Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Arthur Brain]

same with astrology?

Oh, heck no, I read the stars all the time...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Haha..... surely you don't really believe that? If that was true, Toe would have been tossed long ago, since science has proved almost everything false that evolutionists believed at the time of the S opens trial. And going back further, Darwin made many excellent observations but his conclusions were shoddy.


Evolutionists claim "useless" is evidence...They claim Functional is evidence..... they claim both good design and poor design is evidence of their beliefs... it is a non falsifiable belief system

The reason it hasn't been "tossed" is because the evidence supports it, just as much as the plethora of other evidence that supports an old earth that you'll likewise disregard. There's no reasoning with you because your own personal faith hinges on a young earth and anything contradicting or impeding that has to be done away with regardless.

 

[Ktoyou]

Haha..... surely you don't really believe that? If that was true, Toe would have been tossed long ago, since science has proved almost everything false that evolutionists believed at the time of the S opens trial. And going back further, Darwin made many excellent observations but his conclusions were shoddy.


Evolutionists claim "useless" is evidence...They claim Functional is evidence..... they claim both good design and poor design is evidence of their beliefs... it is a non falsifiable belief system

......... yeh, say it again...

 

[6days]

1. How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2?

2. What evidence from genetics shows a organ such as an eye can develop from a complex eye spot, into a sophisticated veryebrate vision system. Remember... genetics, and not your beliefs.

1. Explain 1 in detail

You said you could dissect creationists in genetics..or Not? And, you don't understand this simple question?

2. What evidence would suffice? Since you are well aware of the documented transitional stages we can observe today

From genetics. Arranging things in a pattern to fit your beliefs is not genetics.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The reason it hasn't been "tossed" is because the evidence supports it, just as much as the plethora of other evidence that supports an old earth that you'll likewise disregard. There's no reasoning with you because your own personal faith hinges on a young earth and anything contradicting or impeding that has to be done away with regardless.

AB, is it possible (however plausible) that scientists haven't tossed it not because the evidence supports it, but because even though the evidence doesn't support it, it's the best alternative to God they can come up with? (And if so, could it be that they, in their rebellion against God, would try to silence those who don't comply with the status quo of promoting the alternative regardless of facts?)

 

[6days]

The reason it(common ancestry) hasn't been "tossed" is because the evidence supports it

Evidence like useless appendix? Junk DNA? Dimwitted cavemen / Neandertals? Creative power of natural selection?


The evidence does not "support" your beliefs. The evidence does help confirm the truth of God's Word.

just as much as the plethora of other evidence that supports an old earth that you'll likewise disregard.

Evidence like population 3 stars? The Oort belt? Soft dino tissue? Or the "plethora" of other evidence?

 

[Arthur Brain]

AB, is it possible (however plausible) that scientists haven't tossed it not because the evidence supports it, but because even though the evidence doesn't support it, it's the best alternative to God they can come up with? (And if so, could it be that they, in their rebellion against God, would try to silence those who don't comply with the status quo of promoting the alternative regardless of facts?)

Well, "implausible" would still be too mild a word because what you're effectively describing is some sort of world wide anti theist conspiracy, which frankly is ridiculous. For starters, evolution isn't an 'alternative to God', hence why most Christians don't have a hang up or issue with it and can incorporate established science with belief. It's only an issue for hardcore creationists who can't accept anything that differs with a young earth. Now ask yourself honestly. Do you seriously believe that scientists around the world concocted such a theory just to spite people like yourself and to 'shake their fists' at God?!

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, "implausible" would still be too mild a word because what you're effectively describing is some sort of world wide anti theist conspiracy, which frankly is ridiculous. For starters, evolution isn't an 'alternative to God', hence why most Christians don't have a hang up or issue with it and can incorporate established science with belief. It's only an issue for hardcore creationists who can't accept anything that differs with a young earth. Now ask yourself honestly. Do you seriously believe that scientists around the world concocted such a theory just to spite people like yourself and to 'shake their fists' at God?!

If JR's conspiracy theory were true, what then explains scientists like Francis Collins?

 

[Greg Jennings]

You said you could dissect creationists in genetics..or Not? And, you don't understand this simple question?

From genetics. Arranging things in a pattern to fit your beliefs is not genetics.

Explain what your VD whatevers are. Or give me a direct link to someone who actually can explain it.

From genetics? Again, WHAT would suffice?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Evidence like useless appendix? Junk DNA? Dimwitted cavemen / Neandertals? Creative power of natural selection?


The evidence does not "support" your beliefs. The evidence does help confirm the truth of God's Word.

Evidence like population 3 stars? The Oort belt? Soft dino tissue? Or the "plethora" of other evidence?

My "beliefs", as well as yours are irrelevant. The evidence does support the ToE unless you're a conspiracy crank. You wouldn't be persuaded by anything that doesn't fit in with your dogmatic belief system no matter what so what's the point?

 

[Arthur Brain]

If JR's conspiracy theory were true, what then explains scientists like Francis Collins?

Darned good question. What doesn't seem to compute with the hardcore creationist is that evolution itself is no enemy to belief or God and a good number of scientists are actually Christians, so why would they be in on some sort of "alternative to God" theory?

 

[Arthur Brain]

If JR's conspiracy theory were true, what then explains scientists like Francis Collins?

Just to link to Collins for those unfamiliar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

 

[6days]

Explain what your VD whatevers are. Or give me a direct link to someone who actually can explain it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519385701671

 

[6days]

Darned good question. What doesn't seem to compute with the hardcore creationist is that evolution itself is no enemy to belief or God and a good number of scientists are actually Christians, so why would they be in on some sort of "alternative to God" theory?

If first Adam was not a real historical first human, then what was the purpose of the cross? Theistic evolutionists don't understand the Gospel. Genesis is foundational to the Gospel.

 

[Greg Jennings]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519385701671

That's just an abstract.


Just a title won't do. We need to be able to look at the results

 

[Greg Jennings]

If first Adam was not a real historical first human, then what was the purpose of the cross? Theistic evolutionists don't understand the Gospel. Genesis is foundational to the Gospel.

For Christ to die upon for all of humanity's sins. He was the last, and ultimate, sacrifice: God himself dying for those He loves

Why do you need Adam and Eve for that?

 

[Arthur Brain]

If first Adam was not a real historical first human, then what was the purpose of the cross? Theistic evolutionists don't understand the Gospel. Genesis is foundational to the Gospel.

That's just your take. As before, you can't be reasoned with because anything that contradicts your creationist belief set won't even be entertained, will it?

 

[George Affleck]

Well, "implausible" would still be too mild a word because what you're effectively describing is some sort of world wide anti theist conspiracy, which frankly is ridiculous. For starters, evolution isn't an 'alternative to God', hence why most Christians don't have a hang up or issue with it and can incorporate established science with belief. It's only an issue for hardcore creationists who can't accept anything that differs with a young earth. Now ask yourself honestly. Do you seriously believe that scientists around the world concocted such a theory just to spite people like yourself and to 'shake their fists' at God?!

Evolutionists believe that natural selection and evolution are true, not because observation supports that conclusion, but because the first rule of the game is that it cannot allow an alternative. God is not available as an option because the whole point of naturalistic science is to explain how we got here without His involvement. If this were not true, supernatural intervention would be allowed as a possible option.

The interesting thing is that Darwinists do allow for an option beyond observation, similar to creationists, that belies a strict faith in their worldview. It is called putting the problem on the shelf. "We don't know the answer to that yet, but we are convinced that, upon further investigation- more digging - more lab work - more, more..." We get accused of retreating into "God did it" and they forget that they are continually retreating into "Naturalism did it; we just haven't connected the dots". Then comes the Parade of Possibilities where everyone is tripping over themselves trying to make their mark in the annals of science only to be shot down by the next theory du jour; and it never ends. Arrival is not the point of the journey. In fact, it is not at all desirable. The point is to somehow deal with conscience, installed in us by God for our good, in one of the thousands of ways available.

The more convinced a person is that Darwinism is basically true, the less reason there is to invoke the name of God. To be convinced that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is necessary is to "know" that God is not necessary. To be convinced that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible is to "know" that God is not possible. Naturalism, then, becomes the intellectual saviour of the conscience and we have the illusion of being free.

 

[Stripe]

Why do you need Adam and Eve for that?

It's not a question of "need." It's a question of what is written.

The gospel is founded upon Genesis as an account of history. If you're willing to write Genesis off as "figurative," then there's no reason — apart from special pleading — that we should not also call Christ's sacrifice on the cross a metaphor.

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists believe that natural selection and evolution are true, not because observation supports that conclusion, but because the first rule of the game is that it cannot allow an alternative. God is not available as an option because the whole point of naturalistic science is to explain how we got here without His involvement. If this were not true, supernatural intervention would be allowed as a possible option.

The interesting thing is that Darwinists do allow for an option beyond observation, similar to creationists, that belies a strict faith in their worldview. It is called putting the problem on the shelf. "We don't know the answer to that yet, but we are convinced that, upon further investigation- more digging - more lab work - more, more..." We get accused of retreating into "God did it" and they forget that they are continually retreating into "Naturalism did it; we just haven't connected the dots". Then comes the Parade of Possibilities where everyone is tripping over themselves trying to make their mark in the annals of science only to be shot down by the next theory du jour; and it never ends. Arrival is not the point of the journey. In fact, it is not at all desirable. The point is to somehow deal with conscience, installed in us by God for our good, in one of the thousands of ways available.

The more convinced a person is that Darwinism is basically true, the less reason there is to invoke the name of God. To be convinced that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is necessary is to "know" that God is not necessary. To be convinced that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible is to "know" that God is not possible. Naturalism, then, becomes the intellectual saviour of the conscience and we have the illusion of being free.

This is a good post. :up:

That point about evolution being inherently anti-God is extremely valid, but it does need some tempering.

Science by definition only deals with the physical world, ie, naturalistic science is a tautology. If it's not nature, it's not science.

Fortunately, there is more to life than just science.

So I might reword some of that first paragraph, but your conclusions are spot on.