another. Are you suggesting that the data is forged and made up? Or that the data is true and that there is another explanation beyond the obvious (evolution).

For example, regarding fish, amphibians and reptiles, why do they appear in the fossil record in the order in which they are genetically related? Do you think that maybe we are overlooking a mammal or two in Devonian strata? Or maybe you think it's just a coincidence? Each option being terribly unreasonable when investigated. But what else could you mean?"

Again, it's a simple question. I'm not asking for much here.

From what I gather, there are two possibilities here. A. Perhaps you don't understand the theory and don't understand what I am asking. Or;
B. You don't know how to answer (because there is no answer but evolution). And because you can't answer the question, you would rather just act like it's unreasonable to ask.

Would it make you feel better if I asked you the same question about plants? Why are plants found in the fossil succession in the same order of genetic relatedness?

You think this is just some odd coincidence? Maybe you think geologists are all wrong about the geologic column? Maybe we missed a horse skeleton in the Permian somewhere? Or maybe you think Noah's flood just somehow sorted fossils this way?

The truth is that deniers of evolution are incapable of responding. Because the moment they start opening the can of worms, it only gets worse. When you draw in phylogenies of comparative anatomy, ERVs, cytochrome C, proteins studies, morphology, paleogeography etc., Eventually you reach a point where you have 20 some odd phylogenetic trees overlapping one another and there's really just no explanation but evolution. It's an obvious conclusion. In practical terms, it is definitive proof of evolution.

And that's why you aren't responding. Because in truth, you can't.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

People once thought people were more like pigs. "Genetic relatedness" is a human invention. So is categorization - for instance, I have seen people claim the Bible is mistaken because in Job it refers to a whale as a great fish. But it's humans who create the parameters and categories. Science is a constructed system of human ideas all stacked upon itself, validating itself. Much of it is useful but it's fallible. The Bible is not - this is why God's Word and not science is the standard of truth.

 

[Job 33:6]

People once thought people were more like pigs. "Genetic relatedness" is a human invention. So is categorization - for instance, I have seen people claim the Bible is mistaken because in Job it refers to a whale as a great fish. But it's humans who create the parameters and categories. Science is a constructed system of human ideas all stacked upon itself, validating itself. Much of it is useful but it's fallible. The Bible is not - this is why God's Word and not science is the standard of truth.

What I'm saying is that if animal A has genes AAAA and animal B has genes AAAT, that animal A and B are more similar than animal C of ATGT.

Whether you admit that animals are related or not, their genetic similarity still holds order that matches what we see in the fossil record.

This is what I am referring to that you aren't addressing.

 

[Job 33:6]

What I'm saying is that if animal A has genes AAAA and animal B has genes AAAT, that animal A and B are more similar than animal C of ATGT.

Whether you admit that animals are related or not, their genetic similarity still holds order that matches what we see in the fossil record.

This is what I am referring to that you aren't addressing.

I'll make an effort to clarify. So if fish and reptiles have DNA that is more similar than fish and birds, then if evolution were true, we might expect fish and reptiles to appear (first appear, meaning when the earliest rock layers we find these fossils in based on geologic superposition) in the fossil succession closer to one another than fish and birds. And so it is. And the reverse is true as well. If mammals and reptiles appear closer in the fossil succession than mammals and amphibians, then we might expect DNA of mammals and reptiles to be more similar than mammals and amphibians. And so it is.

And this holds true on finer levels as well. Whales appear closer to ungulates in the fossil record than they do to fish, and so we might expect their genetics to be more similar, and so it is. A horse is more genetically similar to a giraffe than a mouse, and so we might expect a horse to appear closer to a giraffe than a horse to a mouse in the fossil record, and so it is.

We may find marginal discrepancies where there are margins of error. For example, if an amphibian in the fossil record was observed between 390 and 380 million years old, and debated trackways are observed at 395-390, there may be fine tuning at play in finely "zoomed in" sections of the fossil record, but by in large, and in practical terms, the above is simply the nature of creation and it is as true as the sun is hot.

Evolution easily explains this reality. Fish are closer genetically similar and closer in the fossil record to amphibians than they are to reptiles, mammals or birds, simply because the former evolved from fish. And the logic follows for all the above examples.

But if not evolution, what could possibly account for this synchronization of dozens of phylogenetic trees? Because after all, this goes well beyond just genetics and paleontology. But for simplicity I'm watering the topic down so that we can have a simple discussion about it.

The truth is that there is nothing either of us can say, nor anything either of us can do about this reality. It is definitive proof of evolution and it just is what it is. And the sooner we all get on the same page about this, the sooner we can move forward with our understanding God's creation.

And the same holds true for plants. Your seeded and flowering plants being closer than flowering and non vascular. Algae closer to bryophytes, angiosperms closer to filicinophytes than to bryophytes Etc which all aligned with morphology based phylogenies and comparative anatomy phylogenies etc etc etc.

 

[coffee4u]

Yeah the bible says 7 days, astronomy and geology say billions of years...you can preach your 7 days all you want...math does not lie...2+2 will all equal 4 no matter what the bible says...there is plenty in the bible that has been debunked. I do look at astronomy, archeology and geology. The thing is the speed of light debunks it all. When we see the andromeda galaxy...were seeing something from 2.537 million lightyears from us...it means it took over 2 million years for the light from that galaxy to reach. We have seen galaxies from over 13 billion light years away...that means it took 13 billion years to reach us...the earth and the universe are billions of years old...again I do not care what the bible says...2+2=4 its math

Matthew 12:36-37
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

Matthew 12:36-37
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Very true.

And there are a lot of "Christians" who are going to be in for a rude awakening.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

I'll make an effort to clarify. So if fish and reptiles have DNA that is more similar than fish and birds, then if evolution were true, we might expect fish and reptiles to appear (first appear, meaning when the earliest rock layers we find these fossils in based on geologic superposition) in the fossil succession closer to one another than fish and birds. And so it is. And the reverse is true as well. If mammals and reptiles appear closer in the fossil succession than mammals and amphibians, then we might expect DNA of mammals and reptiles to be more similar than mammals and amphibians. And so it is.

And this holds true on finer levels as well. Whales appear closer to ungulates in the fossil record than they do to fish, and so we might expect their genetics to be more similar, and so it is. A horse is more genetically similar to a giraffe than a mouse, and so we might expect a horse to appear closer to a giraffe than a horse to a mouse in the fossil record, and so it is.

We may find marginal discrepancies where there are margins of error. For example, if an amphibian in the fossil record was observed between 390 and 380 million years old, and debated trackways are observed at 395-390, there may be fine tuning at play in finely "zoomed in" sections of the fossil record, but by in large, and in practical terms, the above is simply the nature of creation and it is as true as the sun is hot.

Evolution easily explains this reality. Fish are closer genetically similar and closer in the fossil record to amphibians than they are to reptiles, mammals or birds, simply because the former evolved from fish. And the logic follows for all the above examples.

But if not evolution, what could possibly account for this synchronization of dozens of phylogenetic trees? Because after all, this goes well beyond just genetics and paleontology. But for simplicity I'm watering the topic down so that we can have a simple discussion about it.

The truth is that there is nothing either of us can say, nor anything either of us can do about this reality. It is definitive proof of evolution and it just is what it is. And the sooner we all get on the same page about this, the sooner we can move forward with our understanding God's creation.

And the same holds true for plants. Your seeded and flowering plants being closer than flowering and non vascular. Algae closer to bryophytes, angiosperms closer to filicinophytes than to bryophytes Etc which all aligned with morphology based phylogenies and comparative anatomy phylogenies etc etc etc.

And none of this has anything to do with a fish being the ancestor to a human being. I have never once denied microevolution. After all, Satan's lies often have an element of truth. My dispute is with darwinism - and darwinism is only empowered under the assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist. It exists as the only viable explanation of how things that appear designed could arise naturally - and if there were no God, then it would logically follow that darwinism (or something very similar to it) must be true. And no distinction is made between microevolution and macroevolution, as it is surmised that given enough time, these small observable changes would give rise to larger and larger changes. Ergo, darwinism is a proven, forgone conclusion to those who insist solely upon natural causes. But it is completely unnecessary to invoke such a theory if one accepts that there is a God who designs and personally creates.

 

[Job 33:6]

And none of this has anything to do with a fish being the ancestor to a human being. I have never once denied microevolution.

Alright, well if you ever plan to address my question, I'll be here. Based on your lack of response, I can only guess one of two things. A. The subject is just beyond your understanding, or B. You're unable to answer and are trying to change the subject. Or perhaps both could be true.

"Could you explain what you mean? Just curious about why phylogenetic trees mirror one another. Are you suggesting that the data is forged and made up? Or that the data is true and that there is another explanation beyond the obvious (evolution).

For example, regarding fish, amphibians and reptiles, why do they appear in the fossil record in the order in which they are genetically related? Do you think that maybe we are overlooking a mammal or two in Devonian strata? Or maybe you think it's just a coincidence? Each option being terribly unreasonable when investigated. But what else could you mean?"

How you managed to conclude that a discussion involving fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, spanning from the precambrian to today, was one of microevolution is beyond me. What I'm describing is anything but microevolution because it involves, as noted above, fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals. Which are above the species taxonomic level.

 

[DaveISBA]

Would it make you feel better if I asked you the same question about plants? Why are plants found in the fossil succession in the same order of genetic relatedness?

You think this is just some odd coincidence? Maybe you think geologists are all wrong about the geologic column? Maybe we missed a horse skeleton in the Permian somewhere? Or maybe you think Noah's flood just somehow sorted fossils this way?

The proof of what you claim is representations of plants found in a fossil succession in layers separated by millions of years are (drawings)? The fact that there are fossils at all and the primary reason for fossil formation is rapid burial in wet sediment, in many cases exquisitely preserved plants and animals before they could be eaten by scavengers or decompose indicates that these layers could not have been laid down over millions of years but were laid down rapidly!

The vast majority of fossils are found in sedimentary layers which were laid down by (the transportation and deposition of sediments by the action of water)! The layers are widespread on every continent, covering about 75% of the of the Earth's surface indicating a catastrophic worldwide watery event burying trillions of living organisms!
The vast majority of fossils, entombed in these layers, are marine creatures found on every continent to the highest mountain ranges including the Himalayas and Mt Everest which is significant...showing that the layers where laid down in a marine environment!

Also the drawings show no succession of anything but show fully formed and developed organisms with no transitional forms in between! The evidence is that life forms appeared abruptly and fully formed!

 

[Job 33:6]

The proof of what you claim is representations of plants found in a fossil succession in layers separated by millions of years are (drawings)? The fact that there are fossils at all and the primary reason for fossil formation is rapid burial in wet sediment, in many cases exquisitely preserved plants and animals before they could be eaten by scavengers or decompose indicates that these layers could not have been laid down over millions of years but were laid down rapidly!

The vast majority of fossils are found in sedimentary layers which were laid down by (the transportation and deposition of sediments by the action of water)! The layers are widespread on every continent, covering about 75% of the of the Earth's surface indicating a catastrophic worldwide watery event burying trillions of living organisms!
The vast majority of fossils, entombed in these layers, are marine creatures found on every continent to the highest mountain ranges including the Himalayas and Mt Everest which is significant...showing that the layers where laid down in a marine environment!

Also the drawings show no succession of anything but show fully formed and developed organisms with no transitional forms in between! The evidence is that life forms appeared abruptly and fully formed!

Still doesn't address the question at hand.

"Could you explain what you mean? Just curious about why phylogenetic trees mirror one another. Are you suggesting that the data is forged and made up? Or that the data is true and that there is another explanation beyond the obvious (evolution).

For example, regarding fish, amphibians and reptiles, why do they appear in the fossil record in the order in which they are genetically related? Do you think that maybe we are overlooking a mammal or two in Devonian strata? Or maybe you think it's just a coincidence? Each option being terribly unreasonable when investigated. But what else could you mean?"

I appreciate you lending a hand, but nowhere in your response are you answering the question of why phylogenetic trees are in synchrony between fields of paleontology and genetics.

Based on your response, my guess would be that you think that the fossil succession is "made-up", and that perhaps we don't see the order of fish>amphibian>reptile>mammal/bird, but rather perhaps we just draw pictures of fossils that aren't actually there?

I agree that the "global geologist conspiracy to destroy the bible" answer, would explain why the evidence makes it look as if evolution were true. But being a geologist myself and routinely digging up fossils first-hand just won't allow me to accept that I am a part of some conspiracy that I am unaware of.

 

[DaveISBA]

"Could you explain what you mean? Just curious about why phylogenetic trees mirror one another. Are you suggesting that the data is forged and made up? Or that the data is true and that there is another explanation beyond the obvious (evolution).

Phylogenetic trees? Rather blades of grass! Blades representing each life form springing up abruptly at the same time, fully formed with no evolutionary history! "Anatomy may fluctuate over time, but the last remnants of a species usually look pretty much like the first representatives."
If the data infers that the sedimentary layers were laid down over millions of years then data is made up and the illustrations are meaningless! The evidence is that, except for igneous, they were laid down rapidly by running water sorting out sediments made up of their own unique and almost pure elements, and is why sediment layers look layered. So your illustrations of the layers are a record of a watery event that buried trillions of life forms not a fossil record of millions of years of evolution!

For example, regarding fish, amphibians and reptiles, why do they appear in the fossil record in the order in which they are genetically related? Do you think that maybe we are overlooking a mammal or two in Devonian strata? Or maybe you think it's just a coincidence? Each option being terribly unreasonable when investigated. But what else could you mean?"

Other than the illustrations exactly where do they appear in the strata in that order? In fact fossils in sedimentary layers are overwhelmingly, 95%, comprised of marine life! The Grand Canyon said to expose one of the most complete sequences of rock anywhere, that can be traced right across North America, is said to have had marine environments creating many of the sedimentary rock layers where marine fossils are found throughout! The Claron Formation containing the Cenozoic Era at the top of the Grand Canyon, claimed to represent the last 66 million years, contain fossils of freshwater fish and an abundance of fossils of freshwater snails also plants and animals like bison all mixed together! Were animals like the bison slowly buried over hundreds or thousands of years?

I appreciate you lending a hand, but nowhere in your response are you answering the question of why phylogenetic trees are in synchrony between fields of paleontology and genetics.

The observable evidence of paleontology and genetics disproves the concept of phylogenetic trees! There is much evidence showing that living organisms appeared abruptly, fully formed at or about the same time with no evidence of ancestry!

Based on your response, my guess would be that you think that the fossil succession is "made-up", and that perhaps we don't see the order of fish>amphibian>reptile>mammal/bird, but rather perhaps we just draw pictures of fossils that aren't actually there?

Of course the fossils are there but your drawings show no evidence for Darwin's TOE! There is much evidence showing that living organisms appeared abruptly, fully formed at or about the same time!

 

[coffee4u]

And none of this has anything to do with a fish being the ancestor to a human being. I have never once denied microevolution. After all, Satan's lies often have an element of truth. My dispute is with darwinism - and darwinism is only empowered under the assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist. It exists as the only viable explanation of how things that appear designed could arise naturally - and if there were no God, then it would logically follow that darwinism (or something very similar to it) must be true. And no distinction is made between microevolution and macroevolution, as it is surmised that given enough time, these small observable changes would give rise to larger and larger changes. Ergo, darwinism is a proven, forgone conclusion to those who insist solely upon natural causes. But it is completely unnecessary to invoke such a theory if one accepts that there is a God who designs and personally creates.

The wording evolutionists used was all part of making the whole thing acceptable, make no mistake.
Like driving a wedge into something, they start with the thin edge and tap then once that's in place they can hammer the entire thing in firmly. They knew what they were doing when they coined the term 'micro evolution.' it was to make it easy for people to accept the term evolution and jump seamlessly over to macro.

Well I won't use their terms. There is adaptation, mutation, migration and isolation not 'micro evolution'. They are not the only group to take or coin a phrase for the sole purpose of making a term acceptable to the general population. It's a century old practice of persuasion tactics. Don't be manipulated.