I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[ok doser]

Most mutations actually don't do anything.

Way to avoid the point I made :thumb:

Even if a deleterious mutation occurs it is usually removed from the population by natural selection. This kind of selection is usually called purifying selection.

Right - disease, disability and destruction

This is your god - a god of disease, disability and destruction

 

[Alate_One]

Right - disease, disability and destruction

This is your god - a god of disease, disability and destruction

No. There would be far more disease and destruction without mutation and evolutionary change. Organisms that are clonal suffer far more from all of the above.

What is the origin of infectious diseases then, according to you? Were they created by God or no?

 

[Alate_One]

A lot of 'science' assumptions. Genesis doesn't allow 'loose' symbolism.

Why, because you say so? Talk about assumptions.

The "Serpent" is indeed symbolic of Satan, but the curse followed an actual serpent.

Okay so how do you know it's symbolic of Satan then?

So both Christians and scientists can and do observe leg indications in snakes, but we alternately apply 'curse' vs. 'evolution' to the phenomena. We don't disagree on the observations, we disagree on terms and derivative ideas not in common.

And when you see the same leg remnants in whales you say . . . ?

I've 70% in common with onion according to DNA. This doesn't mean I evolved from an onion.

No but it may mean you're distantly related to one.

The branching idea may allow for derivative species, but 'after their kind' from scripture may allow God to remold a species or even restart from scratch. God can do as He wills. What I rather question, is whether one species today, had or does become another because of the phrase "after its kind."
God can certainly do so, but after committing to an action, "after its kind" it must been seen as a truth.

Here's the thing. Species in evolution never stop reproducing after their "kind". It's just that the "kind" is not static, it changes over time. There is never a point in evolution where, for illustrative purposes, a cat produces a dog offspring.

1) "Evolutions." The term means 'on its own.'

No, it means change over time. Humans can cause evolution. Why can't God? Why isn't it possible that God designed the potential for evolution into life from the start? Understand again that if God is sovereign there is nothing that is truly random.

 

[Stripe]

There would be far more disease and destruction without mutation and evolutionary change.

Mutations make people sick.

No two ways about it.

They never improve genetic integrity; they are always — 100 percent of them — bad for information.

Organisms that are clonal suffer far more.

Organisms that are clonal are evidence for the fact that mutations are always bad. Variation in the genome of a population — ie, within a kind — shows degradation. Genetic integrity is where a population has less genetic diversity.

We know, we know: Cheetahs. They do not represent the population that their DNA came from. Thus they are evidence that diversity leads to reduced "fitness."

What is the origin of infectious diseases then, according to you? Were they created by God or no?

Darwinists accused a YEC of this tactic, unfairly calling it a "Gish gallop." However, it is them who use it all the time.

 

[Alate_One]

Mutations make people sick.

No two ways about it.

Wrong. There are people immune to HIV infection because of a mutation.
There are others that require far less sleep due to a mutation.

Are you lactose tolerant? People that can drink milk as adults can do so because of a mutation.

And there are different mutations depending on which part of the world people are from.

They never improve genetic integrity; they are always — 100 percent of them — bad for information.

There's no such thing as "genetic integrity", there is only useful or not in a particular situation.

Organisms that are clonal are evidence for the fact that mutations are always bad. Variation in the genome of a population — ie, within a kind — shows degradation. Genetic integrity is where a population has less genetic diversity.

Are you saying genetic variation is BAD? :dizzy: If this is really what you're saying you do not understand biology at all.

We know, we know: Cheetahs. They do not represent the population that their DNA came from. Thus they are evidence that diversity leads to reduced "fitness."

Huh? They have virtually NO genetic diversity. Cheetahs can receive skin grafts from one another due to lack of diversity in their MHC genes. That same lack of diversity makes them vulnerable to disease.

Darwinists accused a YEC of this tactic, unfairly calling it a "Gish gallop." However, it is them who use it all the time.

Not at all. He says evolution causes more disease. If he's arguing creation wouldn't cause disease, how did infectious organisms and parasites arise. If they are created, then there's not much of a difference between the two. Thus the question is quite related.

A Gish gallop is where you simply bring up dozens of unrelated items to distract from the question.

 

[Stripe]

Wrong.

Nope.

There are people immune to HIV infection because of a mutation.

That's not a counter.

And there are different mutations depending on which part of the world people are from.

That's nice.

There's no such thing as "genetic integrity."

Of course there is. A genome does not function outside a very limited range of designs. A random assignment of AGTC would produce noise, no butterflies, every time.

there is only useful or not in a particular situation.

Nope. That's only a useful restriction for those who want to protect Darwinism from the challenges it faces.

Are you saying genetic variation is BAD?

Been saying it for years.

Have you only just noticed? :dizzy:

If this is really what you're saying you do not understand biology at all.

The evidence says otherwise.

Huh? They have virtually NO genetic diversity. Cheetahs can receive skin grafts from one another due to lack of diversity in their MHC genes. That same lack of diversity makes them vulnerable to disease.

And if I had not raised cheetahs as an example, you would have launched into an explanation of how their lack of diversity is a problem.

For example:
"Barbarian explains: Actually, cheetahs likely don't have any greater 'load' than humans do. The real problem is a severe lack of genetic diversity. They are so alike that apparently, they can all serve as tissue donors for each other."

That is what you believe, right?

 

[Lon]

Why, because you say so? Talk about assumptions.

Just so I know where this is going, did you intend this to go snarky? If we are going to simply dismiss another based off of an imagined insult like 'assumption?' Okay. Your thread doesn't look as sincere or important when you are trying to say the Love of the Lord Jesus Christ is a commonality.

Okay so how do you know it's symbolic of Satan then?

Revelation 12:9, 20:2
Because of the previous, I've no idea if your question is sincere or

And when you see the same leg remnants in whales you say . . . ?

Is it? How do you know, precisely? Who said it was?

No but it may mean you're distantly related to one.

"related" has a few meanings. All things are created by God, so I'm 'related' to Mars as well.

Here's the thing. Species in evolution never stop reproducing after their "kind". It's just that the "kind" is not static, it changes over time. There is never a point in evolution where, for illustrative purposes, a cat produces a dog offspring.

Or a reptile becoming a bird or vise versa?

No, it means change over time. Humans can cause evolution.

Awkward for me. Humans did 'breed' different kinds of dogs but did they 1) cause it and 2) have anything really to do with the DNA already there?

Why can't God? Why isn't it possible that God designed the potential for evolution into life from the start?

Colossians 1:17 Do things sustain or change independently of God?

Understand again that if God is sovereign there is nothing that is truly random.

This is my argument against 'random chance and purposeless change.' Again, I don't know if you are being sincere at this point, but I've answered them as if they were though I've reservations about continuing so in thread.

 

[ok doser]

He says evolution causes more disease.

Nope

Try again

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, it means change over time.

No, evolution does NOT mean change over time.

You've been lied to.

Spoiler

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.

 

[Stripe]

Change over time.

I've always wondered how change could not happen over time. :idunno:

 

[Right Divider]

Namecalling a well supported idea as "nonsense" doesn't actually further the discussion.

So now you've downgraded it to an "idea"?

 

[Idolater]

So you're willing to say that God has created false history?

Modern science will honestly and accurately tell us how old the universe looks, they will tell us honestly and accurately the theory of how this universe developed, what its gestation must have looked like, what its birth must have been like, and how it developed into the mature universe that it is today, one capable of sustaining human life, on one little speck of rock in the Himalayan mountain range many times over, that is the whole entire universe.

 

[Gary K]

]It all depends on how they are interpreted, and generally reading an ancient text with a lot of symbolic implications as if it's a news report is probably going to lead to misunderstandings.

So, in other words, you who claim to love Jesus think you are far wiser than God. How do you know who God is with your rejection of so much of the Bible? Do you even accept the existence of sin, the plan of redemption, and what is it that God plans on restoring in human nature through His redemption of humanity? Is God going to restore us to primordial ooze? Oh, you might begin by telling us where sin originated on earth and how it came about since you don't believe the creation story. Do it from scripture.

 

[7djengo7]

Namecalling a well supported idea as "nonsense" doesn't actually further the discussion.

When you say "well supported", what (if anything) do you even mean? By "well supported", do you not simply mean "true"?

I call no idea "nonsense". I call nonsense "nonsense", though. Why do you refuse to call nonsense "nonsense"? Why do you call nonsense "science"?

 

[7djengo7]

So now you've downgraded it to an "idea"?

If you ask me, he's still too generous in even calling it an idea.

 

[7djengo7]

No, it means change over time.

And what (if anything) do you mean by "change over time"?

 

[way 2 go]

A. I didn't post anything about Rhodocetus. And rodhocetus is one fossil among a large variety of fossils plus the genetic, anatomical and developmental evidence.

B. Rodhocetus isn't a fake. It was originally reconstructed with very fragmentary bones and was postulated to have features it was later shown to not have, wait for it, because of later discovered EVIDENCE. Those facts are even noted in your video!

Scientists have updated their models. That is a normal thing in science, when an old idea is shown to be wrong it is adjusted to fit the evidence.

so ... fake

Soft Tissue (i.e., Science) Denier too ?


link rsr.org

* Soft Tissue Deniers / Science Deniers[FONT=&quot]: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams list the soft tissue [/FONT]deniers[FONT=&quot], aka the science [/FONT]deniers[FONT=&quot], among leading evolutionists, media outlets, and anti-creation websites.
[/FONT]
* RSR's List of Soft Tissue Deniers (and Doubters): This brief representative list documents the evolutionist science deniers and doubters for this specific topic. We'll occasionally update it and if any of these popular evolutionists reverses themselves, or sends a retraction or clarification to RSR, we'll note it here.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]* 2019 Reversal: Likely the world's leading paleobiochemistry expert, Matthew Collins, who opposed Mary Schweitzer's 2008 T. rex sequencing paper has apparently reversed himself as he co-authored Ancient amino acids from fossil feathers in [allegedly 99 mya] amber. [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]After two decades of extensive research and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, soft tissue deniers seem to be the rule rather than the exception among atheists and evolutionists. (Further, as of June 2019, the existence of dinosaur soft tissue, likely the greatest paleontology discovery ever, remains unknown to the vast majority of the public as anyone can extrapolate by asking a couple dozen people. RSR is working toward educating the public through radio shows, websites, and by presenting the information in easy-to-use formats like the above Google Docs spreadsheet.)

 

[genuineoriginal]

I am a biology professor

You are an expert in an anti-Biblical and anti-scientific theory of the origin of species?

Regardless, evolution explains the diversity of life originating from a relatively simple organism.

There is nothing in nature that supports the idea that all life originated from a single relatively simple organism.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It's certainly rejecting a core scientific idea of biology. Mind you many of the same people want to reject other aspects of science, such as climate science.

You are comparing the theory of Evolution to the "carbon dioxide" climate change hoax?
:thumb:
Yes, both are examples of Big Lies repeated over and over and over.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Most mutations actually don't do anything. Even if a deleterious mutation occurs it is usually removed from the population by natural selection. This kind of selection is usually called purifying selection.

Biologists often ignore that almost all mutations cause "evolutionary dead ends" and nothing beneficial.

Human gene mutations causing infertility The identification of gene mutations causing infertility in humans remains noticeably deficient at present. Although most males and females with infertility display normal pubertal development, nearly all of the gene mutations in humans have been characterised in people with deficient puberty and subsequent infertility. Gene mutations are arbitrarily categorised into four different compartments (I, hypothalamic; II, pituitary; III, gonadal; and IV, outflow tract). Diagnoses of infertility include hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism (compartments I and II), hypergonadotrophic hypogonadism (III), and obstructive disorders (compartment IV). Most gene mutations identified to date affect gonadal function, but it is also apparent that a large number of important genes in normal fertility have yet to be realised.

​