Does "Sin" Prove Evolution to be Incorrect?

[The Barbarian]

19 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

No one has ever seen Darwinian Evolution, but I would admit it sure has some strong marketing. 

Lots of directly observed examples.   Remember, Darwinian evolution is "descent with modification" or more precisely, "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

We even have observed examples of macroevolutionary change, with new kinds of species evolving.

Would you like some examples?

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

On 12/12/2020 at 7:54 AM, The Barbarian said:

 

I don't think we can assume that Adam and Eve were anatomically modern humans.    I don't know what species of human it was for which a pair received a living soul.    I don't think it matters, since God chose not to give us those details.

 

 

 

OK then, do you believe that Adam and Eve might not have actually been Adam and Eve?   Meaning, the story is just a beginning point when God held His Creation accountable?  

 

Also, I've heard just about every "Creation Theory" out there.   Some include other Creation points before Adam but God for some reason or other ended it and later on began again.   Is this a connection point to which you might chime in and state, that's the point in which [Adaption][Mutation][Natural Selection] kicked in and where 1 Species ends and another begins?

 

Mind you, I am not sitting here claiming to believe everything I've heard within my lifetime.   But if for some odd reason there's fact to it, could this be a distinction where 1 Species ends and another begins of the {HOMO} lineage?

[Guest kingdombrat]

On 12/13/2020 at 8:57 AM, DSmith_TheHistorian said:

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-not-even-theory/

Good Article!

[Guest kingdombrat]

On 12/13/2020 at 9:16 PM, Sparks said:

Cool about your being a Creationist.

Yes, technology evolves, but there is an intelligence behind that evolution which is driving it; in this case Adam's.  The original iPhone has become about 20 iPhone designs, each better than the last, but this is really innovation and design driven by intelligent humans.  But what we don't see, ever, is Darwinian Evolution, in which kinds of animals become other kinds of animals.  Chemicals 'upgrading' themselves over time, and so on.  If anything, everything devolves.

By the way, there is no real evidence that the Earth or Universe is much older. 

That does strike me as "odd" to think that basically since the time of Galileo we have been observing the unknown in search for logical reason.   That even before Darwin we have entertained ideas that took us away from the viewpoint of God.   And that for the basic past 150 years have been able to examine literally millions if not billions species of single cell organism under the [microscope].  And we have yet within a time period of 700 documented years witness a single thing that "Evolution" claims.   We are claiming the discovery of new "Species" often, but we are not witnessing the process where 1 Species becomes a completely different Species (outside the worm-cocoon-butterfly)(maggot-fly)(tadpole-frog).

 

And what I mean from 1 Species to the next is when cellular structures become Species with legs, arms, a brain, and seems to have a purpose in life.

[Sparks]

31 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

And what I mean from 1 Species to the next is when cellular structures become Species with legs, arms, a brain, and seems to have a purpose in life.

We do observe a type of evolution called microevolution, which happens within species and at every birth.  You don't quite look like your siblings, even though your parents were the same for each brother or sister.  That's an example of microevolution.  Evolutionist try to conflate this true evolution into Darwinian Evolution, which is not observed.

There are allegedly 1,400 species of bats in the world at the moment, but notice they are all bats (none are becoming new kinds.  None are growing hoofs, or antlers).  Mendel's Law of Genetics would seem to be the reason they never turn into anything other than bats.  This will be the same among bats, no matter how much time you give it.

[Guest kingdombrat]

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

We do observe a type of evolution called microevolution, which happens within species and at every birth.  You don't quite look like your siblings, even though your parents were the same for each brother or sister.  That's an example of microevolution.  Evolutionist try to conflate this true evolution into Darwinian Evolution, which is not observed.

There are allegedly 1,400 species of bats in the world at the moment, but notice they are all bats (none are becoming new kinds.  None are growing hoofs, or antlers).  Mendel's law of Genetics would seem to be the reason they never turn into anything other than bats.  This will be the same, no matter how much time you give it.

Mendel's {Inherited Genetics} always played a key role in my view towards the process of "Natural Selection."   In theory, "Natural Selection" would remove flaws but yet bad natural genetics seem to be immune.   I always found that hilarious.   Don't get me wrong, I think on the level of microorganisms you may discover the [process], but according to the Theory, that process does not end there but continues.   And this is where I find no examples.   Which is obvious because it does not exist.

[Sparks]

1 minute ago, kingdombrat said:

Mendel's {Inherited Genetics} always played a key role in my view towards the process of "Natural Selection."   In theory, "Natural Selection" would remove flaws but yet bad natural genetics seem to be immune.   I always found that hilarious.   Don't get me wrong, I think on the level of microorganisms you may discover the [process], but according to the Theory, that process does not end there but continues.   And this is where I find no examples.   Which is obvious because it does not exist.

Yes, where could new DNA information come from, since neither parent has it?  You can only inherit what your parents have, and neither parent has antler code to offer you. 

We genetically modify things all the time, in a lab, but if we do splice DNA code then the animal (now a chimera) becomes sterile, because no other animal has the code to allow it to procreate, and gene splicing apparently has a lot of collateral damage. 

Side note:  That's why I don't trust the mRNA vaccines.  I think mothers will become sterile with them.

[Guest kingdombrat]

43 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Yes, where could new DNA information come from, since neither parent has it?  You can only inherit what your parents have, and neither parent has antler code to offer you. 

We genetically modify things all the time, in a lab, but if we do splice DNA code then the animal (now a chimera) becomes sterile, because no other animal has the code to allow it to procreate, and gene splicing apparently has a lot of collateral damage. 

Side note:  That's why I don't trust the mRNA vaccines.  I think mothers will become sterile with them.

Agreed!

 

I found it fascinating when Bill Clinton presented the Medal of Science to  Dr. Francis Collins for mapping DNA, atheists like Anthony Flew and scientists were praising God because DNA proved {Intelligent Design}.   The following year God was no longer in the picture and Science skirted back to "Evolution."

 

We are talking 30 trillion bits of code within each single molecule and enough coding it would take literally 50 years to unlock just a [single molecule] and we are pushing this just randomly took place by "accident."  I'm not sure what they're smoking, but it would be a complete act of genocide to unleash it upon the population.

[The Barbarian]

12 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

OK then, do you believe that Adam and Eve might not have actually been Adam and Eve? 

I've heard it claimed that Adam and Eve weren't the first two people; supposedly it was two other people with the same names.

(assertion that Darwinian theory has never been verified)

No, that's wrong, too.   There are many, many examples.  

• A well-fitted population in a constant environment should be kept from changing very much because of natural selection.  (Darwin)
• There must have been at one time, transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. (Huxley)
• There must have been at one time, fish with functional legs.  ( Gray)
• Overuse of Penicillin will lead to evolution of resistance in bacteria (Alexander Flemming)
• Mitochondria in eukaryotic cells evolved by endosymbiosis. (Margulas)   Jeon later documented an observed example of evolved endosymbiosis.

 

Actually, many creationist organizations admit the evolution of new species, genera, and even families of organisms.

 

[The Barbarian]

11 hours ago, Sparks said:

Yes, where could new DNA information come from, since neither parent has it?  You can only inherit what your parents have,

Mutation.   You have maybe a hundred mutations that were not present in either of your parents.    That's a lot of information.    Most of it doesn't do anything noticable.   Sometimes, it's harmful.   And very rarely, it's useful.   
 

There are lots of useful human mutations,  would you like to learn about some of them?