The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

We see it constantly.    Once I watched a man bicycling from Florida to Alaska.    I met him in Missouri, and only watched him go a few hundred yards into the rest stop where I was.    In the same manner, we see all sorts of kinds becoming other kinds today.   Would you like some examples?

No one says "trillions of years."   But as you know your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood admits:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

Dr. Wood can work in his field, because he understands that theories are only provisionally true.   So long as they work, we use them.    He openly prefers his reading of Genesis to the theory, but he recognizes that the theory is highly successful in predicting nature.

"Kinds" in the sense you use it, is a religious belief.  Hence, the Bible referring to bats and birds as the same kind.    They saw whales and fish as the same kind, too.   Because they classified things functionally, rather than by biology.   Consequently, "kinds" has no meaning in terms of science.   The scriptural "bird kind" is pretty much any animal with a backbone that flies.   Pterosaurs, if they existed in Biblical times, would have been classified in "bird kind", too.

Most creationist organizations now admit the fact that macroevolution produces new species, genera, and sometimes families.    They just don't want to call it "evolution."  But as you learned, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.  Microevolution is evolution that does not produce new taxa.   Macroevolution is speciation. 

If they did, Darwin's theory would be refuted.    We're back to the issue of people who object to evolution, generally don't know what it is.

No, that's man's revision of God's word.    He merely says that the Earth brought forth living things according to their kind. (not kinds) Creationists just don't like the way He does it.

No.   The fossil record shows gradual change over time.   This is why evolution can't do all things.   The only evolution that is possible is where each increment of change does not harm the organism.   You would, for example, think that it might be impossible for turtles to evolve from primitive anapsids.    But they did.  And the fossils show how.   Would you like to talk about that?

No, that's a misunderstanding of the way evolution works.   Those lizards we mentioned earlier, evolved a cecal valve over a few decades.   But the transitional forms were still able to reproduce with others of their population.    Now, the population has no lizards without the valve.   Because they depend more on plant material for food, a fermentation chamber is a competitive advantage.    And so it became universal in the population.

This is why we see no transitional forms that can't reproduce with others in the population.   Their genes would be lost to future generations.   Probably happens a lot.  You only see the successful ones.

I can see you solidly believe in this religion and fairy tale.  Good luck with it! 

I still cannot understand why you believe it.  There is zero evidence to support the theory, but you believe you see the evidence, everywhere. 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I can see you solidly believe in this religion and fairy tale.

Comes down to facts.   And even informed creationists realize the facts are very good evidence for evolution.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I still cannot understand why you believe it. 

Facts matter.  

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

There is zero evidence to support the theory,

"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact."

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise

Theories depend on validation of predictions that are later confirmed (or not confirmed).     Here's a few things evolutionary theory predicted:

Transitionals between humans and other apes.

Transitionals between turtles and other anapsids.

Transitionals between reptiles and mammals.

Transitionals between birds and other dinosaurs.

DNA data will match phylogenies based on anatomy and fossil data.

There must have been at one time, fish with functional legs.

There will be traces of chromosome fusion at a precise place in Human Chromosome 2

A change in environment will produce a change in allele frequencies of a population.

And many more.    All of these were verified after the predictions were made.   This is why people for whom evidence matters, accept evolutionary theory.

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

40 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Comes down to facts.   And even informed creationists realize the facts are very good evidence for evolution.

Facts matter.  

"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact."

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise

Theories depend on validation of predictions that are later confirmed (or not confirmed).     Here's a few things evolutionary theory predicted:

Transitionals between humans and other apes.

Transitionals between turtles and other anapsids.

Transitionals between reptiles and mammals.

Transitionals between birds and other dinosaurs.

DNA data will match phylogenies based on anatomy and fossil data.

There must have been at one time, fish with functional legs.

There will be traces of chromosome fusion at a precise place in Human Chromosome 2

A change in environment will produce a change in allele frequencies of a population.

And many more.    All of these were verified after the predictions were made.   This is why people for whom evidence matters, accept evolutionary theory.

 

There is none of that, but a lot of people who don't want God in the picture want to believe all that.  Why side with them as a believer, especially when they have not observed any of it?

Now there is microevolution, which is real and happens at every birth, but it is very limited within a kind and so I suggest you not try to stretch it into something it isn't like the evolutionists do. 

[FJK]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

There is none of that, but a lot of people who don't want God in the picture want to believe all that. 

Jesus actually addressed that situation in a parable, but I doubt most people would relate it to that since most people don't consider parables as directions to us about living but just as nice stories that really don't mean much for us in real life.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, FJK said:

Jesus actually addressed that situation in a parable, but I doubt most people would relate it to that since most people don't consider parables as directions to us about living but just as nice stories that really don't mean much for us in real life.

It's not surprising; the parable of creation seems to get the same lack of attention.    But of course most Christians know better than to suggest that creationists "don't want God in the picture."

[Sparks]

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It's not surprising; the parable of creation seems to get the same lack of attention.    But of course most Christians know better than to suggest that creationists "don't want God in the picture."

Creation is not a parable, it's a narrative. 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

There is none of that, but a lot of people who don't want God in the picture want to believe all that.  Why side with them as a believer, especially when they have not observed any of it?

Why, as a believer, would you side against the many, many Christians who are aware of the phenomenon of evolution, knowing that they have observed all that evidence for  it?    Why not just accept God's creation as it is?

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Now there is microevolution, which is real and happens at every birth, but it is very limited within a kind

As I showed you, Biblical "kind" puts bats and birds in the same kind.   Pretty much all vertebrates would then be a kind.    Kind is a functional category in scripture, not a biological one.  So it's not surprising that you get strange results by trying to make it into something it is not.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just now, Sparks said:

Creation is not a parable

I know you want to believe that.   But the text itself says it's not a literal history.

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

it's a narrative. 

I can't think of a parable that isn't.

 

[Sparks]

28 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I know you want to believe that.   But the text itself says it's not a literal history.

Where does it say that?  If you mean a misinterpretation of the material suggests it, a misinterpretation does not count.

28 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I can't think of a parable that isn't.

Jesus spoke in parables for specific reasons he described in Matthew 13. 

You misunderstand what is meant by narratives, which is a Biblical style.  There is another style called poetic form, another called legal material, and another called prophetic, and another called wisdom literature, another called apocalyptic, and another called epistle.   Each style has to be read with the rules that govern that particular genre.  They are not read in the same way, and a parable is not the same as a Biblical narrative.  

[Sparks]

32 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

As I showed you, Biblical "kind" puts bats and birds in the same kind.   Pretty much all vertebrates would then be a kind.   

So birds can produce bats?  Sorry, but they cannot.