Theological Problems with God-guided Evolution

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

I already admitted speciation is a fact. 

And as you learned that is macroevolution.   By definition.   So you are now an evolutionist.   Welcome.

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

Of the 1400+ species of bats, they are still just bats (same kinds). 

And of the five species of hominoids,they are still hominoids.   Hominoids are actually more closely related to each other than bats are related to each other.   You've just told us that humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos are all the same kind. 

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

They didn't become turtles, or whales growing off of a corn stalk.

If that were seen, it would disprove evolution.   No wonder you think you hate science.   You don't know what it is.

 

[Sparks]

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

And as you learned that is macroevolution.   By definition.   So you are now an evolutionist.   Welcome.

A micro-evolutionist, but not a macro-evolutionist.  Macro has never been seen.

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

And of the five species of hominoids,they are still hominoids.   Hominoids are actually more closely related to each other than bats are related to each other.   You've just told us that humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos are all the same kind.

We are unrelated to them.

20 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

If that were seen, it would disprove evolution.  

No, it would be evidence for it macro-evolution.

20 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

No wonder you think you hate science.   You don't know what it is.

Whatever.

[The Barbarian]

(Sparks admits the fact of macroevolution)

12 minutes ago, Sparks said:

A micro-evolutionist, but not a macro-evolutionist.  Macro has never been seen.

You just admitted it.   Remember, you just learned what macroevolution is (speciation).

And of the five species of hominoids,they are still hominoids.   Hominoids are actually more closely related to each other than bats are related to each other.   You've just told us that humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos are all the same kind.

14 minutes ago, Sparks said:

We are unrelated to them.

Sorry, you're wrong.  Genetics shows that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is related to any other ape.

Would you like me to show you?    And we know his indicates relationship, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

They didn't become turtles, or whales growing off of a corn stalk.

If that were seen, it would disprove evolution.  

17 minutes ago, Sparks said:

No, it would be evidence for it macro-evolution.

Nope.   That would be contrary to evolutionary theory.   Again, you think you hate science, but you have no idea what it actually is.

19 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Whatever.

Just a suggestion; go read up a little, find out what the theory is actually about, and then come back and tell us about it.   Could save you further embarrassment.

 

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, teddyv said:

Several years ago, AiG was posting sermons of Spurgeon. Spurgeon made some comment in one about "millions of years", which they deleted from the sermon (with no indication it had ever been there). Someone caught it and they since revised it, putting some half-baked footnote at the bottom. This is a serious ethical lapse, and I expect the highest standards from Christian organization such as AiG.

It's the sort of deviousness we've come to expect from creationists.   But we should keep in mind that for every dishonest creationist, there are probably several honest creationists who would be appalled by that kind of attempted deception in God's name.

 

[B-B]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Would you like me to show you more?

Hey ?

Would you like me to repeat what I have written in a post to another poster re: AiG? 

My response to them, is also the same response to you.

if you wish to claim that a Christian organisation intentionally lies, etc. etc. this is your lookout. You will be responsible, before God, for your comments.

I do not wish to have anything further to do with this thread, or your posts,... I'm out.

please do not quote me here, to draw me back in.

If you are unable to resist, and do quote me, I will ignore you.

Edited December 9, 2021 by B-B

[Sparks]

30 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You just admitted it.   Remember, you just learned what macroevolution is (speciation).

I admitted speciation is real.  I didn't learn that speciation is macro-evolution.

32 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry, you're wrong.  Genetics shows that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is related to any other ape.

We are not related. 

33 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Would you like me to show you?    And we know his indicates relationship, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Humans didn't descend from any animal, or soup.   No kinds did.

34 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

If that were seen, it would disprove evolution.

No it wouldn't.

35 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.   That would be contrary to evolutionary theory.  

Sorry, it would be evidence of macro-evolution.

36 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Just a suggestion; go read up a little, find out what the theory is actually about, and then come back and tell us about it.   Could save you further embarrassment.

Take your own advice.  Seriously. 

[The Barbarian]

13 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I admitted speciation is real.  I didn't learn that speciation is macro-evolution.

I just showed you the scientific definition.   No point in denying the fact.

14 minutes ago, Sparks said:

We are not related. 

Sorry, you're wrong.  Genetics shows that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is related to any other ape.    And we know this works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

14 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Humans didn't descend from any animal

Sorry, that's wrong.   We are primates, hominids, and humans.   We aren't the first species of human or the first primates.   We evolved from earlier primates.   Would you like to see how we know this?

(odd misconceptions about evolution)

Just a suggestion; go read up a little, find out what the theory is actually about, and then come back and tell us about it.   Could save you further embarrassment.

17 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Take your own advice.  Seriously. 

I have taught evolutionary theory.   There's no gentle way to tell you that you really don't know what you're talking about.    You just don't.

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

36 minutes ago, B-B said:

if you wish to claim that a Christian organisation intentionally lies, etc. etc. this is your lookout. You will be responsible, before God, for your comments.

It's just a fact.   Not just the example I showed you.  There have been others.

God is truth, and He does not punish people for being honest.   But I don't think He likes people being dishonest.  

Even if they claim to be Christians.

 

[Sparks]

23 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I just showed you the scientific definition.   No point in denying the fact.

You posted something that is a half-truth.  The truth is that speciation is real, the untruth is that speciation is macro-evolution.

23 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Genetics shows that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is related to any other ape.    And we know this works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

So what?  We are unrelated.  Our DNA is not a blue print, it's a parts list.  It's like trying to say a brick house came from a brick BBQ pit.  Both are brick, but they are not related.

23 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

There's no gentle way to tell you that you really don't know what you're talking about.    You just don't.

Kindly apply this statement to yourself.

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

You posted something that is a half-truth.  The truth is that speciation is real, the untruth is that speciation is macro-evolution.

I showed you the scientific definition of macroevolution.   If you need to change the meanings of words to make your point, that's a pretty good clue that you've got things wrong.

Genetics shows that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is related to any other ape.    And we know this works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

So what? 

Facts matter.   Reality matters.   Sorry about that.

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

We are unrelated.

Facts say we are.   The same facts can be used to show you are related to others in your family.   No point in denial.

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

Our DNA is not a blue print, it's a parts list.

You've been misled by that.   Homeobox genes, for example,  specify organization.  If it was a parts list,whales would be more closely related to fish than to us.  But as you learned, that's not the case.

There's no gentle way to tell you that you really don't know what you're talking about.    You just don't.

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

Kindly apply this statement to yourself.

I taught biolgy, including evolutionary theory.  You just don't know what it is.  

10 hours ago, Sparks said: