Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[JohnR7]

2 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

The Word made flesh was a man in accordance with the prophecy from the third chapter of Genesis regarding the seed of the woman. 

What I want to see is that first conversation between Eve & Mary. "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15) Jesus was the seed of Eve but Mary birthed Him into the world. Even to follow the bloodline of Jesus from Eve to Mary is very interesting. 

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

Nonsense: there has only ever been one global flood.

There is no evidence for that and the Bible does not say the flood of Noah was global.

 

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

7 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

There is no evidence for that and the Bible does not say the flood of Noah was global.

 17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. 18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

Sure as long as we think that words do not mean things! I suppose it is possible to interpret the Bible to mean that the word "all" really just means a few, yeah, it was probably just a local flood, not big deal. If we were to apply this in more contemporary language, it would read like:

"The Lord caused the levies to break around New Orleans, such that Mount Everest was under 22.5 feet of water". Yeah, I could see how you could get that understanding out of the Bible text! 

[one.opinion]

22 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Sex, eye-hand coordination, balance, navigation systems, tongues, blood, antennae, waste removal systems, swallowing, joints, lubrication, pumps, valves, autofocus, image stabilization, sensors, camouflage, traps, ceramic teeth, light (bioluminescence), ears, tears, eyes, hands, fingernails, cartilage, bones, spinal columns, spinal cords, muscles, ligaments, tendons, livers, kidneys, thyroid glands, lungs, stomachs, vocal cords, saliva, skin, fat, lymph, body plans, growth from egg to adult, nurturing babies, aging, breathing, heartbeat, hair, hibernation, bee dancing, insect queens, spiderwebs, feathers, seashells, scales, fins, tails, legs, feet, claws, wings, beaver dams, termite mounds, bird nests, coloration, markings, decision making, speech center of the brain, visual center of the brain, hearing center of the brain, language comprehension center of the brain, sensory center of the brain, memory, creative center of the brain, object-naming center of the brain, emotional center of the brain, movement centers of the brain, center of the brain for smelling, immune systems, circulatory systems, digestive systems, endocrine systems, regulatory systems, genes, gene regulatory networks, proteins, ribosomes that assemble proteins, receptors for proteins on cells, apoptosis, hormones, neurotransmitters, circadian clocks, jet propulsion, etc. Everything in nature - according to evolution theory.

You believe God is omnipotent and perfectly capable of creating all living things instantaneously. Why would you disbelieve that God could create all of these things through a more elaborate, developing process? It really makes no sense to argue that God could not create through evolution.

22 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Here is a link to a roster of 
hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly
understand evolution theory.

The "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" is propaganda that reflects poorly on Christians to non-Christians who have taken the trouble to understand the statement and the Discovery Institute. I've addressed this earlier in the thread, but this is important.

1. Here is the actual statement.

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

First, this statement includes only "random mutation and natural selection", displaying ignorance (or negligence) by leaving out Neutral Theory, which was introduced by Kimura over 50 years ago.

Second, "careful examination" of any science should be encouraged. It would be preposterous to NOT encourage "careful examination". James Tour, one of the signees, stated in a talk I attended, that he was completely unaware that his signature would be used as a tool for a debate he didn't want to be part of.

2. I would be careful pretending that all signatories "thoroughly understand evolution." I can guarantee that James Tour does not. I also suspect that a large number of engineers on the list have more than a cursory knowledge of evolution.

3. I know for a fact that many atheistic evolutionists think this ploy is dishonest and ridiculous - and it harms the witness of Christ followers that attempt to reason with them.

[HAZARD]

29 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You believe God is omnipotent and perfectly capable of creating all living things instantaneously. Why would you disbelieve that God could create all of these things through a more elaborate, developing process? It really makes no sense to argue that God could not create through evolution.

The "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" is propaganda that reflects poorly on Christians to non-Christians who have taken the trouble to understand the statement and the Discovery Institute. I've addressed this earlier in the thread, but this is important.

1. Here is the actual statement.

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

First, this statement includes only "random mutation and natural selection", displaying ignorance (or negligence) by leaving out Neutral Theory, which was introduced by Kimura over 50 years ago.

Second, "careful examination" of any science should be encouraged. It would be preposterous to NOT encourage "careful examination". James Tour, one of the signees, stated in a talk I attended, that he was completely unaware that his signature would be used as a tool for a debate he didn't want to be part of.

2. I would be careful pretending that all signatories "thoroughly understand evolution." I can guarantee that James Tour does not. I also suspect that a large number of engineers on the list have more than a cursory knowledge of evolution.

3. I know for a fact that many atheistic evolutionists think this ploy is dishonest and ridiculous - and it harms the witness of Christ followers that attempt to reason with them.

17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION

by Kevin Martin

1. Moon Dust
2. Magnetic Field
3. Fossil Record
4. Embryonic Recapitulation
5. Probability
6. Second Law of Thermodynamics
7. Vestigial Organs
8. Fossil and Fossil Fuel Formation
9. Punctuated Equilibria
10. Homology/Molecular Biology
11. Dating Methods
12. Dinosaurs
13. Sun's Diameter
14. Nile River's Overflow
15. Earth's Rotation
16. Written Record
17. The Bible

https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/evidences.htm

[one.opinion]

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

I found the OP a bit vague. For example, I find the term “evolution” itself to be highly equivocal.

Agreed. I started the OP to specifically address claims that there are scientific problems with the theory of evolution - I took this to mean evolution in the encompassing sense of common ancestry. I invited you in case you had specific issues you wanted to discuss.

 

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

I contest Standard Cosmology, Abiogenesis, and Common Ancestry.

Do you contest them due to scientific evidence? If so, let's talk about it. For the record, I contest naturalistic abiogenesis, as well. After about 70 years of research attempting to offer a solid explanation, the evidence supporting any hypothesis is still very thin.

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

It is an imprecise, equivocal use of language – which results in a muddy conversation. It is true that in common usage, many people confuse “facts” with “evidence”. But that is not helpful in this kind of discussion.

I know you enjoy semantic arguments. I don't really wish to engage in those. My point is easily understood regardless of your approval of my word choices.

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

Perhaps you have raised Todd Wood before in our conversations.

I used Todd Wood as an example of a YEC scientist that is very forthright about the evidence for evolution and his personal beliefs that force him to look for alternative explanations. I don't really wish to parse his words, either.

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

'If I don't like what the Bible says, I'll just assume it's symbolic – and dismiss the detail of God's Word on this basis'.

I thought you didn't like strawman arguments?

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

“This is a problematic argument. You know very well why convergence fits VERY well with the evolution paradigm. You also know that superficial structural similarity does not necessitate genetic and anatomic similarity. This is a bad swing and a miss”

There is no problem with the logic of my original statement (at least nothing you've provided). Just more empty words.

Ok fine - let's assume that you really don't understand the error of your statement. When a particular function evolves in different lineages, it is unsurprising that over long periods of time, evolution would work to optimize that function - whether it be flying, swimming, etc. Therefore a superficial resemblance to a bat wing and a bird wing does not require that the genetics and underlying anatomy of the feature be highly similar. There is nothing AT ALL contrary to to the theory of evolution in convergence.

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

The distinction of “interspersed repeats” doesn't effect my provided argument.

The general concept of genes being inactivated by mutations is not a problem for Biblical creationism. The Argument from Ignorance fallacy should be a problem for everyone.

If you have evidence that "junk DNA" does not exist, bring it forward so we can discuss it.

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

why is God obligated to randomise the introns in that gene between each created kind? I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something.

Is your belief that God used a template model that simply has the exonic sequences nearly identical, but fiddled with intronic and intergenic sequences enough to make it LOOK like those regions aren't as conserved? Did He just strike a happy medium that shows similarity, but not too much, in order to just make it look like we share a common ancestor?

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

OK – so there is a general pattern of fossil succession (which itself is being constantly eroded and revised by discoveries of fossils beyond their expected ranges (but that is an aside).

Is your argument here that new evidence should be discarded and hypotheses and theories should never be adjusted? That would be a pretty poor way to conduct science.

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

But then those levels are fed into a highly presumptuous formula to generate a supposed date of origin.

What presumptions are made and what evidence do you have that the presumptions are false?

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

Let say there was a global flood that drowned every land animal on earth. I would expect that flood to move massive amounts of sediment around the globe. Where and when that sediment came to rest would determine the fossil record (NOTE: given that majority of the animals would not be fossilised, and given that our fossil record is only built on observations from a very small surface area of the globe). I would expect the lowest fossils in the record to be of creatures that lived under the deep ocean surface (e.g. deep ocean worms), then (moving up) those creatures that were stuck to the ocean floor (e.g. plants), then those that could move across the ocean floor (and maybe swim to avoid the initial deluge of sediment), then the same for shallow water, then the same for terrestrial creatures – and finally, at the upper layers, things that could climb mountains and tall trees to escape the floodwater (birds, people and other mammals etc.).

When scientists match the fossil layers to the dated surrounding rock, we can get a pretty good idea of what was buried when. Why do you suppose swimming creatures are in different fossil layers - for example, plesiosaurs in a different, older layer than cetaceans? Why do you suppose mammals that can be found in younger rock layers were ALL (I mean each and every one) able to outrun therapsids and velociraptors. Why did flying animals like pterosaurs or archaeopteryx not make it as far as the mammals? It really just doesn't add up.

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

“ The geography of the planet with amazing features like the Grand Canyon, Himalayan mountains, and Appalachian mountains”

Yes, these are facts. I'm not sure why you think the existence of canyons and mountains would be impossible under the YEC paradigm.

Because it takes much more than 6,000 years to form them - unless we invoke a miracle.

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

The only facts we have is the energy (e.g. light) recorded as it encounters our instruments either on, or around, the earth. The rest is an unverified story of the light's history.

So light waves must travel differently in other parts of the universe? Do you have any evidence to support this hypothesis?

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

Why couldn't God create a big, mature universe? He created a mature planet with mature people who ate from mature plants? NOTE: this is not my preferred model (which is more complex), but it's a very simple (and logically valid) response to your claim.

Sure, we could invoke miracles whenever something we claim isn't supported by evidence.

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

So, in conclusion, you have thus far failed to provide any facts that would be impossible in a YEC reality.

In conclusion, the best evidence we have available is inconsistent with a 6,000-10,000 year old earth - at least, without numerous specific miracles that only make it LOOK like the earth and universe are much older than they really are (which of course, I cannot rule out).

[HAZARD]

These three Scriptures alone are all I need to prove to myself that evolution is Devolution and nothing more.

KJV. John 1:1-3;

     1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
    2, The same was in the beginning with God. 
    3, ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE. 

The Scripture says made, not evolved!

[one.opinion]

33 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION

by Kevin Martin

1. Moon Dust
2. Magnetic Field
3. Fossil Record
4. Embryonic Recapitulation
5. Probability
6. Second Law of Thermodynamics
7. Vestigial Organs
8. Fossil and Fossil Fuel Formation
9. Punctuated Equilibria
10. Homology/Molecular Biology
11. Dating Methods
12. Dinosaurs
13. Sun's Diameter
14. Nile River's Overflow
15. Earth's Rotation
16. Written Record
17. The Bible

https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/evidences.htm

Pick one of these for us to discuss.

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

     1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
    2, The same was in the beginning with God. 
    3, ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE. 

I 100% agree. Evolution is not the maker, the Maker is God!

[Guest theElect777]

On 8/16/2020 at 9:30 PM, HAZARD said:

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Debunking Evolution

Scientific evidence against evolution - the clash between theory and reality

The top problems with evolution explained using scientific evidence against evolution. In the creation evolution controversy, it is clear not only that the theory of evolution is wrong, the theory of evolution is false, but that the theory of evolution is a lie.

The strongest scientific evidence against evolution:

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Just to be clear, evolution theory puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent, saying that everything in nature was invented by it - everything:

Sex, eye-hand coordination, balance, navigation systems, tongues, blood, antennae, waste removal systems, swallowing, joints, lubrication, pumps, valves, autofocus, image stabilization, sensors, camouflage, traps, ceramic teeth, light (bioluminescence), ears, tears, eyes, hands, fingernails, cartilage, bones, spinal columns, spinal cords, muscles, ligaments, tendons, livers, kidneys, thyroid glands, lungs, stomachs, vocal cords, saliva, skin, fat, lymph, body plans, growth from egg to adult, nurturing babies, aging, breathing, heartbeat, hair, hibernation, bee dancing, insect queens, spiderwebs, feathers, seashells, scales, fins, tails, legs, feet, claws, wings, beaver dams, termite mounds, bird nests, coloration, markings, decision making, speech center of the brain, visual center of the brain, hearing center of the brain, language comprehension center of the brain, sensory center of the brain, memory, creative center of the brain, object-naming center of the brain, emotional center of the brain, movement centers of the brain, center of the brain for smelling, immune systems, circulatory systems, digestive systems, endocrine systems, regulatory systems, genes, gene regulatory networks, proteins, ribosomes that assemble proteins, receptors for proteins on cells, apoptosis, hormones, neurotransmitters, circadian clocks, jet propulsion, etc. Everything in nature - according to evolution theory.

Full article + pictures here;

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

CHECK THIS OUT AS WELL.

Many scientists are with us
The only tactic left to evolutionists 
is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet 
theory really works.  Here is a link to a roster of 
hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly
understand evolution theory.  They also have the 
courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding 
their names to a skeptics 
list against Darwinism.

LINK;

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

One thing I believe no matter what insufficient Scientific Evidence is provided that "Nature Itself" is not naturally homosexual.   I work with a buddy of mine who is a retired "Zoologist," and his specialty was studying venomous snakes.   When he worked for the San Diego Zoo, he wrote over 30 Papers specifically on the mating habits and other natural habits of the Rattle Snake Species.   When I first met him he was just unloading the 175 varieties of venomous snakes he kept in his basement (for his research).   Then we ventured into saving the Tibetan Mastiff.   Grant it, we were able to change the coat to silver and sable, we were able to establish a much beefier and healthier version compared to the Tibetan's, and we were able to establish a much purer blood line from the wolf itself.   Even in Vet clinics the Tibetan Mastiff is only labelled as 5% Domesticated.   But after establishing several Breeders, we were able to observe over a 600 litters and the results were as we had hoped for.   But in Radcliff's 60+ years of Field Research, a staunch Atheist, firm believer in Evolution, he had never once experienced same sex attraction between Snakes and dogs.  In almost every altercation between any 2 males of the same Species, it was a literal blood bath until separation.   What we did observe between the females, was pure domination instincts.

 

I realize we are talking Reptiles and the basic domesticated Wolf here.   But these Species do not think about right and wrong in terms of what they prefer.   They just do it and seek after it.   So there is no shame for them in any sense of the definition.  And if hominids (homo sapiens) are nothing but a higher form of Ape, that is still relative to the animal Species kingdom.   In my opinion, humans who are homosexual are therefore Demon Possessed or Mentally Ill!

Edited August 18, 2020 by theElect777