• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why the theistic evolution position is both unbiblical and impossible

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your explaining why mice don't die off.
That's not what I asked.
My question is - why did mice need to develop in the first place?

Alge works just fine. Slime molds can travel as well. Why go any farther?
Lots of competition from all the other algae and slime mold. In the meantime there is an unexploited ecological niche for larger organisms that eat algae and slime mould, and then bigger ones to eat the algae eaters. By the time the algae has colonised the land, and grown up tall to get more sunlight, and the descendants of the algae eaters and algae eater eaters have colonised the land too, there is always a niche for an omnivore small enough to hide from the bigger predators among the taller descendants of the algae, who doesn't need too much food because of its small size and can reproduce enthusiastically. If there is a niche some organism will exploit it and adapt more an more to that niche. Hence mammalian mice and marsupial mice; flying squirrel and marsupial sugar glider; moles and marsupial moles; the (mammalian) kangaroo rat, jerboa and the marsupial hopping mouse; sharks and dolphins.

Still no thoughts on God giving the material world that ability to produce the first life? Do you agree it is a possibility in line with scripture, or do you just not have an answer?
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
SkyWriting

Thanks. I get the idea. The problem is that your sources, who ever they are, are using the same types of diagrams and same method of classifying as your opposition. If you base it on appearances, you may be wrong.

mariposas%201.jpg

Monarch butterfly on the left, viceroy butterfly on the right.

No, the charts that I provided giving the genetic formulas is the bottom line, not appearance (phenotype) alone. I thought I had made that clear.


image.php


I didn't post anything like this. Tigers to butterflies is unreasonable but cats to bats is not. Why are you having a hard time grasping this, dear friend?



Drone Fly
(Eristalis tenax), Pitt County Arboretum, Greenville, NC, 11/11/10, a relatively large flower fly that looks very much like a honey bee, but does not have a stinger.


This one could be at least a reasonable transition.


My point is that "human observation" just doesn't cut it. You can't make up a rule that says that "kinds don't change"
if your verification of the rule is based on human observations. The "Kinds" rule is not a biblical fact.

You're right. We agree. Comparison of phenotypes is not the deciding factor in what is and is not a genetic connection. Read again what I said above and in fact read my OP on Genetic Limitations and Mendelian...

The 'kinds rule' is a biblical fact and always has been. It is the rule of nature, O confused one.

I challenged the neo-Darwinians to produce the GENETIC FORMULA by revealing the genetic link of those organisms that are supposedly related(i.e. man to chimp). They couldn't do it because they won't genetically mingle. But since they have sold their souls to Darwin it doesn't matter to them. It should. The scientists of their ilk can't even force nature to go beyond the boundaries that God established in Genesis and they are blind to the fact that although the most brilliant minds in the world cannot do it...yet they believe nature did it blindly...:confused:

The idea of "Natural Selection" in that All misfits must die for the betterment of the group seems
to me a better argument. Easy to dispute with scripture. The "Kinds" argument is weak and species centric.
Kind of racist.

Then you need to get your mind right with God on the matter, because the 'kinds argument' is what God's Word teaches (17 times in the first seven chapters!). It is your lack of understanding that is the problem. How could you miss this? In fact how could you miss what I had required of the Darwinian drones in my challenge to provide the genetic formula for man-from-common ancestor scenario?

'Kind of racist'? What? Now I know there is a problem in your thinking. How did you miss that all the humans in the chart I posted were in the same category?:confused: There is only one 'race' as far as I am concerned...the human race.

It is Darwins idea that is racist...notice below the phrase: "Preservation of the FAVOURED RACES in the Struggle for Life."

images


So embarrasing is this fact to modern neo-Darwinians that their publishers commonly remove the subtitles that were seen above:

images
images
images


Darwinian evolution is a heresy before God and a damnable move by Satan to divert God's people from believing that God means what He says and says what He means...especially in the critical, foundational matter of the origins and purpose of our world. God said NOTHING about evolution either in Genesis or any other passage of holy writ. The theistic evolutionists apparently think that God must have thought humans too stupid to understand Darwinian-type evolution because none of them would understand such issues until 1859 when C. Darwin came along! They are all going to pay for that and pay dearly.

Don't be among them, friend.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
One other thing:

This to this....yes:

Drosophila-phylogeny.gif


But not this....to this...

images
images


And complaining that 'humginbirds did not evolve from flies' doesn't cut it. The fact is they don't KNOW what hummingbirds (or any other bird for that matter) supposedly evolved from. And there is no genetic formula that could establish empirically that such a thing ever happened or even ever could happen.

In other words...

Aug12275-2.jpg


...they cannot fill in the dotted lines between the tips of the branches (reality) and the organisms that supposedly existed in those dots(non-reality). That's why their position is such a huge joke and they insult their own intelligence in refusing to accept this fact.

Good grief, friend, they can't even tell us what the genetic formula for the divergance of vertebrates was from invertebrates or even what such organisms should be called(!). Notice that it's nothing but dotted lines in that category. Pure imagination.

Best wishes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is Darwins idea that is racist...notice below the phrase: "Preservation of the FAVOURED RACES in the Struggle for Life."

images


So embarrasing is this fact to modern neo-Darwinians that their publishers commonly remove the subtitles that were seen above:

images
images
images
Meet the first edition of Origin.

You are confusing the title page with the book cover.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We could also argue that there was no need for mice to be specially created either. Indeed we could ask why God created so many animals He knew would go extinct. You don't see many cynodonts nowadays. But that's not the topic of this thread. So if animals cannot be classified as being the same species (or "kind") by appearance alone - how do we determine if they're related?

I always let the mods decide if I'm too far off the topic. Not a peep from them yet.

"We could also argue that there was no need for..."
Yes we could. But first, why did "life" produce mice?
Slime mold works good enough.

I have a can of beans in my cupboard that says
what is sterile stays sterile.

There is no data to oppose that. Science says Creationism is correct.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The versions Kirk has shown DO INDEED have altered title pages.
You are confusing details with facts.

Amazon.com: The Origin of Species (Annotated) (Literary Classics Collection) eBook: Charles Darwin: Books

Really? Let him show us the inside title pages that have the infamous phrase "Preservation of the FAVOURED RACES in the Struggle for Life," as it is seen in modern editions.

Such an edition may exist but I have never seen it in modern textbooks or other editions of it. But he is avoiding the issue. Darwin, Huxley, et al were racists. So was Hitler who based his ethnic cleansing on 'survival of the fittest'. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I always let the mods decide if I'm too far off the topic. Not a peep from them yet.

"We could also argue that there was no need for..."
Yes we could. But first, why did "life" produce mice?
Slime mold works good enough.

I have a can of beans in my cupboard that says
what is sterile stays sterile.

There is no data to oppose that. Science says Creationism is correct.

To answer the "Indeed we could ask why God created so many animals He knew would go extinct." reply you got.

My they are lost.............so very, very lost on this matter. Of course God knew there would be many extinctions. It's all a part of the curse upon man & the rest of the world "The whole creation groaneth together in pain until now..." Romans 8:22.

They refuse to see the big picture: extinctions (thousands!) far exceed the rate of evolved organisms (none observed) because of the 2nd law, which in part, is the extension of the curse of God upon the world for man's sin and rebellion. That curse is the reason why living organisms grow old and die in the first place. There is no other reason.

This is perfect common sense but it doesn't make sense to them because they gave their minds over to lies (evolution) and Satan controls their thinking on these issues.

Best wishes.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
SkyWriting said:
"We could also argue that there was no need for..."
Yes we could. But first, why did "life" produce mice?
Slime mold works good enough.
That doesn't really answer my question. If there was "no need for mice to evolve" then why was there any need for mice to be specially created? Why does anything besides mould exist?

SkyWriting said:
Science says Creationism is correct.
Very few genuine scientists are creationists. The ones that are believe in creationism for religious reasons - not because there's any evidence for it.

Kirkwhisper said:
They refuse to see the big picture: extinctions (thousands!) far exceed the rate of evolved organisms (none observed) because of the 2nd law, which in part, is the extension of the curse of God upon the world for man's sin and rebellion. That curse is the reason why living organisms grow old and die in the first place. There is no other reason.
(My emphasis) If that was the case life on Earth would have died a very long time ago. Besides, I suspect you don't actually know what the second law of thermodynamics means.

And if extinctions are the result of the Fall, why didn't God offer animals salvation like He did with humans? Maybe tigers won't die out if we persuade them to accept Jesus ...
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That doesn't really answer my question. If there was "no need for mice to evolve" then why was there any need for mice to be specially created? Why does anything besides mould exist?

Sure. We can cover that after my question first.

Very few genuine scientists are creationists. The ones that are believe in creationism for religious reasons - not because there's any evidence for it.
I look forward to examining your data on that. Till then, it's just rubbish.

If that was the case life on Earth would have died a very long time ago. Besides, I suspect you don't actually know what the second law of thermodynamics means.

I know that people afraid of examination will hide behind sentences like that one. Happens all the time.



And if extinctions are the result of the Fall, why didn't God offer animals salvation like He did with humans? Maybe tigers won't die out if we persuade them to accept Jesus ...

Animals were not made in Gods image. Only people were.
Jesus didn't die for the benefit of animals. Of which we aren't.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
They didn't need to. They evolved because they could -- no other reason required. If staying algal and becoming more mouse-like are both successful ways of being a living organism, and if some of the algae happen to become more mouse-like, then both groups are likely to flourish.

They didn't evolve because evolution does not exist and never did. God's six day creation...bringing special immediate creation to this world is the only truth of origins in our world.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Skyrwriting said:
Notedstrangeperson said:
Very few genuine scientists are creationists. The ones that are believe in creationism for religious reasons - not because there's any evidence for it.
I look forward to examining your data on that. Till then, it's just rubbish.

In 1987 an article in Newsweek noted "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science." That means out of all of the Earth and life scientists in the USA, only around 0.14% support some form of creationism.

The actual level of support is probably lower. Those 700 were the results of signatures collected from the anti-evolutionist Discovery Institue, and it was later revealed they had manipulated the data.

SkyWriting said:
Animals were not made in Gods image. Only people were.
Jesus didn't die for the benefit of animals. Of which we aren't.
We belong to the kingdom animalia, so we are animals. Besides, the extinction of the dinosaurs or any other animals which lived before mankind can't be attributed to human sin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They didn't evolve because evolution does not exist and never did. God's six day creation...bringing special immediate creation to this world is the only truth of origins in our world.

I agree with your origins understanding. But the 20 to 40,000 land animals that would fit on the Ark have changed since then.

And I don't believe Adam named every current species that we have today.
So there have been changes to the animal populations since those two events. Those changes are due to the evolution of populations. Or adaptive changes.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The versions Kirk has shown DO INDEED have altered title pages.
Kirk showed the book covers, and claimed the publishers had removed the subtitles out of embarrassment. The book cover never had the subtitle, and unless a book is a facsimile, wordy title pages of old books are often trimmed down.

Compare the title page of Pilgrim's Progress here
John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress
Edited with an Introduction and Notes
by W.R. Owens
with the original title page
The pilgrim's progress: from this world to that which is to come, delivered under the similitude of a dream, wherein is discovered the manner of his setting out, his dangerous journey, and safe arrival at the desired country
I have used similitudes Hof 12:10
By John Bunyan
Or how about Gullivers Travels whose modern title page

Gullivers Travels
Jonathan Swift

is slightly shorter than the original
Travels into Several Remote
Nations of the World,
in Four Parts.
By Lemuel Gulliver,
First a Surgeon, and then
a Captain of Several Ships.
And yet it is right there in the introduction:
Introduction
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859)[sup]1[/sup] is one of the major books of western civilization and possibly the last major scientific text fully readable by nonscientists. It was written before the full force of scientific specialization had created the division we are used to today: science written for scientists, and intelligible only to them, or popular science aimed not at being science but at explaining it, and (usually) making otherwise too difficult scientific ideas attractive to the nonexpert.
The odd thing is, The Origin of Species isn't about human evolution, and if you want to know what Darwin meant by 'races' here are a few quotes
"the several races, for instance, of the cabbage..."

"When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants..."

"It has often been loosely said that all our races of dogs have been produced by the crossing of a few aboriginal species..."

"if we account for our several domestic races by this process, we must admit the former existence of the most extreme forms, as the Italian greyhound, bloodhound, bull-dog, &c..."

"I am fully convinced that the common opinion of naturalists is correct, namely, that all have descended from the rock-pigeon (Columba livia), including under this term several geographical races or sub-species..."

"In the time of the Romans, as we hear from Pliny, immense prices were given for pigeons; "nay, they are come to this pass, that they can reckon up their pedigree and race.""

"When a race of plants is once pretty well established..."

"Several most experienced ornithologists consider our British red grouse as only a strongly-marked race of a Norwegian species..."

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic..."
This was a common meaning of the word race in Victorian times, a meaning lost during the twentieth century, when race came exclusively to mean our fellow human beings and the ugliness and brutality of our treatment of each other.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Assyrian: While Darwin used the term "race" to refer to groups i.e. races of cabbage, he probably used it to apply to human ethnic groups as well. We can't really deny that social Darwinism had nothing to do with evolution.

Of course, Darwin being a racist (as practically every white male in the 19th century was) doesn't disprove evolution. Many terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, but that doesn't negate the existance of Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I agree with your origins understanding. But the 20 to 40,000 land animals that would fit on the Ark have changed since then.

Despite the fact that both Moses (Genesis 7) said it happened? Despite the fact that the Lord Jesus confirmed that the Genesis account happened? (Matthew 24:37-39)? Whoa!

And I don't believe Adam named every current species that we have today.

Why not? Why would it have been so hard for Adam to observe the Equidae family

images


and say, "This I will call the horse kind".

Or to view flying creatures...

images


...only to decide, 'This I will call 'the fowl of the air' or 'birds'?

You have created a problem for yourself that did not exist for Adam.

Understand that the truly legitimate classification of animals resides with Moses in the law (Leviticus & Deuteronomy) and not in Linneaus. Linneaus is only helpful but not infallible.

So there have been changes to the animal populations since those two events. Those changes are due to the evolution of populations. Or adaptive changes.

I don't believe what Darwinists say about evolution of populations. Environment does not change genes, but it may give rise to latent characteristics in living organisms that were not previously expressed in the phenotype. So some who have genes that provide adequate physical characteristics in a certain environment/climate survived while others perished.

Yes, there have been changes and the genotypic characteristics that had not been fully developed by Noah's time are now seen...within the family.

I am sorry you struggle with this aspect of biological change, friend, but it is not that hard to figure out that what God imposed upon nature in 'kind's' as is seen in what Mendel showed us. And that discovery has not changed much since his day. He was right and Darwin was wrong. Dead wrong. Modern creationists are correct in this matter and the neo-Darwinians are in error.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
331
36
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟31,352.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
And complaining that 'humginbirds did not evolve from flies' doesn't cut it. The fact is they don't KNOW what hummingbirds (or any other bird for that matter) supposedly evolved from. And there is no genetic formula that could establish empirically that such a thing ever happened or even ever could happen.
Yes because constructing strawmen and then denying that they are strawmen makes for a valid argument. You rail against evolution saying that nothing produces outside its kind as if this is not what evolution believes, well considering that our understanding of taxonomics has grown such that we no longer use domains, kingdoms, etc. purely because there are far more divisions than what that system can deal with, nevermind the fact that we had originally started to give the other levels names.

Good grief, friend, they can't even tell us what the genetic formula for the divergance of vertebrates was from invertebrates or even what such organisms should be called(!). Notice that it's nothing but dotted lines in that category. Pure imagination.
From my understanding the dotted lines actually represent extinct species rather than extant ones, not to mention it appears to be far older than a current tree of life
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Kirkwhisper said:
Why not? Why would it have been so hard for Adam to observe the Equidae family

images


and say, "This I will call the horse kind".

Or to view flying creatures...

images


...only to decide, 'This I will call 'the fowl of the air' or 'birds'?

You have created a problem for yourself that did not exist for Adam.

Presuming Adam lived somewhere in the Middle East (which the Bible suggest) how would he have been able to name animals which lived in other parts of the world?

What, for example, would he think of Kangaroos?
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Yes because constructing strawmen...blah, blah, blah...

"nevermind the fact that we had originally started to give the other levels names."

And since 1859 what names belonging to REAL organisms fill in those dotted lines? What is the name of the common ancestor between vertebrates and invertebrates and give the genetic formula for the same.

Forget it. I'd rather communicate with those who have not shut down their critical thinking process and blindly accepted the lies of neo-Darwinian thought.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0