Does the Theory of Evolution Win Hands Down?

[thomas t]

Good day and thanks for your reply, Gerald.

 

 

But there's no difference in how evolutionary theory would change if it was discovered that God created a species and how plate tectonics would change if it was discovered that God created a mountain range.

 

Plate tectonics would be (simplistically speaking) : The movement of tectonic plates creates mountains, except for this range which was created by God.

 

Evolutionary common descent would be: All life on earth shares a common evolutionary past, except for this species which was created by God.

 

The same could be said for any scientific explanation.

 

 

 

Let me please save this point of discussion, on which I disagree, for tomorrow, since I like to take things slowly today.

 

 

 

* Last, you wrote that I agreed with you that a process requiring further work was inferior to a process able to run of its own. I only did agree with you on that in regard to the producion of plants, I should have made this clearer, perhaps. When it comes to the creation of man, the process of creation was under a different paradigm, as the Bible shows us, so I don't agree with you on that it would have been better to have a process just running of its own. The aim for the creation of man was to create something of divine kind, "of our likes", as it says in the Bible. However, that was the first time, when the Bible mentions a creation with such an aim. That's why I think that a new aim may justify a new manner of creation.

 

 

I didn't see you mention plants before, so that's new to me.  But Genesis also says God created plants as well, even specifying fruit trees.

 

 

yes, God created plants as well and he even specified different fruit trees, as mentioned in Genesis, chapter 2. (I take the Bible as evidence.)

However, I think that God created plants under a different paradigm than man. He actually did create plants, but he called them into existance ....

 

The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen 2:9

 

.... whereas he created man directly:

 

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Gen 2:7

 

Have a good day,

Thomas

[Guest shiloh357]

If "kind" = "family", then chimps and humans would be in the same "kind".

Nope.  I did not say "kind" equals "family."  I simply used that as an example of a broad and less precise non-scientific term.  Chimps and humans are two completely different "kinds."   Man was created separate from the chimps.

[MarkNigro]

 

If we stick to facts, you cannot say that there were several H. sapien species before. That is an interpretation based a religious assumption.

 

I didn't say there were other H. sapiens species.  That would be weird, since H. sapiens is a species.   I said there were several hominid species prior to the evolution of H. sapiens.  That's a fact.

 

Mankind lived almost 1000 years before the flood.

Mankind was living almost 1000 years around the time of the flood.

Mankind's lifetime moves quickly to be limited to 120 years about the time of Moses.

Similar changes occurred to all animal species during these years due to the curse from the fall in the garden and the changes from the flood.

 

Now all species have variance in them. There are also young developing individuals and mature individuals.

 

 

Sure, I understand that those are your religious beliefs.

 

 

There is no way that you can surmise from a few bone fragments, based on the information above, what species were running. around.

 

Your false religious assumption is causing you to err on your conclusions.and 

 

 

We have virtually complete skeletons that show a mosaic of human and primitive "ape-like" traits.  That's not an assumption, it's a fact and has nothing to do with religion.

 

Every one who speculates about the origin the universe and life forms on earth is basing it on a religious belief.

 

The atheist assume that there is no God.

 

The theists/evolutionist believes God directed it or started it all out at the beginning and just let it go.

 

The 6-day creationists believes it happened as it says in the Holy Bible starting around 6000 years..

 

The atheist belief is of course easily proven wrong.

 

The theist/evolutionist gets around the failure of the atheist idea, because he can always get around the impossible with a very quick nod to God.

 

But this is the problem for the theist/evolutionist. Which God is he worshipping. There is only one book in the history of the world that can prove it is from God Almighty creator. It emphatically says God created in 6 days and there was no evolution. So the theist/evolutionist has no logic to stand on. He has no book from God. So he has contradicted himself and his belief is proven false.

 

God spoke the following and wrote this twice with His own finger into stone.

 

Exodus 20:10-11

 

¹⁰ But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

¹¹ For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

So the atheist and the theist/evolutionist have a religion. In hypocrisy they have established this religion in the public schools in violation of the establishment of religion clause.

When a creationist wants to present his views alongside, the atheist and theist/evolutionist prevent the creationist from speaking, in violation of the right to free speech and religion. They also hypocritically claim that the creationist is violating the establishment clause.

[thomas t]

 

But there's no difference in how evolutionary theory would change if it was discovered that God created a species and how plate tectonics would change if it was discovered that God created a mountain range.

 

Plate tectonics would be (simplistically speaking) : The movement of tectonic plates creates mountains, except for this range which was created by God.

 

Evolutionary common descent would be: All life on earth shares a common evolutionary past, except for this species which was created by God.

 

The same could be said for any scientific explanation.

 

Good day Gerald, now let's take up this point, today.

 

Later generations of a species are all dependant on the one generation before, as is described by the theory of evolution. The way they look and the shape they have is, according to the theory of evolution, subject to what happened to the generation before.

Whereas in plate tectonics, in contrast, the movement doesn't comes from the shape of the one mountain range it has had before, neither does it stem from any neighbouring mountain range. (it rather stems from the layer deeper inside the earth, which is called "mantle" according to wikipedia)

So, even if God created a mountain range via direct implementation, this mountain range, in my opinion, would still be subject to a movement which stems from somewhere else. Hence, in my opinion, there wouldn't be any need of change for the theory of plate tectonics.

 

Have a good day,

Thomas

[thomas t]

So what process do you believe God used to create plants?

 

God created plants at two different points of creation mentioned in the first three chapters of Genesis. The verses are Genesis 1:11,12 and Genesis 2:9.

 

The first passage, in my interpretation, indeed indicates some sort of evolution. The second one is, as I read it, open for such an interpretation, as well. However, it could also be meant that God maybe picked up seeds there were already due to the first creation and simply planted them. This, in my opinion, could also be meant by

 

The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground

 

(first part of Gen 2:9)

 

Thomas

[JDavis]

 

Nope.  I did not say "kind" equals "family."  I simply used that as an example of a broad and less precise non-scientific term.  Chimps and humans are two completely different "kinds."   Man was created separate from the chimps.

 

You stated ""Kind" might be sort of like saying "family"".  So if "kind" is not "family", then what is a "kind"?

 

 

God does not use the same taxonomy as man has invented so a "kind" does not fit neatly into any of the manmade groups.   My view of "kind" would put it between "class" and "order" but I am no scientist so I do not know how many would agree with me.

 

Your examples of "evolution" that you gave us were interesting. 

 

My biggest problem with evolution has always been the very beginning of it all.  According to evolution..."all life on Earth shares a common ancestor".   Not just animal life, but plants, and everything in-between.

 

Taking your examples of "evolution" could you explain how those sorts of changes could cause the same organism to eventually become both a oak tree and a human being? 

[Tinky]

Until the evolutionary atheists can prove matter and energy were self created, and demonstrate in a lab life emerging from dead matter (as opposed to simply theorizing it happened and claiming that as "proof") and prove that "nature" created genetic information, and adds new information to produce new species, the evolutionary story remains a fable.

[JDavis]

God does not use the same taxonomy as man has invented so a "kind" does not fit neatly into any of the manmade groups. My view of "kind" would put it between "class" and "order" but I am no scientist so I do not know how many would agree with me.

As long as "kind" has no useful meaning, it is by definition a meaningless term and all arguments and claims that rely on it will be equally meaningless.

If I said, "Everything today has kleptch", but never really said what "kleptch" is, my argument isn't of much value, is it?

My biggest problem with evolution has always been the very beginning of it all. According to evolution..."all life on Earth shares a common ancestor". Not just animal life, but plants, and everything in-between.

Taking your examples of "evolution" could you explain how those sorts of changes could cause the same organism to eventually become both a oak tree and a human being?

I'm going to keep this somewhat basic, so I hope that's ok.

That all life shares a common ancestry is a conclusion reached by multiple lines of evidence. The most obvious is the fossil record, where for ~2 billion years there was nothing on earth except single-celled organisms, then as we move forward in time the life forms become increasingly like what we see around us today. Obviously then, some process must have caused populations to produce new species and acquire new traits. The observations and results I've posted are a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall data that unambiguously shows that populations evolve into new species and acquire new traits by genetic mutations, selective pressures, and a handful of other mechanisms (drift and gene transfer mostly).

The other conclusion from our observations is that populations are constantly evolving. They never stop. The only way a population stops evolving is if it replicates itself perfectly with every generation, and that just doesn't happen.

So we know: 1) populations evolve, 2) new traits arise by evolutionary mechanisms, and 3) new species arise by evolutionary mechanisms.

The history of life on earth and universal common ancestry is nothing more than those three things playing out over ~4.5 billion years.

Thank you for not answering the question

[Tinky]

 

 

new genetic information and species do indeed evolve

  

 

New genetic information has never been added to any existing species. It's never been demonstrated or proven in any way. It simply does not happen. The only evolution that is occurring is micro-evolution (changes within a species).  Macro-evolution (an entirely new species evolving from another) has never been demonstrated, nor proven.

[Guest shiloh357]

Tinky,

 

Yes, all of that is a directly observed fact.  I've posted the information

None of that is macro-evolution.  Macro-evolution has never been proven or intuitively observed.  Neither has it been observed in a lab given that macro-evolution take millions and millions of years according to Evolution experts.