[__ Science __ ] Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution.

[Barbarian]

You're still dodging....why would the rule be made and based upon an event that never happened?

As you learned, allegories in the Bible can involve actual events.

 

[Barbarian]

You say that there is plenty of evidence but have yet to address the issues that I presented. How could a prokaryotic cell possess all the genetic information needed to pass down to every single organism ever to live

Fortunately, God made organisms with the ability to change over time. Mutation and natural selection.

and yet not be able to form a nucleus?

Endosymbiosis. Would you like me to show you again?

A prokaryotic cell has 1 chromosome.

Some do. But at least some have 2 complete chromosomes, and many, many have smaller DNA molecules called "plasmids", which are different than chromosomes only in size. How do you think they exchange genetic information during conjugation?

How could one chromosome contain the genetic information that humans need 23 chromosome to contain?

Thanks to God's wisdom, they don't. He made them to evolve over time. Perhaps you don't know what "information"is in biology. How do you think it's determined?

 

[Barbarian]

Isnt there a very large grave yard of land dinosaurs that all suddenly died at the same time in Montana and the state's surrounding Montana?

There are several fossil river deltas like that in the west. The bones show up in the deltas because animals that die in the river or near it can be washed into the river and then go downstream until the river slows at the delta. There's a huge delta system in the Karoo in South Africa that has many millions of fossils. All of these are natural processes.

Also when you explain the fall of Adam how do you explain the presence of death in those billions and billions of organisms that led to the evolution of mankind when death didnt enter the picture until the fall occurred?

You're confusing physical death with the death that God told Adam about. He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats from the tree, but lives on physically for many years. If that death was physical, then God didn't tell the truth. But God is truthful, so we know it wasn't a physical death, but a spiritual one.

Also if mankind is the product of evolution you cant expect me to believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans there must have been an entire population besides them.

But only two were given living souls. The others being innocent as other animals, were not condemned.

 

[Barbarian]

simply put: evolution fails to address creation of time space matter

Darwin, for example, just thought there was a creator. No scientific theory explains creation. Evolutionary theory merely explains how living things change over time.

- creation succeeds at all points

But creationism fails, for the reasons we've discussed.

 

[Barbarian]

A lot of confusion could be cleared up by realizing that evolution (an observed phenomenon) is not evolutionary theory (which explains the phenomenon) and is not consequeces of evolution such as common descent.

 

[Cygnus]

You don't agree with it, but as you see, God Himself says "land" not "whole world."

Once again I need to explain to you words may have several nuances...and the subject matters.

Acts 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Acts is pretty clear about face of the earth means the whole planet.

Gen 11:9 Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth. And from there the LORD dispersed them over the face of all the earth.

Same with Gen

 

[Cygnus]

As you learned, allegories in the Bible can involve actual events.

So what? As presented to you prior....Paul presented it to Timothy as literal when he wrote about the rule for women in church.

 

[Moseme]

There are several fossil river deltas like that in the west. The bones show up in the deltas because animals that die in the river or near it can be washed into the river and then go downstream until the river slows at the delta. There's a huge delta system in the Karoo in South Africa that has many millions of fossils. All of these are natural processes.



You're confusing physical death with the death that God told Adam about. He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats from the tree, but lives on physically for many years. If that death was physical, then God didn't tell the truth. But God is truthful, so we know it wasn't a physical death, but a spiritual one.



But only two were given living souls. The others being innocent as other animals, were not condemned.

You are saying an awful lot that can't be proven by science or scripture. But lets first address mutation and natural selection. In every instance of natural selection genetic information is lost. We can see this by looking at domesticated animals and selective breeding it is the same principle just in one instance a breeder selects which information gets passed on and which information does not, I'm the other nature decides and is a lot slower. As for mutation, in almost every single case of genetic mutation the mutation is harmful. If the only way for a species to evolve is for it to mutate, then life would have ended long, long ago before life moved past being unicellular.

No genetic information is easy to define. It is the different sequences of base pairs that form DNA and instruct our bodies in how to develop and grow, etc. Different sequences make different genes. In fact the complexity of DNA is one of the main pieces of evidence against atheism and evolution.

Now concerning spiritual death with physical death, true God was telling Adam about spiritual death. However, physical death is the consequence of spiritual death. As a fish will begin to die when separated from water, mankind began to die when we were separated from God who is the source of life. You present a God where death and evolution is needed to make mankind perfect in God's eyes. I present a God who got it right the first time.

Now I would like to cover you talkinga bout how only two humans were given living souls. Why only them two? Did your God show favoritism? Why did he only want a relationship with those two? And did he choose wrong? Would another pair have not sinned? I mean he had alot to choose from at least some of them would have obeyed.

No one is arguing against micro-evolution. We can observe it. It is the theory of macro-evolution that has no evidence to support it. You would think that with all of this time, all of these fossils, that they would have found some transitionary fossils by now. But no. Evolutionists seems to know everything there is to know about the missing link, except the fact that its still missing.

 

[Barbarian]

You are saying an awful lot that can't be proven by science or scripture.

It's all very well-documented. Pick one and we'll see.

But lets first address mutation and natural selection. In every instance of natural selection genetic information is lost.

No, that's demonstrably false. Suppose we have a population with three alleles for a given gene. Two of them have a frequency of 0.49 and one has a frequency of 0.02. Natural selection favors the new allele (0.02) and soon the frequencies are about 0.3333 for each one.

As you might know from information theory, the first case, the information is 0.27, and in the second case, it is 0.47. Natural selection increased information.

What else do you have?

As for mutation, in almost every single case of genetic mutation the mutation is harmful.

That's wrong, too. The vast majority of mutation do nothing detectable. You have dozens of mutations that were not present in either parent. Unless you're very unlucky, none of them harm you.

If the only way for a species to evolve is for it to mutate, then life would have ended long, long ago before life moved past being unicellular.

Yes. Without natural selection, things would just fall apart. That was Darwin's great discovery.

No genetic information is easy to define.

Claude Shannon first applied his information theory to biology, and it turns out, it's rather easy to apply.

It is the different sequences of base pairs that form DNA and instruct our bodies in how to develop and grow, etc.

No. That's not it. Would you like to learn how information is measured? It's an interesting story; it not only population geneticists to study information in living things, it permits the internet to work and allows us to communicate over billions of kilometers using low-powered radios.

Now concerning spiritual death with physical death, true God was telling Adam about spiritual death.

Of course. Physical death had been present form the beginning of life.

You present a God where death and evolution is needed to make mankind perfect in God's eyes.

No. Only God's breathing into each of us a living soul makes us capable of fellowship with Him. Evolution is just the way he makes new species.

Now I would like to cover you talkinga bout how only two humans were given living souls. Why only them two?

He didn't say. I trust He did it the right way.

I mean he had alot to choose from at least some of them would have obeyed.

What does God say that it takes to become like Him? If you know that, you'll have your answer. Read your Bible and think. I'll let you know if you don't find it, and explain why this happened as it did.

You would think that with all of this time, all of these fossils, that they would have found some transitionary fossils by now. But no.

Well, let's ask some YE creationists who know the evidence...
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Dr. Kurt Wise, YE creationist, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Evolutionists seems to know everything there is to know about the missing link, except the fact that its still missing.

Ah, you heard it wrong. It's the "missing lynx." And they found it:

L. issiodorensis is the widely accepted earliest ancestral species of the genus Lynx. Approximately 2 million years ago, the species migrated to Asia and Europe. Compared to lynxes, L. issiodorensis had a larger head, shorter legs and more robust limb bones which resembled that of the modern puma. However, it had lynx-like teeth. The species gradually got smaller in size and evolved longer legs as an adaptation towards the forest habitat and gave rise to the species L. lynx in Asia and L. pardina in Europe.

Eurasian Lynx | Largest Lynx of the world

The Eurasian Lynx is a solitary, medium-sized predator and is the largest species of lynx. Eurasian lynxes are found in large number across Europe and Asia.

www.aboutanimals.com

 

[Barbarian]

So what? As presented to you prior....Paul presented it to Timothy as literal when he wrote about the rule for women in church.

I don't find any version of the NT in which Paul says it was literally true. If your argument is that whenever an allegory of the OT is mentioned in the NT, that converts it to a literal history, I'd be willing to hear your reasoning. What do you have?

 

[Barbarian]

Once again I need to explain to you words may have several nuances...and the subject matters.

So "Face of the earth" can mean different things in different places. Just like "erets." Sometimes just "hereabouts" and sometimes "all the land." Or whatever.

You seem to have made my point for me.

 

[Cygnus]

I don't find any version of the NT in which Paul says it was literally true. If your argument is that whenever an allegory of the OT is mentioned in the NT, that converts it to a literal history, I'd be willing to hear your reasoning. What do you have?

HUH???...Why would Paul base a rule on an event that didn't happen? Give up barb...you lost.

 

[Cygnus]

So "Face of the earth" can mean different things in different places. Just like "erets." Sometimes just "hereabouts" and sometimes "all the land." Or whatever.

You seem to have made my point for me.

I'm not buying your false interpretation. You've been shown many times...It's amazing what you have done to force fit evolutionism into the bible.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm not buying your false interpretation.

Doesn't matter. It's just what the Bible says. You've been shown many times.

It's amazing what you have done to force fit creationism into the Bible. At some point, you need to accept that God put neither creationism nor evolution in the Bible. It's not the message He wanted to give us.

Evolution is just part of His creation, like everything else.

 

[Barbarian]

.Why would Paul base a rule on an event that didn't happen?

As I showed you, the Bible has allegories about things that actually happened. You're still stuck trying to figure that out.

 

[Moseme]

It's all very well-documented. Pick one and we'll see.



No, that's demonstrably false. Suppose we have a population with three alleles for a given gene. Two of them have a frequency of 0.49 and one has a frequency of 0.02. Natural selection favors the new allele (0.02) and soon the frequencies are about 0.3333 for each one.

As you might know from information theory, the first case, the information is 0.27, and in the second case, it is 0.47. Natural selection increased information.

What else do you have?



That's wrong, too. The vast majority of mutation do nothing detectable. You have dozens of mutations that were not present in either parent. Unless you're very unlucky, none of them harm you.



Yes. Without natural selection, things would just fall apart. That was Darwin's great discovery.



Claude Shannon first applied his information theory to biology, and it turns out, it's rather easy to apply.



No. That's not it. Would you like to learn how information is measured? It's an interesting story; it not only population geneticists to study information in living things, it permits the internet to work and allows us to communicate over billions of kilometers using low-powered radios.



Of course. Physical death had been present form the beginning of life.



No. Only God's breathing into each of us a living soul makes us capable of fellowship with Him. Evolution is just the way he makes new species.



He didn't say. I trust He did it the right way.



What does God say that it takes to become like Him? If you know that, you'll have your answer. Read your Bible and think. I'll let you know if you don't find it, and explain why this happened as it did.



Well, let's ask some YE creationists who know the evidence...
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Dr. Kurt Wise, YE creationist, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Ah, you heard it wrong. It's the "missing lynx." And they found it:

L. issiodorensis is the widely accepted earliest ancestral species of the genus Lynx. Approximately 2 million years ago, the species migrated to Asia and Europe. Compared to lynxes, L. issiodorensis had a larger head, shorter legs and more robust limb bones which resembled that of the modern puma. However, it had lynx-like teeth. The species gradually got smaller in size and evolved longer legs as an adaptation towards the forest habitat and gave rise to the species L. lynx in Asia and L. pardina in Europe.

Eurasian Lynx | Largest Lynx of the world

The Eurasian Lynx is a solitary, medium-sized predator and is the largest species of lynx. Eurasian lynxes are found in large number across Europe and Asia.

www.aboutanimals.com

Again I repeat as have everyone else have, you have no scripture and your "science" is heavily flawed.

First you try to take a very simple principle (ie genetic information) and try to turn it into a very complicated explanation and in this complexity you hope to lose and fool those discussing evidence with you. At the end of your explanation you are talking about a different matter than the other person had presented. You also avoid many topics (such as the complexity of DNA and genetic information being a major piece of evidence against evolution) hoping that your previous overly complex and irrelevant answer would distract from the fact that you dont answer other questions. You quote my statement about God talking to Adam about spiritual death but exclude where I said physical death is always the result of spiritual death, trying to make it seem as if my point was something than it originally was. And sometimes your answers are just lies (not saying you are intentionally lying as I believe that you most likely sincerely believe these errors). I'm not going to be drawn into it I'm just going to call you out on this.

But let's keep things simple. First we can observe that the fossil evidence tells us a different story than evolution. Evolutionists will tell us that as some species evolve there should be a progression in the diversity of lifeforms on earth. The fossil history of organisms that actually lived instead show a different story of a regression in earth's diversity. We can observe that there are no transitionary fossils as every example that you gave have not been proven to true. A millions years from now if there are still evolutionists they will claim that the platypus is the link between ducks and beaver.

The vast majority of observable mutations are what we call cancer, genetic diseases, and genetic disorders. You cannot say that there are many mutations that do not harm but we just can't detect them. You cant present information that cannot be tested, otherwise I would just say that God is creating millions of new animals everyday without evolution but we cant see them since they are not fallen and are spiritual.

If Darwin was alive today he would condemn his own theories of macro-evolution. He had stated that if any part of an organism can have irreducible complexity then that part could ever have evolved because it could not have been less than it currently is and still function. So explain in simple terms how the human eye evolved. What came first, the lens or the iris? When was the retina added?

Also though I am not an evolutionist, I am also not a creationist as we see presented by Ken Ham and the creation museum.

 

[Cygnus]

Doesn't matter. It's just what the Bible says. You've been shown many times.

It's amazing what you have done to force fit creationism into the Bible. At some point, you need to accept that God put neither creationism nor evolution in the Bible. It's not the message He wanted to give us.

Evolution is just part of His creation, like everything else.

The bible doesn't support evolutionism.

 

[Cygnus]

As I showed you, the Bible has allegories about things that actually happened. You're still stuck trying to figure that out.

You didn't answer the question
Why would Paul base a rule on an event that didn't happen?

 

[Barbarian]

You didn't answer the question

You didn't like the answer you got.

As you know, God does allegories about real events.

Why would Paul base a rule on an event that didn't happen?

As you realize, the Fall was a real event, even if God told us a parable about it. But your assumption is not really about that. It's a more fundamental question.

Do you suppose there was a real good Samaritan, or did Jesus just tell us a parable about it?

Do you think the rule He gave was less valid if it was based on an event that didn't really happen?

 

[Barbarian]

The bible doesn't support evolutionism.

It doesn't support YE creationism, either. It is however, entirely consistent with evolution. As you know, "evolutionism" is a creationist superstition about science.