Jump to content

one.opinion

Diamond Member
  • Content Count

    1,713
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

418 Good

6 Followers

About one.opinion

  • Rank
    Diamond Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,691 profile views
  1. It really doesn’t matter how many times the passage is repeated. The actual words used originally in the Bible do not require a global flood. This is a fact. If you want to be true to the Bible, and I assume you do, then you must face what the Bible says, as well as what it doesn’t say.
  2. Nope. As a biologist, I am telling you differently. There are several important factors that can lead to variation in the genome between parents and progeny. I'll pick an easy one to demonstrate. If a mutation (a change in DNA content) occurs in a germ line cell (cells making eggs or sperm), then progeny can have different DNA from the parent. My quote: "Organisms change over time. Period. ICR scientists know this. AiG scientists know this. The Bible doesn't say it doesn't happen. You have exactly zero support from the Bible and zero support from the natural world that organisms cannot change." Your response: They don't reject it, they admit it. Remember the direct quotes I provided you from both ICR and AiG on natural selection? Here they are, although you will likely just ignore them again. Here is a link to the full text article - https://www.icr.org/article/tempest-dog-dish https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/ Organisms change. If you cannot even accept what creation scientists believe when provided with direct quotes, I'm afraid there is no way I can adequately explain what mainstream scientists believe and I am doing nothing but wasting my time. Peace and joy to you, as well. - signing off this conversation
  3. No, the meaning of "kind" is important, and not a strawman (look up strawman, your perception of this isn't accurate). You cannot explain what a "kind" is based on the Bible because the Bible does not say what a "kind" is. Then it should be a reasonable request to show from the Bible what it is. Go ahead, give it a shot. Consider the possibility that a "kind" isn't what you have assumed. Organisms change over time. Period. ICR scientists know this. AiG scientists know this. The Bible doesn't say it doesn't happen. You have exactly zero support from the Bible and zero support from the natural world that organisms cannot change. Evidence was provided. I gave you a link, twice, and you refuse to look at it. Read the link. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ Major changes in characteristics take time. Speciation can occur in a single generation, but the species will still look the same, even if the two new species can no longer interbreed. Show me the studies. "Google it" is not a sufficient response. You repeatedly demand evidence, and haven't produced a single bit to support your own assertions. Please read this link - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 Read it, study it, check out the claims and the evidence, then let's talk about it some more. I'm not going to devote a lot of time to searching if you won't even read a basic overview. You demand evidence, but won't look at it when it is provided. This is not a good way to conduct a fair conversation. I'm willing to keep this conversation going, but you have to start discussing fairly.
  4. Likewise, if it “floats your boat” to ignore factual information that has been repeatedly shown to you, go for it. Keep denying basic facts and tell yourself you know more than thousands of experts in the field - have fun with that. Let me remind you of one thing - scientists at ICR and AiG are not young earth creationists despite scientific evidence, not because of it.
  5. How do you define "after their kind" and why do you define it that way? Does the Bible indicate anywhere that kinds cannot change over time? This is another one of these arguments that relies on human inference rather than what is actually written. Progeny of course are the same kinds as their parents, but slight differences over long periods of time (and as we have seen, large changes in short periods of time) can change a sub-population into an entirely new species. There is nothing about the theory of evolution that is falsified by direct observation. Did you look at the link I sent you? If not, I'll post it here again so hopefully, you will actually look at the evidence. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ Please read it. You will see the evidence how a single mutation event, a genome duplication, can lead to the formation of new species (the goatsbeards). You can also find evidence for other speciation events there. Species change a little at first, and this is directly observable. The large-scale changes that differentiate the species frequently take much longer. Our abilities to sequence genomes (over the last 20 year) has added a tremendous amount of evidence in favor of evolution. This definitely was a big change. Show me the study that describes these examples. Then we can discuss them in more detail. Friend, I've not only looked at the other side, I've been on the other side. I started my education as a firm young earth creationist. The evidence led me to believe that how I once interpreted the Bible was inconsistent with what God has made evident in His creation.
  6. When I consider God creating through evolution, I am impressed with God's creative mind and intricate presence in His creation. In fact, the thought of God creating through such a beautiful process fills me with more wonder and awe than I had as a young earth creationist. Nineteenth century theologian Charles Kingsley (who also had a great interest in science) had this to say about Darwin's theory is it began to gain acceptance:
  7. You make a good case. Thank you for respectfully presenting your opinion here without falsely claiming you have the absolute truth. Others here could learn from your example.
  8. I am going to have to review your link to respond to all of the above. I would greatly appreciate it if you did review the information in the link. It doesn't make sense to reject the evidence without actually looking at the evidence.
  9. You are misunderstanding the the reproduction issue. When one portion of a population undergoes speciation, members of that new population can still reproduce among themselves. They are only unable to reproduce with the members of the older populations. Let's get that misconception addressed before we move on.
  10. I'm not sure why you claim there is no evidence. Look for yourself at the following portion of the article. There is even genetic evidence explaining why this speciation took place. Why is the development of new species, along with a mechanism for that speciation, not evidence for evolution? More discussion includes this part of the article: Typically, speciation requires physical isolation of one portion of a population, but as you can see with the example of the goatsbeard plants, a single massive mutation (like the production of a gamete that did not reduce chromosome number in meiosis) can indeed lead to speciation. You've mentioned this a lot, but I honestly don't know what particular example you are referring to. Can you provide more detail, like an article discussing this study? Or the gull you've mentioned? If you are expecting a salamander to evolve into something completely different, then you do not understand how evolution works. First, a speciation event occurs and then the new species diverge over long periods of time. It does not happen from one generation to the next. Expecting such a dramatic change to take place in one generation is a false assumption. The examples already provided show that a single mutation can lead to speciation. Divergence of the new species takes much more time.
  11. This spiritual death is substantiated by the Bible. The slow physical death is not. This is hypothesis that goes beyond what is evident in the Bible. I have no problem with you making this determination on your own. What I do have a problem with is you insisting that everyone else either believes exactly as you believe or reject the truth of God. I do not think that the Bible teaches "no death before the fall" and it is inconsistent with what God has made evident about creation. You have no basis to claim "believe as I do, or be wrong." None of verses you have quoted are strong enough to definitively support your position. Yes, the "perfect" life of Jesus Christ is eternal. This does not necessarily mean the "very good" life was.
  12. Isn’t it interesting that Adam and Eve did not physically die that day? I argue that this is strong evidence of spiritual death, not physical death. I would argue that this, too, is better interpreted in spiritual terms, not physical. The context of the chapter refers to life in Jesus Christ, which is of course, spiritual life. Until you can show me why my interpretation is inferior according to the Bible, please keep your condemnation to yourself. This is the third time recently that you have started with this argument. The Bible hasn’t changed. You still cannot provide evidence from the Bible that nothing dies before the Fall of Adam. Please base your preaching on what the Bible actually says.
  13. I'm going to give you a link, and ask that you check it out. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ You are under exactly zero obligation to do so. But if you really want to learn more about why about 99% of biologists accept evolution (including the many Christians in the field, like me), this might be a good place to start. Edit - there are several pieces of evidence in that link
  14. Do you think you could share some of that evidence? I suspect that ICR is not making the claim that scientists believe that a few mutations are enough to cause speciation. I would have to read more of what they have written that leads you to believe this in order to judge it fairly. No only can I, I did on Wed. 9:30 Am in thread #21,. My apologies, I missed this explanation earlier. No, most mutations do not alter traits. I can explain why if you would like to learn more. You can tell me about alleles and why a change in frequency is important to show me I am in error. Changes in allele frequency are critical to the concept of evolution. A denial of this fact only highlights an unfamiliarity with the necessary knowledge base. If you don't really know what something is, it is very difficult to accurate assess what it can or can't do. Please point out anything I have said that is false. I do apologize for condescending. I have no claim of more intelligence. However, I have worked hard to study biology for about 30 years and earned a PhD in the subject about 20 years ago. No, you do not know more about evolution than I do. No, you are not more familiar with what constitutes evidence. No, you are not as educated as I am. I do not say this because I believe it makes me superior - it absolutely does not. However, it does make me more qualified to make assertions regarding the scientific evidence for evolution. Not true. I pointed out that there are assumptions that YEC make about science that are not actually based on what the Bible teaches. What evidence is this assertion based on? Again, I apologize for the condescension, but you can ignore me if you wish.
  15. Why did you find their explanation better? You can't tell me what a mutation is. You have no idea what an allele is or why frequency of alleles in a population is important to the discussion. You keep saying you don't need to define a mutation because you know what they do. How can you possibly understand what mutations can or cannot do if you do not understand what one is? If you want to select your beliefs on faith, and freely admit that you are unfamiliar with the evidence, I can accept that. But you are trying to argue about things you simply do not understand and it is completely disingenuous.
×
×
  • Create New...