Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[6days]

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?

As you said..... common ancestry beliefs are not a hindrance to a belief in some type of god. However, common ancestry beliefs do contradict the Bible and destroy the foundation of the Gospel.

 

[6days]

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?

Greg... you said yesterday you are a Christian. Yet you don't seem to understand why God became flesh and went to the cross. Why would sacrifice be necessary in the OT? Why is the shedding of blood necessary for forgiveness of sin? Without a literal first Adam, the sacrifice of Last Adam would be meaningless.

 

[6days]

That's just an abstract.


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

No you asked what VSDM's were so that you could answer my question. The abstract tells you. Do you need more help?

 

[6days]

Just to link to Collins for those unfamiliar:

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

Not sure your point on Collins? He was an atheist and evolutionist... Now believes in God. He still is a theistic evolutionist.

 

[Right Divider]

So why did all of geology/biology once believe as you, then after hundreds of years of gathering evidence, REJECT your theory ??

:rotfl:

 

[Right Divider]

It's not a mantra, it's simply the truth, your religious sensibilities notwithstanding. Look RD, science isn't interested in personal beliefs, it is only concerned with evidence. If the evidence didn't support evolution it wouldn't be globally accepted, simple as that.

You can also make that claim until the cows come home.... it's simply not true.

 

[George Affleck]

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?

For you, "reasoned with" entails a creationist stepping out of creationist convictions and allowing for natural causes. Can you step out of your naturalistic convictions and entertain supernatural causes?

 

[Arthur Brain]

For you, "reasoned with" entails a creationist stepping out of creationist convictions and allowing for natural causes. Can you step out of your naturalistic convictions and entertain supernatural causes?

Sure, accepting evolution and established science regarding the age of the earth and the universe doesn't rule out God as the cause/creator anyway. Creationism on the other hand rules out any evidence that doesn't fit in with a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You can also make that claim until the cows come home.... it's simply not true.

Yes it is, because that's how science works and evolution is no different. Theories are formulated because of the evidence that support them and denying that is pointless.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes it is, because that's how science works and evolution is no different. Theories are formulated because of the evidence that support them and denying that is pointless.

I don't deny the evidence. I deny your interpretation of the evidence.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As you said..... common ancestry beliefs are not a hindrance to a belief in some type of god. However, common ancestry beliefs do contradict the Bible and destroy the foundation of the Gospel.

They contradict YEC, not the same thing.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Not sure your point on Collins? He was an atheist and evolutionist... Now believes in God. He still is a theistic evolutionist.

The point is that there's no cognitive dissonance in having faith in God and accepting evolution. Collins reflects that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't deny the evidence. I deny your interpretation of the evidence.

You'd deny anything that doesn't conform to your dogmatic belief system. The fact remains that the theory of evolution is accepted because of the evidence for it no matter how much you may like to think otherwise. That's how science works.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

Well, no. Science isn't about that at all and it's an argument from bias or ignorance to state such. Evolution doesn't rule out God as cause as evidenced by the myriad scientists who have faith. It's a silly argument you have here and an erroneous one if you seriously think the goal of science is to 'do away with God'.

 

[Right Divider]

You'd deny anything that doesn't conform to your dogmatic belief system.

You are wrong and a liar.

The fact remains that the theory of evolution is accepted because of the evidence for it no matter how much you may like to think otherwise. That's how science works.

I accept all scientific facts.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

First, that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Secondly, it brings up an interesting question....if GA doesn't believe populations acquire new traits via evolution, nor does he believe traits spread through populations via selection, what exactly does he think happens? Let's take the example of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Does he believe God not only gave them the ability to resist our antibiotics, but God also deliberately spread that ability through the population?

 

[Greg Jennings]

No you asked what VSDM's were so that you could answer my question. The abstract tells you. Do you need more help?

Here is the entire abstract verbatim. Please highlight where VDSMs are explained.

"It is well known that whens,the selection coefficient against a deleterious mutation, is below ≈ 1/4Ne, whereNeis the effective population size, the expected frequency of this mutation is ≈ 0.5, if forward and backward mutation rates are similar. Thus, if the genome size,G,in nucleotides substantially exceeds theNeof the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/G< s<//E2>< 1/4Ne. Mutations withswithin this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. In many vertebratesNe≈ 104, whileG≈ 109, so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10−6, an average individual carries ≈ 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal. When selection acts on different mutations independently, this implies to high a mutation load. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations."

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg... you said yesterday you are a Christian. Yet you don't seem to understand why God became flesh and went to the cross. Why would sacrifice be necessary in the OT? Why is the shedding of blood necessary for forgiveness of sin? Without a literal first Adam, the sacrifice of Last Adam would be meaningless.

Sacrifice is necessary bc humanity kept screwing up and had to be redeemed. That's what the sacrifice of Christ was for.

Why is a "first man" necessitated by that?

 

[Greg Jennings]

:rotfl:

Dodge count: 1

Why did all of geology/biology once believe as you do, then REJECT your theory after centuries of gathering evidence?

 

[Right Divider]

Dodge count: 1

Why did all of geology/biology once believe as you do, then REJECT your theory after centuries of gathering evidence?

:juggle:

You get more hilarious with every rant.