God says life was brought forth by the earth, air, and waters. You think those are alive, or do you think God is wrong?
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
God says life was brought forth by the earth, air, and waters. You think those are alive, or do you think God is wrong?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Oh, yeah, because, in the thinking of everybody who understands the English language, the word, ORIGIN, has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the way anything BEGAN, and the word, SPECIES, has nothing, whatsoever, to do with LIFE. Bravo!
What, then, would you say your "evolutionary theory" IS ABOUT?
Your "evolutionary theory" is supposed to be about the way at least SOME life began, is it not? For instance, when Darwin cheerleaders say "Dinosaurs evolved into birds", do you wish to tell us that they are NOT claiming something about the way the life OF ALL BIRDS began?
So, about WHICH LIFE are you talking when you say "Evolutionary theory isn't about the way life began"?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What (if anything) do you mean, here, when you say that "life was brought forth by the earth, air, and waters"?
Would you like to tell us that "Water evolved into fish"?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Speaking of literalness, what (if anything) would you literally mean by saying "Dinosaurs evolved into birds", as many other Darwin cheerleaders like to say?
What would you say it is for one thing to literally "evolve into" another thing?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You're brazenly lying against creationists.
Please directly quote the exact words of the creationist(s) to whom you are referring, here, wherein you imagine that these creationists are calling some DNA, "junk DNA", and claiming that it is "without a function".
I just now quote-mined the internet to find out that, according to Scientific American, some geneticist named Susumu Ohno coined the phrase, "junk DNA"--"to describe all noncoding sections of a genome..." Would you say Ohno was a creationist? Please tell us, Professor.
Of course, it's Barbarian referencing scripture, so you can be certain of one thing: It's wrong.
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:11-12, 20-21 NKJV
Genesis 1:11-12, 20-21 NKJV
Also, the Bible says God placed the sun and moon after creating plants. But don't look at that. Barbarian doesn't want you looking at that. Just the stuff he can pretend preaches his religion of Evolutionism.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Some crazy people (Darwinian's) think that corruption means improvement, or corruption means progress.... or some such idiocy. :rotfl:
6days
New member
Evolutionism... Advocacy of the common ancestry belief system. Creationism... Advocacy of 'in six days God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them'..Barbarian said:
common ancestry beliefs involves things much more bizarre than 'fish' that can evolve into philosophers.Barbarian said:
Nobody said otherwise. What I did say was that evolutionism often involves the belief that life can come from non-life. (Chemical evolution). Many also believe in stellar evolution, which takes on many forms... Some have said that nothing caused everything. Some think it was a cold whoosh... Or a big bounce.Barbarian said:
Evolutionists called it junk DNA...or, flotsam.... Or, jetsam. They promoted the idea of junk DNA to try and sell their belief system. Science is in the process of unraveling that false belief.Barbarian said:
You are slipping into your old habits of being dishonest. Evolutionists tried to sell their belief system by claiming that the appendix was "useless".Barbarian said:
In contrast God's word tells us that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.Barbarian said:
it isn't quite so easy to rewrite history as you wish. Scientific racism flourished after Darwin. As Stephen Jay Gould, a famous evolutionist "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."Barbarian said:
Shoddy conclusions like that were based in evolutionism as opposed to biblical creation. If so called ERV's have similar functionality between organisms, it points to our Creator. And...science continues to show design and functionality (such as regulating human transcription on a large scale) in what evolutionist once dismissed as parasitic junk sequences.Barbarian said:
I would say that I don’t have the foggiest clue if birds evolved into dinosaurs or not. Biological science is not my field of expertise. I have some knowledge of science, and the scientific method and I respect it.
In order to offer my opinion on whether or not dinosaurs evolved into birds, I would have to spend a lot of time studying science and evolution. Then, after I had considered all the facts available to me, I could form an opinion. Until then, it’s possible that dinosaurs did evolve into birds and it’s possible that they did not in my opinion.
We can be very confident that dinosaurs existed long before we did based on our current information and we know that something killed them because they no longer exist. We know that millions of species exist today so all life was not extinguished in that event. How all that life came to be
what it is now is beyond my knowledge so I can’t say that I know one way or the other.
Lon
Well-known member
I had read this recently in Answers. It is a medical doctor discussing biblically why we cannot accept even 'theistic evolution.' Good read and his bible challenge is solid (and "challenging").
Lon
Well-known member
This kind of sound-byte just isn't helpful, regardless if it is rebuttal.
Evolutionism (from the 19th century. If anyone is going to take anyone else seriously, it is going to have to be without this kind of debate ploy. It just makes it so people will question everything else said by the person doing it. That's why if even a tenth of retribution, it ruins credibility. The natural response is to ask "what else isn't really a quote or true?" :e4e:
The invitation remains open:
The theory of evolution is that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.
There are a number of challenges to this idea, the top one being the fact that entropy sends things toward decay. It doesn't build things.
Darwinists are free to engage sensibly over these issues. That would involve accepting what it is we disagree with, not changing the definition of evolution to "change," which isn't a theory. That would also require them to respond to the challenge, not turn it into something else (which ironically also runs counter to their ideas).
lain:
Evolutionary theory is from the 19th century. Evolutionism is the collection of misconceptions people have about evolution.
Hence, we see people who believe "evolutionism" who think evolution is about the origin of life, denies the Bible, and all those other misconceptions. Just as creationism isn't creation, neither is evolutionism, evolutionary theory.
If we are to make any progress at all, we have to separate what evolution is, from what evolutionary theory is, from what so many uninformed people believe they are. Hence, "evolutionism." The first is an observed phenomenon,the second is the theory that explains it, and the third is the collection of misunderstandings about it.
And there's one other misconception; common descent isn't evolution; it's a consequence of evolution. This is why one gets so many incredulous responses, when it's pointed out that evolution is observed constantly. Evolution is merely a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Darwinian evolution includes increasing fitness in a population by random variation and natural selection, as well as the evolution of new taxa.
I think you'll find that most creationist organizations now admit everything but common descent of all living things on Earth; as one group puts it, Darwin sees one bush of common descent, and they see many bushes.
Rather than a single common ancestor of all life, the Genesis account suggests an “orchard” of life arising from separate created kinds. The similarities at the top of this evolutionary tree may indicate actual common ancestry within the orchard of created kinds.
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/tree-orchard-life/
This admission is often vigorously denied by many, who don't know how creationists have come to accommodate new evidence for evolution.
Retribution isn't the point. If we don't have a common vocabulary, we get nowhere. Many scientists think that the obfuscation is intentional. I don't think it is, for most creationists. As you might have noticed here, they are often incredulous when they learn that the theory is not about the origin of life.
Tony Reed just never considered natural selection. Observations of natural populations have shown that even slight changes in environment will result in a change in the population phenotype, and an increase in fitness. All the theoretical speculation in the world won't change observed reality.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 25; 105(12): 4792–4795
Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource
Anthony Herrel et al
Abstract
Although rapid adaptive changes in morphology on ecological time scales are now well documented in natural populations, the effects of such changes on whole-organism performance capacity and the consequences on ecological dynamics at the population level are often unclear. Here we show how lizards have rapidly evolved differences in head morphology, bite strength, and digestive tract structure after experimental introduction into a novel environment. Despite the short time scale (≈36 years) since this introduction, these changes in morphology and performance parallel those typically documented among species and even families of lizards in both the type and extent of their specialization. Moreover, these changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure, providing a compelling example of how the invasion of a novel habitat can evolutionarily drive multiple aspects of the phenotype.
And there it is. Precisely what the "experts" claim couldn't happen. But it did. Reality vs. Wm. Dembski's numbers. Reality wins.
There's more. Anyone need to see more?
Last edited by a moderator:
Science 14 Jul 2006:
Vol. 313, Issue 5784, pp. 224-226
Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin's Finches
Peter R. Grant*, B. Rosemary Grant
Abstract
Competitor species can have evolutionary effects on each other that result in ecological character displacement; that is, divergence in resource-exploiting traits such as jaws and beaks. Nevertheless, the process of character displacement occurring in nature, from the initial encounter of competitors to the evolutionary change in one or more of them, has not previously been investigated. Here we report that a Darwin's finch species (Geospiza fortis) on an undisturbed Galápagos island diverged in beak size from a competitor species (G. magnirostris) 22 years after the competitor's arrival, when they jointly and severely depleted the food supply. The observed evolutionary response to natural selection was the strongest recorded in 33 years of study, and close to the value predicted from the high heritability of beak size. These findings support the role of competition in models of community assembly, speciation, and adaptive radiations.
From Princeton University:
Gene behind ‘evolution in action’ in Darwin’s finches identified
Scientists from Princeton University and Uppsala University in Sweden have identified a specific gene that within a year helped spur a permanent physical change in a finch species in response to a drought-induced food shortage. The findings provide a genetic basis for natural selection that, when combined with observational data, could serve as a comprehensive model of evolution.
Environmental change coupled with the gene HMGA2 drove the rapid evolution of a smaller overall beak size in the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis) that inhabits Daphne Major in the Galápagos Islands. Members of the species — which belong to the group of 18 bird species known as Darwin’s finches that populate the Galápagos — possessed small or large beaks. Medium ground finches with smaller beaks, however, survived a severe two-year drought better than medium ground finches with larger beaks, the researchers report in the journal Science.
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016/04/21/gene-behind-evolution-action-darwins-finches-identified
This new allele quickly became widespread through the population in response to a drought that changed food supply available to finches.
Vol. 313, Issue 5784, pp. 224-226
Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin's Finches
Peter R. Grant*, B. Rosemary Grant
Abstract
Competitor species can have evolutionary effects on each other that result in ecological character displacement; that is, divergence in resource-exploiting traits such as jaws and beaks. Nevertheless, the process of character displacement occurring in nature, from the initial encounter of competitors to the evolutionary change in one or more of them, has not previously been investigated. Here we report that a Darwin's finch species (Geospiza fortis) on an undisturbed Galápagos island diverged in beak size from a competitor species (G. magnirostris) 22 years after the competitor's arrival, when they jointly and severely depleted the food supply. The observed evolutionary response to natural selection was the strongest recorded in 33 years of study, and close to the value predicted from the high heritability of beak size. These findings support the role of competition in models of community assembly, speciation, and adaptive radiations.
From Princeton University:
Gene behind ‘evolution in action’ in Darwin’s finches identified
Scientists from Princeton University and Uppsala University in Sweden have identified a specific gene that within a year helped spur a permanent physical change in a finch species in response to a drought-induced food shortage. The findings provide a genetic basis for natural selection that, when combined with observational data, could serve as a comprehensive model of evolution.
Environmental change coupled with the gene HMGA2 drove the rapid evolution of a smaller overall beak size in the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis) that inhabits Daphne Major in the Galápagos Islands. Members of the species — which belong to the group of 18 bird species known as Darwin’s finches that populate the Galápagos — possessed small or large beaks. Medium ground finches with smaller beaks, however, survived a severe two-year drought better than medium ground finches with larger beaks, the researchers report in the journal Science.
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016/04/21/gene-behind-evolution-action-darwins-finches-identified
This new allele quickly became widespread through the population in response to a drought that changed food supply available to finches.
Nope. Evolution is not an "observed phenomenon." It is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. When you're willing to accept that definition — or something similar — then a rational discussion can proceed. While you are determined to talk about a "fact of evolution," we know you'll just keep equivocating, keeping the accusation that you are a religious fanatic perfectly justified.
Nope. Common descent is an aspect of evolutionary theory. It's not a consequence of it. That would mean you are assuming the truth of your Darwinism.
Nope.
Change is observed. Calling evolution "change" is all part of the evolutionismists' shell game. It's the only way they can keep their religion in the conversation.
Nope. Nobody denies that things change. We challenge your theory. We do not challenge facts. You just pretend that your idea is a fact and use the same word for different ideas to define the challenge out of existence.
And you'll latch on to anything to avoid addressing the challenges you are issued.
Then learn to respect what it is that your opponents are saying. :up:
Your obfuscation is intentional, as it is with all Darwinists.
Yes. Honesty.
| Science writer Jonathan Weiner ("The Beak of the Finch", 1994) says beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought (1977) is "evolution in action", even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred. |
https://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth03.php