God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Whereas those in the evolutionary and Darwinist camp still hold to the favored species and descent of man teachings in their assumptions that Darwin espoused.

If you believe this is the case, then your perception is highly skewed by your own bias. There are certainly some scientists that have racist opinions, like James Watson. However, the scientific evidence (and therefore, scientists) shows that race is a social construct, not a biological one. 

 

15 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Darwinists concede is that man can evolve into higher forms from where they are now and thus superior forms

1. "Darwinists" is a term that has been obsolete since the 1950s. This is consistent with your argumentation that is decades old and indicates that you are not current with scientific evidence.

2. There is ZERO reason that evolution leads to "superior" forms. This is another argument that is way past the expiration date. If a single mouse population divides into two, why would one be superior to the other? The two populations are different, not superior/inferior. One may survive better under the environmental conditions seen around the new species, but it is absurd to assign value judgements one one species versus the other. 

23 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

You now have technology to back this up with designer babies, gene editing, cloning etc. to make these "superhumans" along with transhumanism and the like, which is creating a class of humans who can afford it that are superior to the common man without any ethical or moral implications being considered, because this superhuman is said to be part of human evolution.

This is a complete red herring argument that has nothing to do with the validity of the conclusions drawn about evolution from scientific evidence.

For the record: Yes, modern biotechnology has some serious ethical issues that need to be resolved. However, a great majority of scientists recognize that genetic manipulation of human embryos is a bad idea at this point. There are indeed some rogue scientists - first in China, and now in Russia - that are pushing the envelope, but there is a strong consensus that scientists should NOT pursue this research. There is definitely not a consensus push for it.

28 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

This is the same thing that eugenicists such as Margaret sanger, and aryan nation theories espoused by Hitler used to justify the killing of millions, and couple this with the whole man made global warming fiasco and soon they will be justifying the slaughter of all lesser humans who are producing CO2 into the environment and down you go into the same slippery slope we went into in the 1930's... and as the saying goes history will repeat itself if we forget that history.

And another red herring... It would be equally valid to argue against young earth creationism because of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

Does your faulty argumentation result from a complete lack of support from scientific evidence? It is no wonder that if all of your arguments are nothing but fallacy that you would wish to drop out of the conversation.

 

[one.opinion]

11 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

The evidence is based on a lie

You sure like to use that word a lot. Did you change your mind about the accusation of a lie when I confronted you with the Biblical evidence related to the flood? No, you simply plowed on through as though your accusation of a lie had not been obviously refuted.

Quite simply, you cannot offer anything to support your claim, but feel self-righteous enough to claim lies from others. It's just plain sad.

15 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

As such, they do away with Jesus' death on the cross because no original Adam and Eve, no original sin.

This claim is just plain false (lie? I don't know... I'll have to check on your response). Since huge numbers of people across the world (including me) accept the scientific evidence for evolution AND Adam/Eve along with original sin and Jesus's sacrificial death (and glorious resurrection), then you cannot claim accepting evolution = "doing away" with those things.

[dhchristian]

Just now, one.opinion said:

24 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

You now have technology to back this up with designer babies, gene editing, cloning etc. to make these "superhumans" along with transhumanism and the like, which is creating a class of humans who can afford it that are superior to the common man without any ethical or moral implications being considered, because this superhuman is said to be part of human evolution.

This is a complete red herring argument that has nothing to do with the validity of the conclusions drawn about evolution from scientific evidence.

For the record: Yes, modern biotechnology has some serious ethical issues that need to be resolved. However, a great majority of scientists recognize that genetic manipulation of human embryos is a bad idea at this point. There are indeed some rogue scientists - first in China, and now in Russia - that are pushing the envelope, but there is a strong consensus that scientists should NOT pursue this research. There is definitely not a consensus push for it.

24 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

This is the same thing that eugenicists such as Margaret sanger, and aryan nation theories espoused by Hitler used to justify the killing of millions, and couple this with the whole man made global warming fiasco and soon they will be justifying the slaughter of all lesser humans who are producing CO2 into the environment and down you go into the same slippery slope we went into in the 1930's... and as the saying goes history will repeat itself if we forget that history.

And another red herring... It would be equally valid to argue against young earth creationism because of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

Does your faulty argumentation result from a complete lack of support from scientific evidence? It is no wonder that if all of your arguments are nothing but fallacy that you would wish to drop out of the conversation.

Neither of these are red herring arguments in my opinion, but are the natural outworking of Godless evolutionary teaching. Call it a warning if you will. A closing statement as to the motive for why I am debating this with both of you. It is pointing to a serious flaw in Darwinism, and I use that term because that is what your faith is in, a man, just like Calvinism or Lutheranism, or any of the other religions built on the teachings of man. 

Unbridled science is the impetus for all manner of evil, it has been in the past and it will be in the future. Science has chosen to remove the bridle that is religion in general and Christianity in particular here in the western world, and the results will be far worse than what has transpired in the past. These "red herrings" as you call them are only a piece of the justification for the depopulation of the final regime of this World. But in the end, God Wins....And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. (Rev 11:15) And which side you are on in that end will determine where you stand.

For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. (2 Tim. 1:12)

I Write this as a conclusion to this post, and this debate with you as well. Ignorance is bliss, and you can continue in your ignorance if you wish, I am just trying to spare you the heartache of coming to see this when its too late. You will have no excuses then as you were explained this here and now by myself. Your blood being upon your own hands then...

Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. (Ezekiel 33:4-6)

I Have done my job as a watchman, now the burden is upon you. 

God bless, and you too can have the last word.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Ignorance is bliss, and you can continue in your ignorance if you wish, I am just trying to spare you the heartache of coming to see this when its too late. You will have no excuses then as you were explained this here and now by myself. Your blood being upon your own hands then...

I trust the Bible as the true Word of God. I also trust that what He has made evident in His creation speaks to how He created. I believe every bit of your Biblical quotations, but they have nothing to do with the scientific evidence for evolution - of which you seem to be completely unfamiliar.

Your charge of ignorance is packed to the brim with irony.

Grace and peace, brother.

[omega2xx]

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Let's see... I can bellieve what Wise himself wrote, with a link to the creationist journal in which he wrote it, or I can believe an uncited claim on a message board about what he said.   Not much of a choice, is it?    Get a checkable link and we'll see what it actually says.   You didn't get a link where you read that, did you?   Can you guess why?

 

That was your first error.   One does not "believe in" a natural phenomenon.   One accepts it or rejects it, based on evidence.

And let's take a look at the math you thought was so persuasive.    It says there's a huge improbability in getting the exact result we have today.   Which is very true, but it proves nothing.    Take a deck of cards, shuffle it carefully, and then deal them out one at at time, noting the order.    The likelihood of that hand is 1 divided by 52! or about 1.2 X10^-68.   So unlikely as to be effectively impossible.   And yet it happens every time.    If you calculate the likelihood of you, given the genes of your great-great-great grandparents, you get something nearly as unlikely.    So your creationist mentor has "proven" that shuffled cards and you are impossible.   Does that suggest why the creationist probability story is such a loser?

Let's see... I can bellieve what Wise himself wrote, with a link to the creationist journal in which he wrote it, or I can believe an uncited claim on a message board about what he said.   Not much of a choice, is it?    Get a checkable link and we'll see what it actually says.   You didn't get a link where you read that, did you?   Can you guess why?

 

I am not interested what Kurt said.  I am only interested in you providing the scientific evidence that confirms what you said.

 

That was your first error.   One does not "believe in" a natural phenomenon.   One accepts it or rejects it, based on evidence.

 

And you haven't presented any evidence to support whatever you call a natural phenomenon.

And let's take a look at the math you thought was so persuasive.    It says there's a huge improbability in getting the exact result we have today.   Which is very true, but it proves nothing.

 

I didn't present any math and math does not prove genetic truth.

 

Does that suggest why the creationist probability story is such a loser?

 

Sorry but all you have proved is that you do not understand even basic genetics.  First your analogy is not even valid.  You can't prove/disprove genetic traits with cards.    Second traits can' be passed on the the offspring unless the parents,, grandparents all the way back to Adam and Eve, unless someone in the kids line had the gene for the trait in their gene pool.. Since some genes are recessive, the trait may not show up  for many generations.

 

Since land animals do not have the gene for fins or blowholes,  pakicetus can never become a whale.  Whale evolution is one  of the biggest farces evolution has tried to perpetuate on science.  To believe land life originated in sea life and then back again is preposterous.

[one.opinion]

15 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Since land animals do not have the gene for fins or blowholes,  pakicetus can never become a whale.  Whale evolution is one  of the biggest farces evolution has tried to perpetuate on science.  To believe land life originated in sea life and then back again is preposterous.

You seem under the impression that there is a single gene for fins and another single gene for blowholes. Genetics doesn't work that way. Structures like this are made through interactions of possibly dozens of different genes. A fin is essentially a modified limb and a blowhole is essential a modified nostril. The development of these structures did not require a new fin gene or blowhole gene to come into existence, but slow modifications to existing genes to alter form and position. If you are going to effectively argue against science, then you will need to engage with the science, rather than attacking strawman caricatures of the science.

Here is a link with a rough overview for whale evolution - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Educate yourself and if you still wish to argue, then at least you can argue about the actual scientific evidence. Arguing from a huge knowledge deficit that whale evolution is a "farce" is prideful in the extreme. It would be like me loudly proclaiming that brain surgeons have it all wrong because of a book I read once, all of their years of education and training are worthless.

[The Barbarian]

Let's see... I can bellieve what Wise himself wrote, with a link to the creationist journal in which he wrote it, or I can believe an uncited claim on a message board about what he said.   Not much of a choice, is it?    Get a checkable link and we'll see what it actually says.   You didn't get a link where you read that, did you?   Can you guess why?

 

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I am not interested what Kurt said. .

Then it probable was a mistake for you to post an alleged quote from him, with no link or checkable source.

 

18 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I am only interested in you providing the scientific evidence that confirms what you said.

As you have seen Dr. Wise provided you many sources for that.   Would you like me to show you again?

(regarding the idea of "believing in" science)

18 hours ago, omega2xx said:

That was your first error.   One does not "believe in" a natural phenomenon.   One accepts it or rejects it, based on evidence.

 

18 hours ago, omega2xx said:

And you haven't presented any evidence to support whatever you call a natural phenomenon.

As you know, (and Darwin pointed out) every organism is slightly different than its parents.   That being so, evolution is constantly observed.    Remember, evolution is descent with modification, or more precisely, a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

(Barbarian shows that the creationist improbablility argument "proves" that humans are impossible.)

18 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Sorry but all you have proved is that you do not understand even basic genetics.  

 Two universities thought I did.  They were sufficiently convinced to grant me a bachelors and a master's degree.   Perhaps you need to learn what "genetics" means.

18 hours ago, omega2xx said:

First your analogy is not even valid.  You can't prove/disprove genetic traits with cards.   

You can demonstrate probability, however.   I showed you that the creationist probability argument "proves" you can't exist.   That's  a pretty good clue that they were blowing smoke.

18 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Second traits can' be passed on the the offspring unless the parents,, grandparents all the way back to Adam and Eve, unless someone in the kids line had the gene for the trait in their gene pool..

Or it mutations to form a new allele.   We know that happened because Adam and Eve could have together had no more than 4 alleles for each gene locus.   Yet most human genes have dozens of alleles.   The rest evolved by mutation.   No other way possible.

18 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Since land animals do not have the gene for fins or blowholes, 

Actually, they do.  The same homobox genes that govern development of legs, also govern the development of whale fins.   And the same genes that govern blowholes, govern nostrils.   And there is abundant fossil evidence that one evolved from the other, as your fellow creationists demonstrates.   Would you like to see some of the details?

 

 

[The Barbarian]

On 11/4/2019 at 8:15 AM, dhchristian said:

No I find their racism to be no more or less than that of Darwin.

 

As you learned, Darwin denounce the eugenics promoted by creationists as an "overwhelming evil."   He argued that environment was the cause of differences in races, not some intellectual and spiritual inferiority ordained by God, and your creationists leaders asserted.   So there is that.

What I have seen is a maturation process with regard to the YEC creationists,

If so, it's very recent.   While Darwin asserted in the 1870s, that racial differences were a matter of environment, into the 1990s, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research was still blathering about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.   And your Dr. Tinkle promoted force sterilization of people he thought were "inferior."

that is totally devoid of racism.

Doesn't sound "devoid" to me.   On the other hand, scientists are rarely racists, because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races today.   This is one of the main differences between creationism and science.

 

On 11/4/2019 at 8:15 AM, dhchristian said:

 

This is the same thing that eugenicists such as Margaret sanger, and aryan nation theories espoused by Hitler used to justify the killing of millions,

 

 

As you now know, Darwinists demonstrated that the eugenic beliefs of the creationists like Dr. Tinkle, and the Nazis, were not only morally objectionable, but scientifically invalid.

On 11/4/2019 at 8:15 AM, dhchristian said:

and couple this with the whole man made global warming fiasco and soon they will be justifying the slaughter of all lesser humans who are producing CO2 into the environment and down you go into the same slippery slope we went into in the 1930's... and as the saying goes history will repeat itself if we forget that history.

Sounds pretty hysterical, since no one is advocating anything like that.   And your eugenist Nazis and Anti-Darwinian Soviets were enthusiastically engaging in genocide.

 

[omega2xx]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You seem under the impression that there is a single gene for fins and another single gene for blowholes. Genetics doesn't work that way. Structures like this are made through interactions of possibly dozens of different genes. A fin is essentially a modified limb and a blowhole is essential a modified nostril. The development of these structures did not require a new fin gene or blowhole gene to come into existence, but slow modifications to existing genes to alter form and position. If you are going to effectively argue against science, then you will need to engage with the science, rather than attacking strawman caricatures of the science.

Here is a link with a rough overview for whale evolution - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Educate yourself and if you still wish to argue, then at least you can argue about the actual scientific evidence. Arguing from a huge knowledge deficit that whale evolution is a "farce" is prideful in the extreme. It would be like me loudly proclaiming that brain surgeons have it all wrong because of a book I read once, all of their years of education and training are worthless.

You seem under the impression that there is a single gene for fins and another single gene for blowholes. Genetics doesn't work that way.

 

Sure it does.  There is a single gene for whale fins, a different one for shark fins and a single, different gene for each SPECIES  of fish.  If that is not true a whale might end up with a shark fin and could not live.

 

Structures like this are made through interactions of possibly dozens of different genes.

Genes do not interact with each other.  The have a God given a function to perform and they do that one the they were created for and nothing else.

 

A fin is essentially a modified limb and a blowhole is essential a modified nostril.

Not true and you can't provide any evidence for how it is possible.  All you can do is offer the usual, unprovable, talking points of evolution.  To say a nose can become a blowhole, is laughable.  Especially when it mst come from a land animal.

 

The development of these structures did not require a new fin gene or blowhole gene to come into existence,

Right.  For these structure to come  into existence, at least one parent needed to have the gene for fins or a blowhole.  Land animals do not have either of these genes.

 

but slow modifications to existing genes to alter form and position.

 

Genes do not modify.  They are static.  They may be mutated, but the mutation of genes only alter the trait it was intended to give he offspring.  It will not change the offspring into a different species even in a gazillion years, and you can't show where it has ever happened.  However I can show you proof of "after their kind" which is still what we see thousands  of times every day.  The wheat today is the same as the first grain of wheat God put in the Garden of
Eden

 

If you are going to effectively argue against science, then you will need to engage with the science, rather than attacking strawman caricatures of the science.

 

Real science proves/disproves theories.  If you are going to call evolution science, you need to prove, scientifically of course, something it says instead of just parroting what evolution's usual talking points.

 

 

Here is a link with a rough overview for whale evolution - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Without reading your link I will tell you it just does hat you have just done---say things happened but offering not evidence  HOW it did.  If you want to believe what they say on faith alone, be my guest. 

 

Educate yourself and if you still wish to argue, then at least you can argue about the actual scientific evidence. Arguing from a huge knowledge deficit that whale evolution is a "farce" is prideful in the extreme.

You have not presented any scientific evidence, and I am through discussing, not arguing, with you over this subject unless you offer some PROVABLE EVIDENCE.

What is prideful and extreme is expecting me to accept you say when you have not provided any scientific evidence to support your OPINIONS.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Peace and joy

 

It would be like me loudly proclaiming that brain surgeons have it all wrong because of a book I read once, all of their years of education and training are worthless.

 

Brain surgery is based on the SCIENCE of the past.  It has been PROVED.  That is the difference between science and evolution.

 

 

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Let's see... I can bellieve what Wise himself wrote, with a link to the creationist journal in which he wrote it, or I can believe an uncited claim on a message board about what he said.   Not much of a choice, is it?    Get a checkable link and we'll see what it actually says.   You didn't get a link where you read that, did you?   Can you guess why?

 

Surely you understand that believing what is on a link can be believed or not believed.  If you believe what he said, say why.  If you don't, say why

 

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

 

Then it probable was a mistake for you to post an alleged quote from him, with no link or checkable source.

You have your shoes on the wrong feet.  I have not posted a quote from him.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

 

As you have seen Dr. Wise provided you many sources for that.   Would you like me to show you again?

(regarding the idea of "believing in" science)

Let start with the fact that evolutin is not based on science.  It can't prove even one thing it preaches.  That is one reason it is still called a theory after 100+ yeqars

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

 

As you know, (and Darwin pointed out) every organism is slightly different than its parents.   That being so, evolution is constantly observed.    Remember, evolution is descent with modification, or more precisely, a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

 

Every organism is not different  in the important, unchangeable aspects of life.  cats  color may change. but they just remain a cats.  Potatoes remain potatoes no mater how long you need.  Apes never become anything but another ape, and an ape will never produce a chimp no matter how you try to manipulate the fossil record

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

(Barbarian shows that the creationist improbablility argument "proves" that humans are impossible.)

I am not familiar with the "improbability argument, but I doubt if Barbarian really understands it.  Why don;t you post  it and I will take a crack at it.

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

 Two universities thought I did.  They were sufficiently convinced to grant me a bachelors and a master's degree.   Perhaps you need to learn what "genetics" means.

Those 2 universities probability didn't understand the argument either so hey just showed their ignorance.  Perhaps you need to learn what genetics do and can't do.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

You can demonstrate probability, however.   I showed you that the creationist probability argument "proves" you can't exist.   That's  a pretty good clue that they were blowing smoke.

I am still betting you don't understand what they said

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Or it mutations to form a new allele. 

Thanks for revealing your lack of understanding even basic genetics.  Mutations do alter the trait the gene would have give the offspring, but mutations NEVER change the species and the trait caused by the mutation may not even be passed  on to the next generation.

 

 We know that happened because Adam and Eve could have together had no more than 4 alleles for each gene locus. 

Talk is cheap, Give me the evidence that support what you say. no t the usual evolution rhetoric.

 

  Yet most human genes have dozens of alleles.   The rest evolved by mutation.   No other way possible.

How silly.  Mutations do not create anything.  All they can do is alter the trait the gene would have given without the mutation.

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, they do.  The same homobox genes that govern development of legs, also govern the development of whale fins.   And the same genes that govern blowholes, govern nostrils.   And there is abundant fossil evidence that one evolved from the other, as your fellow creationists demonstrates.   Would you like to see some of the details?

Not true and certainly not provable.  If that was true a whale could get a shark fin and cats could get a blowhole instead of a nose. 

 

To say land animals can become sea animals is laughable and  should start with "once upon a time" and end with "and they lived happily ever after.

 

Peace and joy

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said: