Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Stripe]

The problem is, Darwinists are not versed in the scientific method. Instead of assuming the truth of any idea, they demand that there be limits on what ideas should be allowed. Then instead of testing ideas against reality and reason, they use their assumptions as evidence.

No wonder they are so confused by simple conversations.

 

[Clete]

The evidence, from geology/astronomy/physics/biology(genetics incl. here)/zoology/microbiology/paleontology/botany, POINTS to evolutionary theory's confirmation. As I told you, they just outlined WHAT WE KNOW about fish-to-amphibian evolution, using the coelacanth as an alleged transitional example.
The evidence absolutely points toward fish-to-amphibian evolution, but I cannot speak directly to coelacanth evolution <--- the point I was trying to make before

There is no such evidence. All of it, and I do mean precisely that, ALL OF IT is your own confirmation bias.

Do you really think evidence favors all creatures living on Earth together?

Absolutely yes! In fact, that's pretty much what everyone believed before Darwin gave the atheists their own creation myth to believe in.

Dinosaurs and man and cow and sheep? Then why could you provide NO evidence for such a thing??

There's plenty of evidence. You blind to it because of your confirmation bias.

And no, I will not provide it here. If you think you'll ever bait me into such a debate, you're wrong.

Where is your evidence? Genesis discredits itself as literal history by saying ABSURD THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN PROVEN FALSE

Liar.

Clete

 

[Arthur Brain]

The problem is, Darwinists are not versed in the scientific method. Instead of assuming the truth of any idea, they demand that there be limits on what ideas should be allowed. Then instead of testing ideas against reality and reason, they use their assumptions as evidence.

No wonder they are so confused by simple conversations.

Um, sure. That's how the theory of evolution came into being in the first place and accepted across the board by scientists everywhere outside of cranks and religious zealots. There's no stringent review process and it all came about by a whim...

:doh:

 

[Greg Jennings]

I asked if you were a Christian and wanted a Biblical answer. Your reply was 'dodge'. Why?

So... from a science standpoint, it is possible people could live 1000 years according to secular scientists. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...ars-old-is-alive-today-weekend-feature-1.html

Did some humans live 900+ years before genetic load started decreasing lifespans? You betcha! God's Word confirms it.

I answered you earlier. I said I was a Christian. I thought it irrelevant whether or not I wanted your biblical reply bc you were gonna give it anyway

Only one (as the article says, very optimistic) scientist in that article saying why such thing, which is where the outrageous title comes from.

There continues to be no evidence for your beliefs

 

[Greg Jennings]

There's plenty of evidence.

And no, I will not provide it here. If you think you'll ever bait me into such a debate, you're wrong.


Liar.

Clete

Are you a real person? Do you think you sound smart? You're a caricature. A cowardly one, at that

 

[Greg Jennings]

If you want to examine something from a text (such as a geneology), but there's no direct way to test it, the next best thing is to look at the text as a whole, and to test to see if what it says is true. For example, lets say you have a history book, and it tells about Joan of Arc, but you have no body to examine, you look at what she did, and then you look at examples from history, and see if they line up with what the text says.

Basically, see if it lines up with reality.

So in the case of the Bible, we look at what it says as a whole, for example, it says that egypt fell and that a semitic people left around that time, and we see that (per the Ipuwer Papyrus) this very similar to what we see in reality, and another example are cities, coinage, etc.

Taken as a whole, the Bible has been largely proven correct, at least as far as what can be proven scientifically/archaeologically, etc.

Well I'd say this is where creationism veers wildly from mainstream science. You don't look at a text and assume it's truth. You look at the facts within it, and if enough of them can be corroborated by some other source, then you assign some veracity to it. Exaggeration is still prevalent

PARTS of the Bible have been yes. Others have been found wanting, primarily OT stuff. However, in its defense, there isn't ALWAYS hard evidence. And the Bible IS reliable enough to assume veracity until proven otherwise. But those times where it has been proven wrong do exist. And that's ok. It was written by men, and locations can change wildly over time

 

[6days]

creationism veers wildly from mainstream science.

Sorry to break this to you but creationism and evolutionism are beliefs about the past, not science.

Science generally involves observation and repeated experiments, then making a conclusion. And that explains the history of shoddy conclusions by evolutionists.(Evolutionists START with the conclusion)

Others (parts of the Bible) have been found wanting, primarily OT stuff.

You then are the judge of God's Word deciding what is believable? No wonder kids that grow up in homes of theistic evolutionists often reject virgin birth...the resurrection and more (PEW research)

And the Bible IS reliable enough to assume veracity until proven otherwise.

It is no wonder that you don't understand why Jesus had to suffer physical death.

 

[6days]

No, perhaps not, but even so, if the Bible is to be believed in regards to the Fall of Man, then we should expect that ages would slowly get shorter and shorter over time because of corruption. If we were to graph the age of every person who's age is recorded in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, we would see, immediately after the Fall, that the ages top out around 900-1000 years, with the first man, Adam, and then slowly those ages decreased, with Methuselah being the exception.

Having someone live to be 122 today is not the norm (though it's certainly becoming more likely, through advancements in medicine and technology.

To put it in a nutshell, shorter lifespans today but exceptionally long lifestyles in Genesis are consistent with what the bible teaches, that all of creation was corrupted and is suffering.

Yup... I agree, and essentially the same as you said...Methuselah lived 969 years...
Science says yes, people could possibly live that long.

Genesis 5
27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
28 And Lamech ... begat a son:
29 And he called his name Noah, ....
31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.

There is no need to compromise on what Genesis teaches. People actually lived for hundreds and hundreds of years. Notice as you read through the Bible, the life spans get shorter and shorter. Why did early humans such as Adam live close to 1,000 years and then quite a few generations later people such as Abraham lived only 175 years.

The Biblical model has early humans with a perfect genome that God allowed to become corrupted after sin. With very little genetic burden, humans lived LONG lives. As the genome became corrupted (mutations and other damaging effects) with subsequent generations, life spans decreased.

But does science agree that people could live for hundreds of years, perhaps 1,000 years? Yes! A study from the University of Utah says, "if all processes of aging could be eliminated and oxidative stress damage could be repaired, ‘one estimate is people could live 1,000 years."

Those processes and stress are a progressive product of a cursed world. "There are seven major types of molecular and cellular damage that eventually become bad for us - including cells being lost without replacement and mutations in our chromosomes."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4003063.stm
Mutations accumulate causing a genetic burden on the human race. It is no surprise that ancient humans could live such long lives. God's Word is always supported by science.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Sorry to break this to you but creationism and evolutionism are beliefs about the past, not science.

No. You've been corrected over and over on this

Science generally involves observation and repeated experiments, then making a conclusion. And that explains the history of shoddy conclusions by evolutionists.(Evolutionists START with the conclusion)

Then why did all of science FIRST believe as you do, THEN ---- after centuries of gathering evidence ---- the mainstream view changed to a 4.5 billion year old Earth?
They started with your worldview as accepted reality. Then changed their minds. Why is that?

You then are the judge of God's Word deciding what is believable? No wonder kids that grow up in homes of theistic evolutionists often reject virgin birth...the resurrection and more (PEW research)
It is no wonder that you don't understand why Jesus had to suffer physical death.

No, that's just you preaching your talking points again

 

[6days]

Then why did all of science FIRST believe as you do

You don't seem to understand the difference between beliefs and science. Science doesn't believe anything.
If you are saying that many of the fathers of modern science were Bible believng Christians... you are correct. They rejected old earth beliefs that existed back before the time of Jesus. In fact even Paul argued against the old earthers/ evolutionists of his day. And Jesus also seemed to take a jab at people who rejected the Torah asking "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

T
the mainstream view changed to a 4.5 billion year old Earth

Theistic evolutionists ALWAYS think the bandwagon argument is a good reason to reject God's Word...and reject science. Greg... a current trend... bandwagon belief ,is in multiverse. There is no evidence for it... but many believe it..... Are you on that bandwagon also?

It is no wonder that you don't understand why Jesus had to suffer physical death.

No, that's just you preaching your talking points again

It is fairly important in the Christian faith that we understand we are sinners...separated from God. It is important as Christians that we understand why Jesus had to physically die to bridge the separation between sinners and a Holy God.

 

[Clete]

Are you a real person? Do you think you sound smart? You're a caricature. A cowardly one, at that

You're the one who keeps making that ad hominems, not me. I'm simply being consistent. Not only am I equally capable of making unsubstantiated claims as you are, but I've told you over and over and over again that I do NOT and will not debate the details of evolution with you or with anyone else. You can make all the baseless claims you like and when you say something that I can tell that not even you believe, I'll call you the liar that you clearly are - simple. I've rarely found anyone as creative at avoiding the topic that they're being crushed into non-existence with but, as I've also said repeatedly, I can hardly blame you for trying. What else is there for you to do besides bringing up complete irrelevancies, attempting to deflect by baiting with unsubstantiated claims, attacking your opponent personally or just out right lying?

Well, of course there is the one obvious alternative to all of that but we know you aren't going there, so...


Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Dodge count: 2

I've seen his grave, former estate, and of course portrait, and there are numerous sources from varying places documenting his existence (Britain, France, Virginia, Canada)

But you've never seen him yourself.

Are you implying that if you don't SEE something, it can't be?

No, but that is what YOU were saying.

Did OJ Simpson kill his former wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson?

I don't know and neither do you.

Have you ever met somebody or have proof of somebody being over 120 years of age?

Once again your FALLACY is showing.

 

[Right Divider]

You still don't get it. Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve.

:rotfl:

A group is nothing more than the individuals in it.

 

[SUTG]

Well I'd say this is where creationism veers wildly from mainstream science.

I like to draw a distinction between creationism and young earth creationism in cases like this. Even though I'm an atheist, I think someone can still maintain a belief in some sort of transcendent origin to the universe (or not).

But creationism of the young earth variety is another beast altogether and require its adherents to abandon the whole of science, as can be seen hilariously in this thread.

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Hi everybody

Quick announcement: if you haven't noticed, there's a new thread open:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?128506-Why-Evolution-is-real-science-let-s-settle-this-quot-debate-quot-!&p=5190683&viewfull=1#post5190683


Check it out and let me know what you think.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But creationism of the young earth variety is another beast altogether and require its adherents to abandon the whole of science, as can be seen hilariously in this thread.

You're overstating your case.

YE creationism does not require its adherents to abandon the whole of science. If that were true, then there wouldn't be creationist scientists with advanced degrees in scientific fields, yet there are plenty of such creationists.

We (YECs) reject evolution because it doesn't fit the evidence.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You don't seem to understand the difference between beliefs and science. Science doesn't believe anything.
If you are saying that many of the fathers of modern science were Bible believng Christians... you are correct. They rejected old earth beliefs that existed back before the time of Jesus. In fact even Paul argued against the old earthers/ evolutionists of his day. And Jesus also seemed to take a jab at people who rejected the Torah asking "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
Theistic evolutionists ALWAYS think the bandwagon argument is a good reason to reject God's Word...and reject science. Greg... a current trend... bandwagon belief ,is in multiverse. There is no evidence for it... but many believe it..... Are you on that bandwagon also?
It is fairly important in the Christian faith that we understand we are sinners...separated from God. It is important as Christians that we understand why Jesus had to physically die to bridge the separation between sinners and a Holy God.

Dodge count: 1

Why did the scientific view begin with a 6000 year old Earth, then change to 4.5 billion year old Earth after centuries of gathering evidence?

 

[Greg Jennings]

But you've never seen him yourself.


No, but that is what YOU were saying.


I don't know and neither do you.


Once again your FALLACY is showing.

You're wrong on all counts.

DNA evidence shows a 1-in-8,000,000,000 chance that OJ WAS NOT there the night his wife was murdered.
Evidence is important (even when ignored by a jury, like the YEC jury here you are a part of)

Just like that, we can use evidence to put together the part. We know Washington was real bc we have all the evidence in the world confirming it.

That's how court works. And to a large extent, how science works too. Gather evidence, and put together the pieces from it

 

[Right Divider]

You're wrong on all counts.

DNA evidence shows a 1-in-8,000,000,000 chance that OJ WAS NOT there the night his wife was murdered.
Evidence is important (even when ignored by a jury, like the YEC jury here you are a part of)

Just like that, we can use evidence to put together the part. We know Washington was real bc we have all the evidence in the world confirming it.

That's how court works. And to a large extent, how science works too. Gather evidence, and put together the pieces from it

Your FALLACY still stands.... you think that people could not be older than you think based on nothing.

 

[6days]

But creationism of the young earth variety is another beast altogether and require its adherents to abandon the whole of science

Just imagine how difficult it is for a atheist PhD scientist, to come to the realization that everything that been taught about 'evolution'...and everything they believed was not consistent with the evidence... and that the Biblical account was best fit to the evidence.

as can be seen hilariously in this thread

Is it also funny that evolutionists believe a' frog' can evolve into a handsome prince if you give it enough mutations and time?


Is it funny that evolutionists here in TOL think natural selection is a creative power that adds genetic information to the genome?


Is it funny that here in TOL evolutionists claim both a gain of a structure and loss of a structure is evidence for their beliefs?


Is it funny that evolutionists here in TOL think selection can somehow (magic?) solve the problem of he stic load caused by VSDM's?


How hilarious is it that here in TOL, there are people who believe that life came from non life?


And...is it funny that many evolutionists still use some of Dawkins arguments which science has proven false?


Is it hilarious that some stellar evolutionists, and atheists think that nothing caused everything?


Etc...