You really believe that evolution has NO reasons behind it? None at all?
Do you believe it just emerged out of someone’s imagination? Or that it was conceived of by the Devil and planted in someone’s mind?
NO evidence whatsoever?
Ha, says the other Assumer (@Bill_Smith) that all his interpretations of the Bible must be right…
I notice you didn’t even attempt to defend your position with a single detail.
Hi G.
I asked a question. The respondents have made it clear that they are having a problem with the bible.
It’s always been my understanding that what makes a christian is not someone who was raised in a family which possessed a given ideology, but someone who actually believes God.
As creation is part of the biblical narrative, and clearly so, when someone tells me that I should be more like another group of people, and less like Jesus— I think that’s a credible reason to question their beliefs.
I think they are asking you to see that if your view of the Bible is correct, then you are describing a God that intentionally made thousands of life forms look like they were created through Evolution.
Surely we are not so strange as you try to make it sound?
There have been generations of Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Episcopelians, Methodists and even some Baptists who have no problem seeing Evoluton fitting into God’s creation. They have thought about it, they think the Creationists are over-stating their position and they can’t take them seriously.
And they have lived god-filled lives, bringing other people to Jesus, and dying with the confidence that they will meet the creator of the Universe.
You deciding that you need to upset all that doesn’t really seem to fit the context…
The DNA that makes up my genome didn’t exist until I was conceived, and my genome is exclusive to me. Nowhere in time has there been another organism with the DNA sequence found in my genome, nor will there ever be another organism with my genome. I started out as a single cell, and from that single cell I developed through natural means into the person I am today.
I also sense that you reject common ancestry between species, yet it is this same process of mutations and mixing DNA that drives evolution. So why do you reject common ancestry when you accept all of the mechanisms that drive it?[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:241, topic:36748”]
The evidence is that we have never seen anything complex THAT WE KNOW HOW IT CAME TO BE formed without a designer.
[/quote]
Then if we don’t know how these complex things came together you can’t claim that it was created by a designer.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:241, topic:36748”]
You can go against all of our experience(our science) and have blind faith that living things came about by a process that we have never seen operate, but I choose to believe that our uniform experience is correct and living things did not randomly assemble, there must have been a designer, just like everything else that is complex had to have.
[/quote]
Our experience says that organisms come from other organisms through natural processes.
1 Like
I didn’t think I needed to answer this because you probably know my position, but since someone objected later, my answer is that the table of nations is perfectly accurate. It was based on God’s knowledge which goes before 600BC, in fact his knowledge goes long before 1400BC when Moses wrote it, probably using records passed down from the time of Adam.
Your DNA did not exist, but your parents dna did exist and along with your mother’s womb, had everything already in existence to form your dna. Your dna did not come about by random chance, but by the complex machine executing its instructions to form you with the existing materials provided. The natural means of development were a finely tuned complex machine that already existed with all the capabilities to assemble you. They did not have the capability to form a jelly bean, just a human.
Many different species are all the same kind of the Bible. Chihauhuas and Great Danes are both the same kind, although they look a lot different. They both descended from the same dog kind on the ark, probably including wolfs and coyotes as well. Believing that mutations can create a new better kind, is like going into an auto factory that makes fords and blowing up a few machines and expecting the broken factory to start putting out chevys. Mutations just break the complex machine, they do not design a new one. Again, you can believe the nonsense that random chance will design something, like throwing a bomb into a ford factory will make it produce chevys, but that is not how the world works.
You are still missing the point. You can’t absolutely prove anything. Everything could have luckily put itself together, but we have never seen that happen. Everything complex THAT WE KNOW HOW IT CAME TO BE was formed by a designer. You have zero examples of complex things arising by random chance. You can choose to believe that the things that we are arguing about, living organisms(something complex), came about without a designer, but you have no examples of that ever happening. I choose to believe that living organisms came about just like everything else complex came about, by a designer.
Our experience says that organisms come from other organisms(which are complex machines with everything already built in to make a new one) through natural processes(processes executed by a complex machine that has already been built).
The Table of Nations is accurate for a specific time frame.
If you think it was written in the Bronze Age, it peculiarly predicts settlements that didn’t exist during the Bronze Age but would exist in the Iron Age. And it peculiarly misses settlements that did exist in the Bronze Age, but were gone by the time of the Iron Age.
How many times have you heard that false statement from the YECs?
You obviously don’t know enough about physics. If you take a cloud of Hydrogen that is large enough, it begins to organize itself purely by means of the gravity it has within its own mass.
At some point, this fuzzy blob of unorganized hydrogen bursts into a nuclear-powered star.
Do you think a fuzzy blob of hydrogen has a brain somewhere?
My genome did arise through random chance, in part. Everyone is born with 50-100 random mutations. Also, everyone agrees that new species evolve from pre-existing species so why do you reject the conclusion that life evolved from a universal common ancestor?[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:299, topic:36748”]
Many different species are all the same kind of the Bible. Chihauhuas and Great Danes are both the same kind, although they look a lot different. They both descended from the same dog kind on the ark, probably including wolfs and coyotes as well. Believing that mutations can create a new better kind, is like going into an auto factory that makes fords and blowing up a few machines and expecting the broken factory to start putting out chevys. Mutations just break the complex machine, they do not design a new one. Again, you can believe the nonsense that random chance will design something, like throwing a bomb into a ford factory will make it produce chevys, but that is not how the world works.
[/quote]
How do you determine if two species belong to the same kind? What criteria do you use?
Secondly, species are different from each other because of mutations. Humans and chimps are separated by 40 million mutations yet each of us is doing just fine. According to you, there should only be a single species with a single genome that doesn’t differ by a single base. Obviously, this isn’t true. We can also see that the differences between genomes matches the patterns that we would expect from random mutations, as shown here. The evidence points to random mutations.
When have we ever observed a supernatural deity creating species?[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:299, topic:36748”]
Our experience says that organisms come from other organisms(which are complex machines with everything already built in to make a new one) through natural processes(processes executed by a complex machine that has already been built).
[/quote]
My parents were built? Really? My grandparents would disagree.
You are mistaken. You can go read the conservative response elsewhere if you would like, but I will not take the time here to give one.
Gravity will definitely pull hydrogen atoms toward each other. I agree that that physical law that exists is not random chance. It is a part of how God created the universe, with the laws of physics operating in it. However, it is not enough to make a log cabin form from pickup sticks. Saying that the amount of organizing that gravity can do is enough to form a complex item is again nonsense. It is like saying that since you saw a cow jump in the field that that proves that cows can jump over the moon.
No one has ever seen anything complex put itself together.
Without going into it further, I believe you will also find that the gas pressure is too high for the gravitational attraction to overcome it to form a star.
Everyone agrees? I don’t and there are quite a few scientists who don’t.
You are arguing in a circle. Kinds are not the same as species and kinds produce more of the same kinds. There is variance allowed within the kind as you can see from the fact that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are the same kind. They do not produce new kinds by mutations. That is the point you are trying to prove, but there is no evidence of it.
We haven’t. I think that is obvious. We have however seen complex items assembled such as chairs and computers. Anytime we have seen a complex item assembled, there is a designer. You are believing complex things assembled by themselves and we have never seen that happen.
Your grandparents would be wrong. The complex machine(actually a pair of them) were created about 6000 years ago. One was named Adam and one was named Eve. God put everything in them - dna, womb, development functions in Eve’s body - to be able to make new people. They didn’t evolve new people but used the built in capability that God put in their bodies.
You said it yourself:
“Your dna did not come about by random chance, but by the complex machine executing its instructions to form you with the existing materials provided.”
That would be species evolving from pre-existing species.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:304, topic:36748”]
There is variance allowed within the kind as you can see from the fact that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are the same kind. They do not produce new kinds by mutations. That is the point you are trying to prove, but there is no evidence of it.
[/quote]
You still haven’t defined what a kind is, nor how to determine which species belong to a kind, so that term is pretty meaningless. On top of that, how do you explain the physical differences between different kinds, as you see them? Isn’t it due to the differences between the DNA sequences found in their genomes? If genomes can’t be changed without killing the organism, then how do you explain all of those differences between the genomes of species in different kinds?[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:304, topic:36748”]
We have however seen complex items assembled such as chairs and computers. Anytime we have seen a complex item assembled, there is a designer. You are believing complex things assembled by themselves and we have never seen that happen.
[/quote]
We don’t see anyone assembling biological organisms, so your analogy doesn’t work.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:304, topic:36748”]
The complex machine(actually a pair of them) were created about 6000 years ago. One was named Adam and one was named Eve.
[/quote]
Based on what evidence?
No, you are not a different kind than your parents, nor a new species if you want to use that flawed term.
There is variance allowed within the kind. You can get blonde hair or black hair if the right dna exists in your mother or father. However, if the information is not already there, if your parents have none of the dna for blonde hair, you can’t have it. It won’t just magically evolve by some lucky mutation.
We don’t see any biological organisms evolving either. Anything complex that we know how it came to be has a designer. You can blindly believe that biological organisms came about without a designer, but we have never seen that happen with anything that we know.
If you read my earlier posts you will see that I think that you can prove Christianity and the Bible to be true. The Bible tells you that Adam and Eve were created out of dust and a rib(or side, but probably rib) about 6000 years ago.
I never said that I was a different species.
Also, until you define what a kind is how can you even know if a new generation is in the same kind?[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:306, topic:36748”]
There is variance allowed within the kind. You can get blonde hair or black hair if the right dna exists in your mother or father. However, if the information is not already there, if your parents have none of the dna for blonde hair, you can’t have it. It won’t just magically evolve by some lucky mutation.
[/quote]
Where is the evidence for this claim? Last I checked, things like skin and hair color were due to differences in DNA sequence in different genes. Those differences are mutations.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:306, topic:36748”]
We don’t see any biological organisms evolving either.
[/quote]
Yes, we do. You can observe bacteria evolving in experiments that only take a few days:
Luria–Delbrück experiment - Wikipedia[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:306, topic:36748”]
Anything complex that we know how it came to be has a designer. You can blindly believe that biological organisms came about without a designer, but we have never seen that happen with anything that we know.
[/quote]
I didn’t come to be because of a designer. I came to be through natural processes.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:306, topic:36748”]
If you read my earlier posts you will see that I think that you can prove Christianity and the Bible to be true. The Bible tells you that Adam and Eve were created out of dust and a rib(or side, but probably rib) about 6000 years ago.
[/quote]
Where is the evidence supporting the claim made in the Bible?
1 Like
Did you just contradict a century of cosmological observations? Are you saying that stars are not created by clouds of gas being drawn together by gravity and to eventually ignite in a nuclear fire?
One, I don’t believe you have the credentials to offer such a denial.
Two, I don’t believe there’s any point in discussing anything any further with you. [content deleted by moderator].
@Bill_Smith, yet again, you have no idea what you are discussing when you describe species or kinds.
You need to understand Ring Species. Together, the entire population of a Ring Species can be construed as a species.
But if the bridging central population were to be wiped out by a flood, or a fire, all of a sudden, you would have two species. How do we know this? Because a “kind” can reproduce itself. And when there was a bridge of intermediate animals, the population could reproduce itself, even if specific individuals within the population might not have been compatible with some specific individuals on the other end of the population’s range.
But without the bridging population, ring species have populations at the extreme ends of the population range, that are not able to reproduce the kind with each other!
No one during the last century of cosmological observations has ever seen a star form.
I am not an astrophysicist, but I have read articles by astrophysicists about the topic and I believe the gas pressure is a problem.
Also, I remember that Dr. Slusher used to offer his astrophysics students an automatic A in his class if they could show how (either the popular theory or any theory I don’t remember which) of star formation did not violate the 2nd law of thermodynmics.
I’ll stick with kind. You would have one kind. What type of variation was available in that kind would depend on the two who were left. Species is an arbitrary definition that evolutionists play around with to fit their hokey theory.