Theistic Evolution

[Diamond]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

True.  And as God says, sometimes the winner isn't the best.

 

My wife and I saw that in the 2002 olympics with Michelle Kwan. She was a five times world champion but she just could not get the Gold in the Olympics. Instead the gold went to Sarah Hughes  who was not a favorite.  

[The Barbarian]

23 minutes ago, Starise said:

“ May have” notice how a thing can be true or false based on two little words.

Scientists are very conservative about making claims.   The evidence indicates that this is how it happened.   To verify this, a number of predictions of the theory will have to be tested.    Would you like me to see if that's been done?

(Barbarian checks)

It has...

Nature

Published: 24 February 2021

Sulfur sequestration promotes multicellularity during nutrient limitation

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03270-3

And it works in algae...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02044-6

...

Cock JM. Evolution of Multicellularity. Genes (Basel). 2021 Sep 28;12(10):1532. doi: 10.3390/genes12101532. PMID: 34680926; PMCID: PMC8535607.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

41 minutes ago, Diamond said:

My wife and I saw that in the 2002 olympics with Michelle Kwan. She was a five times world champion but she just could not get the Gold in the Olympics. Instead the gold went to Sarah Hughes  who was not a favorite.  

The difference between a medalist and an also-ran at that level is not great.  

[Starise]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

1 hour ago, Starise said:

 

They are both observed natural phenomena.

We only live about 80 years. Evolutionists are claiming millions of years. Need I say any more? And I don’t observe biological evolution in the universe??? 
Observation infers we directly see it. And even if we observe a thing, we don’t necessarily understand what’s happening. 
 

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

t's observable in all living populations, including humans.

Even if true we only observe on the earth, not the universe if we are referring to biology. We haven’t arrived from lesser primates to men even over time. That’s a very big unproven jump. Neither is it biblical.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Evidence pretty much nails it.

If they were, they wouldn't be so genetically close to other apes.

It's why Christians who know about the evidence, tend to accept evolution.

It’s easy to make a statement like that with no basis.

Evidence evidence, where is it? I have already said we have adaptation. We are talking about man coming from a lower primate. Most believers here are not evolutionists. No one at any of the churches I attended was. There is a good reason for that.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

I said those who know about the evidence.  

So you more than infer no one else here has the “evidence” ? Do you think God would hide such a thing from us all? Does He cherry pick those who know? And how are you resolving this with what Genesis actually says?

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Yes it was a creationist hoax.   It involved the Australopithecine known as Lucy.    The faked story said that one of the bones was found nearly a mile away.   That's false.   They were all found at the site.   Would you like me to show you how the hoax was perpetrated by creationists?

Why would a creationist hoax it? The onus is on the ones making the claims which was never shown to be legit. And don’t you believe you were created?

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

By non-biologists.   For the obvious reasons.

This has all the makings of the way apple close off service and parts on their computers by anyone but them. However PC called the bluff the same way I’m calling this an accessible subject to just about everyone because anyone can find out. 

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

No, I did not.   You could provide all sorts of detail to support your claims, if you had it and wanted to show us.   But if you don't want to get into the details, there's really no way to evaluate questions like nuclear fusion or evolution.

Sure let me provide you with the fossil record , genetic tracking and most importantly, the Bible. That is if you think we came from lower primates.

And here is another aspect of this, observation and evaluation are two different things. An observation can be improperly evaluated.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Most of the world's Christians disagree with your interpretation of the Bible.  And show us that scientific data

First show me your Bible data. Again. The claim that most Christians believe we came from lower primates is false. Science shows our ancestor was Adam. Nothing before that.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Evolution is merely the way populations change over time.   And we see it happening everywhere.  Would you like some examples?    I think what you're talking about is common descent, not evolution.   And even Darwin thought that God might have made any number of original living things.    Genetics has shown common descent, not evolutionary theory.  

Let’s not mince words with definition obfuscation again.I am taking about what I’m talking about, We did not come from lower primates.

I think you are aware of the main jist of this discussion which is where we originated from. “ populations” of humans are still humans and have always been humans.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

You're confusing analogy with homology.    Birds and bats are analogous.   Bats and whales are homologous.  Homology shows evolution.   Analogy most often does not.

I’m not confusing anything with anything. I’m talking about Humans, our origins, the Bible and the shortcomings of TE.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   And we see that in all populations, including humans.   The dull explanation is that evolutionary theory is the theory that explains it.    The theory is accepted by scientists, because of a large number of confirmed predictions of the theory.

Would you like know about some of them?

I know some of it. Enough to determine there are adaptations. I am staying with humans because that’s what I believe to be pertinent to this discussion. We have never grown additional appendages or lost appendages. We were never fish. We were never lower primates. Man is an independent creation made for specific purposes.

58 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Scientists are very conservative about making claims.   The evidence indicates that this is how it happened.   To verify this, a number of predictions of the theory will have to be tested.    Would you like me to see if that's been done?

My original reply still stands. You confirmed it as an “ almost”.

[The Barbarian]

They are both observed natural phenomena.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Evolutionists are claiming millions of years.

Billions.  But evolution goes a lot faster than that.  Each birth produces evolutionary change.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

And I don’t observe biological evolution in the universe??? 

Here on Earth.   So far as we know, the only life there is.   But here it's all around us.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

And even if we observe a thing, we don’t necessarily understand what’s happening. 

True.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Even if true we only observe on the earth, not the universe if we are referring to biology.

For all we know, it could be different elsewhere.   There are conceivable Lamarckan biologies, for example.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

We haven’t arrived from lesser primates to men even over time.

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise doesn't think that happened, but he admits that the evidence says that it did happen.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Evidence evidence, where is it?

For example:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected  macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I have already said we have adaptation.

Adaptation can be evolutionary or it might not be.   It's important that you understand this:
Getting a suntan is adaptation, but not evolution.

A neutral mutation in a population is evolution, but not adaptation.

A mutation that provides immunity to a pathogen is adaptation and evolution.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Most believers here are not evolutionists.

But of course, this is not a very good sample of the world's Christians.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

So you more than infer no one else here has the “evidence” ?

For example, you seem to not understand how evolution and adaptation are different things, although some things can be both.   You seem to be unacquainted with the evidence in the fossil record.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Do you think God would hide such a thing from us all?

The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is how comprehensible it is.  But you have to be willing to look.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Why would a creationist hoax it?

A frantic attempt to deal with the reality.   Would you like to learn how it happened?

And show us that scientific data

1 hour ago, Starise said:

First show me your Bible data.

A cynic would think you didn't have any evidence.     But I'll be willing to belay that opinion for now.  What do you have?

1 hour ago, Starise said:

This has all the makings of the way apple close off service and parts on their computers by anyone but them.

Nope.   I once knew an auto body repairman (a creationist BTW), who managed to get a pretty good grip on evolutionary theory.   But he was willing to put in the time to learn about it.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Sure let me provide you with the fossil record

Dr. Wise (a YE creationist, but one with a doctorate in paleontology) does that very nicely in a paragraph above.

Evolution is merely the way populations change over time.   And we see it happening everywhere.  Would you like some examples?    I think what you're talking about is common descent, not evolution.   And even Darwin thought that God might have made any number of original living things.    Genetics has shown common descent, not evolutionary theory.  

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Let’s not mince words with definition obfuscation again.

These are just facts.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I think you are aware of the main jist of this discussion which is where we originated from. “ populations” of humans are still humans and have always been humans.

I know you want to believe so.  But do you consider Neanderthals to be human?  What about H. heidelbergensis?   How about H. erectus.   They are all humans, members of our own genus.

What about H. habilis?    We're talking about some important differences here.

 You're confusing analogy with homology.    Birds and bats are analogous.   Bats and whales are homologous.  Homology shows evolution.   Analogy most often does not.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I’m not confusing anything with anything.

If you don't realize that "looks like" is not an indication of evolutionary relationship, that's a big deal.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I know some of it. Enough to determine there are adaptations. I am staying with humans because that’s what I believe to be pertinent to this discussion. We have never grown additional appendages or lost appendages.

It would be nice to grow a second set of hands.  But unfortunately that's not open to evolutionary change because the transitional forms would be maladaptive.    However we've evolved a number of important adaptations not found in other apes. Would you like to talk about some of them?

1 hour ago, Starise said:

We were never fish.

And yet we develop branchial arches.    In fish they become gills, but in tetrapods they become jaws, ears, and so other structures.     Not because we become fish in utero, but because our development is contingent on what went on before us.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Man is an independent creation made for specific purposes.

God says so.   As God says, our bodies are dust and to dust will return.  But He gives each of us a living soul directly and that makes the difference.    You're expecting too much from biology to deliver that kind of creation.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

My original reply still stands. You confirmed it as an “ almost”.

The first report said it may be.   Subsequent research confirmed the finding.   No "almost" about it.  

Edited September 2, 2024 by The Barbarian

[RV_Wizard]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Most of them became republicans.

As usual, you post it, therefor in MUST be wrong.

The night that Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his special assistant Bill Moyers was surprised to find the president looking melancholy in his bedroom. Moyers later wrote that when he asked what was wrong, Johnson replied, “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come.”   source

The lie Democrats repeat is that they became Republicans.  The truth is, they lost power.  Some, very few, did jump ship to become Republicans, but the KKK power in the south was broken.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Even the democrats back then, generally didn't lynch people.

You can't have it both ways.  You can't besmirch millions of people because of the sins of a couple and then not expect to be painted with the same broad brush.  Maybe if you didn't make dishonesty the cornerstone of your discourse, you could see that.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The Census, for example, takes your word on what you want to be. 

No.  The census allows you to lie about your ethnicity, but the idea that a person can choose their race is so stupid even Commie Harris wouldn't suggest it.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Well, let's take a look..

Hitler believed in evolution.  You believe in evolution.  Therefore, you share the guilt of 12 million people and should be hanged.  Same logic.  The light of reason shines not on your arguments.  

[RV_Wizard]

Jesus is a creationist.  If some people here knew Him, they wouldn't be disparaging creationists as they do.

[The Barbarian]

23 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The lie Democrats repeat is that they became Republicans.

All those democrat voters shifted to republicans.   No point in denial. 

23 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

You can't have it both ways.  You can't besmirch millions of people because of the sins of a couple and then not expect to be painted with the same broad brush. 

There's really no point in denying the racist foundation of YE creationism.    It's true that democrats in the South tended to be racists.    Very few southern democrats in Congress voted for the Civil Rights bill.   No southern republicans did.  

The Census, for example, takes your word on what you want to be. 

23 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

No.

Yes, they do.   You put down what you want, and they accept it.  No point in lying about it.  

YE creationists assumed a genetic difference.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

That's a blatant lie, once more.

Well, let's take a look...

Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

YE Creationist and ICR co-founder Henry Morris The Beginning of the World 1992

As you learned, Darwinists like Reginald Punnett debunked the racist idea of creationists like Henry Morris, William Tinkle who agreed with Hitler about inferior people.    Their beliefs about the existence of races with genetic inferiority were at odds with evolutionary theory.   You also believe in YE creationism.

"Therefore, you share the guilt of 12 million people and should be hanged.  Same logic.  The light of reason shines not on your arguments. " 

Edited September 2, 2024 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

17 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Jesus is a creationist. 

Just not a YE creationist.   

If some people here knew Him, they wouldn't be disparaging His creation as they do.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Just not a YE creationist.   

If some people here knew Him, they wouldn't be disparaging His creation as they do.

Jesus is God, and God told you what He did during creation. 

How could He not be a creationist?  He is sure not an evolutionist.