Defining evolution as "change over time" is an attempt to define the problem out of existence.
Because no one disagrees that species adapt to their environment.
You are now doing the same thing Barbarian does.
-
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.
Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
Defining evolution as "change over time" is an attempt to define the problem out of existence.
Because no one disagrees that species adapt to their environment.
You are now doing the same thing Barbarian does.
Those are two entirely different things, the second being inane nonsense thrown in to serve the Darwinist's favorite ploy: Equivocation.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Which living things that we see today were not here a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago ?
Once there were Trilobites and Dinosaurs, and no mammals. Today there are mammals and no trilobites or dinosaurs. I am deliberately avoiding your claim that we are talking about hundreds or thousand of years. In any case- it is irrelevant.
Fossil record.
Evolution is defined as "a change in allele frequencies over time." And yes it's an observed fact. So is the evolution of new species. "Answers in Genesis" and the ICR both have now admitted that fact.
Creationists like to obfuscate the issue by conflating the fact of evolution with things like natural selection (an agent of evolution) and common descent (a consequence of evolution).
The reason scientists and a majority of Americans accept common descent is that so many predictions of common descent have been repeatedly verified.
Does anyone still believe in creationism? Yes, there are some. But fewer and fewer, as the evidence accumulates, and younger evangelicals turn away from that non-scriptural doctrine.
Why some evangelicals changed their minds about evolution
It is true that many prominent evangelicals always realized that evolution was compatible with our faith in God:
I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say. I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. […] whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.
Billy Graham
Creationists like to obfuscate the issue by conflating the fact of evolution with things like natural selection (an agent of evolution) and common descent (a consequence of evolution).
The reason scientists and a majority of Americans accept common descent is that so many predictions of common descent have been repeatedly verified.
Does anyone still believe in creationism? Yes, there are some. But fewer and fewer, as the evidence accumulates, and younger evangelicals turn away from that non-scriptural doctrine.
Why some evangelicals changed their minds about evolution
It is true that many prominent evangelicals always realized that evolution was compatible with our faith in God:
I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say. I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. […] whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.
Billy Graham
It's an attempt to get people to understand what evolution is. If you find the scientific definition of the word "an attempt to define the problem out of existence", isn't that a clue that your perception of a "problem" is wrong?
And most creationist organizations admit that new species, genera, and even families evolve. They usually don't use the "E-word", but that's O.K. Neither did Darwin. His preferred term was "descent with modifiation", which AIG and ICR do accept. AIG figures it works to the extent that many new taxa arise from old ones, but common descent goes too far. They see an orchard of bushes, not one bush.
Of course, the data don't support the AIG belief: the same data that show all canids have a common ancestor, also show that all life on Earth has a common ancestor.
I think some creationists realize this, and this, I think is why they are so eager to confuse evolution with mechanisms of evolution and consequences of evolution. It's also why some creationists are so upset when anyone clarifies what these terms mean.
He did. And it's clear why some creationists are so unhappy to see the obfuscation cleared up.
Nope.
Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. This is what is being challenged. Nobody challenges the idea that "things change." However, Darwinists want evolution to be defined as "change" so that it cannot be challenged.
We do challenge. When you've learned to respect that challenge, you might be able to contribute something of value to these discussions.
Nope. It's just a theory.
Nope, it's just a theory.
Nope. As you learned from your own source:
| Natural selection, or “survival of the fittest,” is the observable process by which organisms with specific characteristics survive and reproduce better in a given environment. It is considered a driving force for evolution, but natural selection results in a loss or reshuffling of genetic information, not the gain of information required for evolution. |
Darwinists like to obfuscate the issue by conflating the fact that things change with the theory of evolution: natural selection and random mutations.
Darwinists love discussing the popularity of ideas. They think it is evidence.
Does anyone still believe in evolution? Yes, there are some. But fewer and fewer as the evidence accumulates and younger evangelicals turn away from that non-scriptural doctrine.
Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.
It's the dementia. Simple grammar has gone out the window. :chuckle:
Nope. Creationists reject evolution. :duh:
You've been lied to about that.
Would you like to learn what really happened and see the evidence that shows how we know?
It's the dementia again.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
There are no humans in the fossil record?
It depends on how far back one goes. No humans in the time of dinosaurs, for example.
Right Divider
Body part
That idea is based on evolutionary doctrine and not actual fact.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
An artificial construct based on unprovable assumptions
And those satellite photos of a round earth are all faked.
Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
It depends on how far back one goes. No humans in the time of dinosaurs, for example.
There are no human fossils or even fossils of any modern mammal in strata dating back to the dinosaurs. The K-T boundary is well-marked by a world-wide layer of iridium, caused by the entry of a very large meteorite, which may well have been the final blow to the dinosaurs.
Even more devastating for the YE doctrine:
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60(Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.
At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Wise remains convinced of YE, based on his interpretation of scripture, and he suggests that there will be in the future, a way to understand these facts in a YE explanation. At present, he admits there is none.
It depends on how far back one goes. No humans in the time of dinosaurs, for example.
There are no human fossils or even fossils of any modern mammal in strata dating back to the dinosaurs. The K-T boundary is well-marked by a world-wide layer of iridium, caused by the entry of a very large meteorite, which may well have been the final blow to the dinosaurs.
Even more devastating for the YE doctrine:
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60(Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.
At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Wise remains convinced of YE, based on his interpretation of scripture, and he suggests that there will be in the future, a way to understand these facts in a YE explanation. At present, he admits there is none.
I hate to break it to you, Barb, but Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Rhodocetus are, one by one, being falsified, and their "whale features" are being withdrawn by "whale evolution experts" and even by the discoverers themselves.
https://kgov.com/evidence-against-whale-evolution
http://thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html
https://youtu.be/b1PU2ut8n8g
In other words, the evidence is that whales, in fact, did NOT evolve, and that the "transitional fossils" you evolutionists like to claim show it are forged fakes.
This is called an appeal to authority. It is a fallacious argument. It's also false.
There is a perfectly valid explanation for the fossilization of ANY creature.
It's called the Hydroplate Theory, a model of the Biblical Flood of Noah. It says that the ENTIRE so-called "geologic column" was laid down by flood waters.
In other words, Barb, you've been lied to. Again.
Would you like to examine the evidence for that?