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

[FJK]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

The issue is, we don't approve of people taking words out of context and denying the undisputable fact that God created the heaven, the earth, the seas and all that is in them in six days.  Months have cycles of the moon.  Years have cycles of the seasons.  The seven day week is based solely on the six day creation.  The creation manifests the glory of the Creator.  Flowers and bees function together because God planned it that way.  Bats and eagles perform different functions so they are designed differently.  Bacteria adapt to each other forms of garbage because bacteria are DESIGNED to eat garbage.  Oil leaks into the oceans naturally and there are marine bacteria that eat it.  All things work together because they were designed to work together.  Symbiosis is part of God's natural plan.  All true biologists, geologists and astronomers must admit that the creation truly exalts the glory of the Creator.

Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.

That's kind of all inclusive since there is nothing but the Heaven and the Earth and this verse tells us who created them and when.

If you can't understand Genesis 1:1 you can't understand anything that comes afterward, end up doubting everything to one degree or another and making up something else in its place that you can understand because you are the one that made it up (created it), not God.

Doubt paralyzes faith, that's why the devil -Satan- is constantly introducing it and teaching it to us and why today's Christianity has little or no power in this Satan run world.

The way I see it.

[Sparks]

16 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Which, as you learned, is what macroevolution is. 

Biology Dictionary

Macroevolution Definition

Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above.

Macroevolution can be used to describe the differences between two closely related but distinct species, such as the Asian Elephant and the African Elephant, which cannot mate due to the barriers imposed by reproductive isolation. This is the process of speciation, which can be driven by a number of different mechanisms. Additionally, macroevolution can describe differences between that organisms belonging to larger clades of organisms, for example the different taxonomic groups within the primates.

https://biologydictionary.net/macroevolution/

No.  Each different kind of bat is a species of its own.   Humans and chimps are hominids, but humans are a different kind than chimps, just as leaf-nosed bats are a different kind than large flying foxes.   Each kind is a separate species.   See the scientific definition above.    If you have to redefine words to make your case, that's a pretty good sign that your idea is wrong.

No.   The genetic information is different for the kind that can utilize citrate.   

The Cit⁺ trait originated in one clade by a tandem duplication that captured an aerobically expressed promoter for the expression of a previously silent citrate transporter. The clades varied in their propensity to evolve this novel trait, although genotypes able to do so existed in all three clades, implying that multiple potentiating mutations arose during the population’s history. Our findings illustrate the importance of promoter capture and altered gene regulation in mediating the exaptation events that often underlie evolutionary innovations.

Nature 19 Sept 2012

Yes, liars have claimed they have seen macro evolution and won't admit that have mistaken micro for macro.  You have admitted that micro is macro.  And they get to make up the definitions which are also lies. 

Just because you can find sources of lies and plaster them all over, it does not make them true.  Evolution theory itself is a lie.

Old Definition: The common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor, via undirected mutation and natural selection.

New Definition:  Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

Big difference between the two.  Evolutionists have to change definitions, as I have said.

[The Barbarian]

40 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Yes, liars have claimed they have seen macro evolution and won't admit that have mistaken micro for macro. 

They aren't liars at all.    Most of them have never seen your new definition of "macroevolution."    As you now realize the word is over 100 years old and has always meant "evolution above the level species."   You just got it wrong.   If you continue to use it incorrectly, you will always be making mistakes.

40 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Just because you can find sources of lies and plaster them all over, it does not make them true.  Evolution theory itself is a lie.

Old Definition: The common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor, via undirected mutation and natural selection.

Now, that's a lie.   I'm sure someone fooled you with it, and you don't intend to post lies here, but it's a provable lie.  

I just showed you that the "macroevolution" is a little over 100 years old, and that it merely means "evolution above the level of species."  That's what it meant when the word was coined.

And Darwin, in On the Origin of Species wrote that God created the first living things, and did not say that it was a single ancestor.   Anyone who says different is lying or misled.   

The old definition of "evolution", before the discovery of genetics was coined by Darwin:

"Descent with modificiation."

According to Charles Darwin, all species descended from only a few lifeforms that had been modified over time. This "descent with modification," as he called it, forms the backbone of his Theory of Evolution, which posits that the development of new types of organisms from preexisting types of organisms over time is how certain species evolve.

https://www.thoughtco.com/descent-with-modification-12987

Would you like me to show you that?

Time to go with the real.

40 minutes ago, Sparks said:

New Definition:  Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

More precisely, since the rediscovery of genetics, it's "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Evolution is a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time. Evolution reflects the adaptations of organisms to their changing environments and can result in altered genes, novel traits, and new species. Evolutionary processes depend on both changes in genetic variability and changes in allele frequencies over time.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78/

40 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Evolutionists have to change definitions, as I have said.

YE creationists had to change these definition, because they are observably true.   So they build various straw men to knock down, in the pretense they they are destroying evolution.   

But it's God's creation.   You can't win against God, no matter how hard you try.

 

Edited January 13 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Now, that's a lie.   I'm sure someone fooled you with it, and you don't intend to post lies here, but it's a provable lie.

No, that was a real definition.  You see, it didn't work out and so they changed it to the more modern definition that excludes things like life began from dirt, on it's own. 

You probably don't understand you have sided with atheists by siding with the evolution religion, but they don't accept God in any form. 

Evolution and Creation are diametric opposites.  You might also not understand you are the odd ball who thinks God used evolution.  Neither of the two sides stands with you.

[The Barbarian]

Old Definition: The common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor, via undirected mutation and natural selection.

Now, that's a lie.   I'm sure someone fooled you with it, and you don't intend to post lies here, but it's a provable lie.

21 minutes ago, Sparks said:

No, that was a real definition.

It's a definition, just not the scientific definition.   As I showed you, the old definition is "descent with modification."   And Darwin specificially wrote that God created the first living things, and that it was not clear how many original creatures were created.  

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On The Origin of Species

 From a former ICR graduate and YE creationist:

You probably don't understand you have sided with atheists by siding with the false doctrine that science and God are at odds.   But you are doing considerable damage to the Great Commission by unintentionally spreading that lie.   Many people have lost their faith when they discovered that YE creationism cannot be true.   Don't be part of that.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Glenn Morton Why I Left Young Earth Creationism

Evolution is observed all around us.  It's God's creation no less than you and I.   Let it be His way, and it won't bother you any more.   And you won't be leading young Christians to reject their faith.

 

 

Edited January 13 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

10 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Old Definition: The common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor, via undirected mutation and natural selection.

Now, that's a lie.   I'm sure someone fooled you with it, and you don't intend to post lies here, but it's a provable lie.

It's a definition, just not the scientific definition.   As I showed you, the old definition is "descent with modification."   And Darwin specificially wrote that God created the first living things, and that it was not clear how many original creatures were created.  

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On The Origin of Species

 From a former ICR graduate and YE creationist:

You probably don't understand you have sided with atheists by siding with the false doctrine that science and God are at odds.   But you are doing considerable damage to the Great Commission by unintentionally spreading that lie.   Many people have lost their faith when they discovered that YE creationism cannot be true.   Don't be part of that.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Glenn Morton Why I Left Young Earth Creationism

Evolution is observed all around us.  It's God's creation no less than you and I.   Let it be His way, and it won't bother you any more.   And you won't be leading young Christians to reject their faith.

It was the scientific definition.  It just didn't work out.  When it does not work out, they try to cover it up like something in a cat box.

Evolution used to attempt to explain the origins of the universe, Earth and life, but it failed miserably.  So the evolutionists now claim evolution never tried to explain it, and now claim it's simply changes over time.  Well they cannot miss with that definition because everything changes over time.  Even a dead body changes over time. 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Old Definition: The common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor, via undirected mutation and natural selection.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

It was the scientific definition. 

No.   Never was.    And that goes back to Darwin, who said there might be a number of original organisms created by God.

It's just a lie.    I realize you didn't know that.   But I showed you Darwin's own words refuting it.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On The Origin of Species

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Evolution used to attempt to explain the origins of the universe, Earth and life

No.   None of that is in Darwin's book.   That's another lie.   Darwin's theory is only about how living populations change over time.  

If you doubt this, cite for me, in Darwin's writing, where he attributed any of that to evolution.   The above quote is from Darwin's book, the last sentence.   And he merely writes that God made the first living things.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

So the evolutionists now claim evolution never tried to explain it

As you now see, that's a fact.  Evolutionary theory only explains how living populations change.   Some dishonest creationists, failing to find any flaws in Evolutionary theory, have pretended it's about other things.   But it's easy to refute.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Well they cannot miss with that definition because everything changes over time. 

God doesn't.   We'll just have to disagree on that.    But evolutionary theory isn't about everything changing.   It's about the way living populations change.    If you knew more about evolutionary theory, you'd be more effective in fighting it.   Like all theories, it still has some unresolved questions.   If you focused on those, it would go better for you.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Even a dead body changes over time. 

YE creationism, for example, went from "there is no evolution" to "there is evolution, but no speciation" to "there is speciation, but that's all" to "O.K. new genera, and maybe families, but that's all."     YE creationism has evolved. 

But evolutionary theory is not about how religious doctrines change.

 

Edited January 13 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

39 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

No.   Never was.    

Sure it was.  Do you think the common descendant idiocy was not believed?  It still is believed according to Wikipedia:

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor.

Sure is different than 'changes over time.'

[The Barbarian]

No.   Never was.    And that goes back to Darwin, who said there might be a number of original organisms created by God.

It's just a lie.    I realize you didn't know that.   But I showed you Darwin's own words refuting it.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On The Origin of Species

19 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Sure it was.  Do you think the common descendant idiocy was not believed? 

It wasn't until genetics that we discovered that all living things on Earth have a common descendant.   The notion that Darwin said so is a lie, as you see above.

20 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor.

Yes a variety of disciplines.    Genetics, physiology, etc.

20 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Sure is different than 'changes over time.'

Different than Darwin's theory, too.    Genetics is not evolutionary theory.  Thought you knew.

Turns out you hate genetics because it contradicts your new religious beliefs.   Not Darwin's theory.

 

[Sparks]

35 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

No.   Never was.    And that goes back to Darwin, who said there might be a number of original organisms created by God.

It's just a lie.    I realize you didn't know that.   But I showed you Darwin's own words refuting it.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On The Origin of Species

It wasn't until genetics that we discovered that all living things on Earth have a common descendant.   The notion that Darwin said so is a lie, as you see above.

Yes a variety of disciplines.    Genetics, physiology, etc.

Different than Darwin's theory, too.    Genetics is not evolutionary theory.  Thought you knew.

Turns out you hate genetics because it contradicts your new religious beliefs.   Not Darwin's theory.

We don't have a common descendant.  Your side says we all came from a fossilized Saccorhytus Coronarius, but that is such idiocy.  

I mean no offense, but I have never met anyone as deceived as you concerning evolution.  I cannot take your evolution arguments seriously.