• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Explaining the terminology used in Evolutionary Sciences

tas8831

Well-Known Member
All matter. Created things.

"Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself."
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Those who want to blend creation and evolution as if it somehow makes them appear to be less ignorant or uneducated, are selling out to a half baked idea that has no solid foundation. It is insulting to question the God who created all things, just as he said he did. Who are we to say otherwise just because some people want to make him disappear.....or to make believers feel stupid? I believe that we shall soon see who is more gullible.

You are confusing faith in God's creation with 'how' it was accomplished. More insulting is to confine God to the human words that express belief.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Deeje, Deeje, Deeje. You are slipping back into your old ways here. You know science doesn't deal in "proofs" - it deals in evidence.

You have been told this over and over and over. At one time I even recall you requesting proofs and then, correcting yourself, changed it to evidence.

Have you forgotten all this? Is it a sign of impending senility? Or are you just being intentionally difficult?

Maybe it is the mentality of the criminal who
subconsciously wants to admit they did it.

Even a person of less than normal intelligence
would have to figure out eventually that their
position is nothing but snark and garbage.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
You're thinking of regular sounds.
You DO realise these sounds were uttered by GOD right?
These aren't just regular sounds. They are tanscendent, eternal and divine sounds. They transmit through anything god wants them to transmit through!

Physics.... pffff! The god-that-can-do-anything virtually whipes his tanscendent bum with it.

I yam properly humbled
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I have to ask again Deeje, because I've never received an answer ...

How many science courses have you taken?

I've taken many science courses and never, ever were we taught not to "question the gods of science" or to take anything as "Gospel." That's actually what religions do. Perhaps you are just projecting? :shrug:

It is a strange fantasy world they live in.

Never question?

An actual science course would properly teach from the
opposite pov.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Does evolutionary science still talk about everything arises from a form of primordial soup?
No.

The “primordial soup” related to the Abiogenesis model.

At this stage, Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, but it is working falsifiable hypothesis.

Evolution required life to have already exist, in order to pass genetic traits from parents to offspring, from ancestors to descendants.

Evolution isn’t about the study of first life. Evolution is about biodiversity over time, due to one or more possible different mechanisms (eg natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, etc).
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
No it is not.I just thought.If we came from monkeys.Like evolution says we.Our dna should be similar
Apparently your lack of knowledge is not limited to matters related to religion, but extends to matters of related to science.

Are you really an adult in your 30s? Exactly what kind of education did you receive when you were growing up?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Why do I need a science degree to believe in fantasy? The very foundations of your beliefs are flimsy to say the least. You are as indoctrinated by science and it's tenets as you believe we are by the Bible and what it teaches.

The only way to challenge anything in science is to remain in the ring. Step outside that ring and you commit academic and professional suicide.
I didn't ask if you have a science degree.

I asked how many science courses you've taken in your life. Then I explained why I was asking that.

I've asked several times before and never recieved an answer.

It doesn't look like I'm getting one this time either.

o_O
 

Audie

Veteran Member
No it is not.I just thought.If we came from monkeys.Like evolution says we.Our dna should be similar

"Evolution" does not say we came from monkeys.

Human beings, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons,bonobos
and chimps are apes, Not monkeys.

Humans and chimps share about a 96% similarity
in their DNA

You could look this stuff up a lot faster than you
can ask and me answer.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I didn't ask if you have a science degree.

I asked how many science courses you've taken in your life. Then I explained why I was asking that.

I've asked several times before and never recieved an answer.

It doesn't look like I'm getting one this time either.

o_O

evasion and falsehood is all there is
for a jw, and you want to deny them that?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I'm not asking for a "better" explanation. I'm asking you to explain it in order to demonstrate that you understand the concept. Copying and pasting a website - one that doesn't even explain how the process occurs - doesn't demonstrate that you have any personal understanding or knowledge of the subject.

I'm trying to ascertain how much you actually know. I've been very clear about that.

What makes you assume that I don’t read what I quote or that I can’t comprehend what I read? Are you suggesting that because I don’t accept what you accept as truth that I must be mentally deficient ? Thank you.

Okay, thank you. That's not a bad explanation.
I’m glad it met with your approval. So little does.

The question is: what is it that caused the variation in colour among the moths? If natural selection was simply acting selectively on what was present, what caused the variation for it to select from?

Didn’t we already ascertain that natural selection drives adaptation. The genes that selected for the darker coloring became dominant in the population because the lighter colored ones did not survive as well as the ones better camouflaged. The fact that the moths returned to their original color never seems to be mentioned though. So adaptation can take a creature to a new appearance because of a changed environment, and back again. How is that evolving?

You are correct. That conclusion is not reached by observing adaptive changes alone - it is reached by observing changes in populations, speciation, understanding genetics, genetic lineage and observing the fossil record.

All of which was open to science’s own interpretation of how they believe it all happened. It’s when you venture deeper into the theory and why evolutionists shy away from all mention of abiogenesis, as if it has nothing to do with evolution. But the fact is, abiogenesis is the first step in the “process”......if you have no firmly established first step, then how does the journey continue? If life is found to be created, (because it can't be a random accident) then the whole theory ends up in the trash.

The pre-conceived ideas relating to all things in nature, influence their conclusions. Everything had to fit into that evolutionary model.....regardless of how absurd it sounded, science had a way of making it sound reasonable....but only to the indoctrinated.
If you want to believe their conclusions, go right ahead.....they do not influence my thinking on the matter at all.

So how much has to change before an organism becomes no longer "true to its kind"? For example, a chihuahua and a great dane are signifciantly different, yet you would consider them the same "kind", correct? So where is the line?

Not a good analogy because no chihuahua or Great Dane would ever have been produced by nature. No artificially produced animal would have been selected for in the natural world because all were beautifully designed in the first place with instincts to reproduce replicas of themselves, which they still do.
Even genetically close relatives in the wild do not mate with any other than their own species. Humans can artificially cross them, but the offspring are invariably sterile. Why do you suppose that genetic roadblock exists?

Evolution can never produce a taxa other than what produced it. What it does is produce variations within the taxa. Finiches produce finches, but they produce varieties of finches. Finches themselves are a variety of birds which were produced by earlier birds. Birds are a variety of vertebrates which were produces by earlier vertebrates. Vertebrates area variety of eukaryote that were produces by earlier eukaryotes.

Now this is where I find the second greatest leap of faith in the whole theory. These classifications in diagrammatic form lead one to believe that all in these classifications must be related, just because of the way they are classified and presented
I have already addressed this. It is totally misleading IMO.

It is the assumption that because creatures share a “similarity” that it must come from a common ancestor. The strange thing is, no one actually knows who these phantom ancestors are....they exist only in science’s imagination.....and on their diagrams. This is one of the “might have’s” that turn into a “must have”. I don’t buy something that unsubstantiated. It’s a suggestion masquerading as fact.

Tiktaalik is a classic example of assuming that this fish was somehow a transitional form between land and sea creatures....but doesn’t evolution teach that whales descended from land dwelling animals whereas tiktaalik is a fish wanting to be a land dweller. Can evolution not make up its mind? :shrug:

In conclusion, nothing produces anything "outside of" its taxa. What they do is produce variations WITHIN their taxa.
What taxa do the original single celled originators of life fall into?
If nothing falls outside of its taxa, then how did the various taxa come about? Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. How far can you stretch imagination when all you really have are suggestions and assumptions as your foundation?

So you admit you have a religious bias, then.
Now that made me laugh out loud...

I have as much religious bias as you have non religious bias based on your own indoctrination. We all believe what we want to believe...whether its truth or not is in the eye of the beholder.

I have evaluated this question very carefully and the more I research what science actually claims against what real evidence they produce to support them, I am left with no other choice than to go where my own logic tells me is the truth. If your logic dictates the opposite to you, then that is where you should be.

Pregnancy and childbirth.

I can’t believe you said that. The brilliantly designed and diverse reproductive systems of all creatures on this planet do not in any way resemble what you are suggesting. SMH :rolleyes:

I literally JUST explained this, Deeje. They didn't. They produced VARIATIONS of what they were. The progenitors of modern animals were eukaryotes, which produced eukaryotes. You are a eukaryote.

There it is again....the classifications that supposedly link creatures that are unrelated to an imaginary chain of evolution. There is no chain if all the links are missing.

The adaptations are varieties of what these creatures “are”....not necessarily what they “were”. The examples put forward by Darwin were not formerly finches or tortoises or iguanas....they were simply adapted varieties of what already existed. They never became something else and never would. Science assumes that similar looking creatures that lived at different time periods “must have” evolved from one another....but there is no solid proof that they ever did.

No, because they EVOLVED INTO bacteria from the last universal common ancestor and will not produce outside of that taxa, as I have explained. Modern bacteria are not the same thing as the first unicallular organisms or self-replicating proteins.

Ah...and there is the phantom “universal common ancestor”....please produce these ancestors so that we can see that they are not figments of science’s imagination. Right now, all I see are marks on a graph that suggest that they might have existed. I have never seen real evidence that there ever were any.

Please tell us how simple these unicellular organisms were so that they could just pop up out of nowhere for no apparent reason, and eventually become a planet full of extraordinarily diverse living things?

You realize that this process occurs every time a living thing reproduces, right? We observe full-sized organisms growing from single cells every day.

Rubbish! That is no comparison at all to what science is suggesting took place in the ‘primordial soup’ (which apparently needed a recipe but had no chef.) You’re talking about a gestation period of billions of years! Seriously. o_O

I don't care what you believe or claim to know about God. It's irrelevant.

I have the same feelings about evolution......an imaginary process based on limited natural processes that have been taken to wild extremes.

I have demonstrated all my reasoning here whilst my opposers have done nothing but whine about my statements which were lifted off your own websites. I don’t think you guys can read without your science lenses distorting everything....but you will say the same about the lens I am looking through.

You can believe whatever you wish.....and I will do the same.

We shall all find out one day if the Creator exists, and it will not be a good day for the majority according to scripture.
We are just rehashing......I rest my case.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
You are confusing faith in God's creation with 'how' it was accomplished. More insulting is to confine God to the human words that express belief.

Well, you see, this is what I don't understand.....I am not confusing anything at all. I have studied the theory of evolution in my own research and found that it has holes in it that you can drive a Mack Truck through. Science fills those holes with imagination, assumptions and assertions....not provable facts.

Either the Bible is true, or science's unproven version of events is.
As a Christian, who do you trust?

Psalm 146: 3-6...
"Do not put your trust in princes,
in mortals, in whom there is no help.
4 When their breath departs, they return to the earth;
on that very day their plans perish.

5 Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord their God,
6 who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them;
who keeps faith for ever".


When you read a scripture like that, how do you feel?
If I adopted an unproven theory promoted by unbelievers over the word of the God I know well, I would feel nothing but shame for doubting him. I could never sell out to science by painting God as anything but the Incredible Designer of all things that he proves to be when you examine the genius behind creation.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Either the Bible is true, or science's unproven version of events is.

That's a false either or. I think you simply have no respect for Mystery. There is no contradiction between the 'genius' of creation and the how of creation. That is not to doubt God or the why of creation.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I didn't ask if you have a science degree.

I asked how many science courses you've taken in your life. Then I explained why I was asking that.

I've asked several times before and never recieved an answer.

It doesn't look like I'm getting one this time either.

o_O
That’s the story of her life.

She will never give you a straight answer to direct questions.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Science fills those holes with imagination, assumptions and assertions....not provable facts.

Either the Bible is true, or science's unproven version of events is.
As a Christian, who do you trust?

Psalm 146: 3-6...
"Do not put your trust in princes,
in mortals, in whom there is no help.

That pretty well sums up the cause and extent of your indoctrinated beliefs

You do not even question the fact that the unknown person who told you to not trust mortals was, himself, a mortal.
You do not even question the fact that you have faith in the works of thousands of scientists whose specialties do not conflict with your indoctrinated beliefs.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
That’s the story of her life.

She will never give you a straight answer to direct questions.

In a courtroom, evasive non-responses
will not be well received.

But never mind that.

I cannot help but wonder why any
person who is utterly convinced of
the right(eous)ness of their ideas
facts and so forth would be evasive,
ever?

My step dad quoted whoever-a Texas ranger
maybe.

"You can't stop a good man who knows
he is right and keeps a-coming!"

All the snark, insults, phony facts,
evasion, and unwavering obsession
with what is the ruin of truth and
character, though...that's "Golem"
in Lord of The Ring.

Pitiful but contemptible.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
That's a false either or. I think you simply have no respect for Mystery. There is no contradiction between the 'genius' of creation and the how of creation. That is not to doubt God or the why of creation.

Is it a false “either/or” ? The theory of evolution gives no credit to the Creator at all. It assumes that the universe and everything in it, just happened accidentally by natural processes, with no divine intervention whatsoever.

I see the Catholic church trying to fit God into the evolutionary scenario as an attempt to compensate and side-step their embarrassing treatment of Galileo. Is it because they don’t want to be seen as dogmatically unscientific again in the eyes of the world?
If the Catholic Church has sold out to science then I believe that James 4:4 has seen fulfilment. It apparently cares more about how it appears to men, than how it appears to God.

They are assuming that science has proof for all its claims about evolution.....it’s very first premise is based on nothing but an idea....there is no real evidence for its hypothesis to be true except for the way they force their evidence in support of their theory. Their theory was is not fact....it is an assumption backed up by nothing but suggestions and assertions. They will never admit that though. So who do you trust?

They are robbing the Creator of deserved credit for the way he said he accomplished his own creation, and shifted it to the way sinful man claims it happened. And that is OK with you? :shrug:
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Is it a false “either/or” ? The theory of evolution gives no credit to the Creator at all.

It is not science's place to give credit to God. That belongs to theology. Science states a creator God was not necessary, it cannot state that there is no creator God.

If the Catholic Church has sold out to science

Scripture is not concerned with the how of creation, but the why.

They are assuming that science has proof for all its claims about evolution

Wrong again. The Church accepts evolution as a possible explanation of the 'how' of Creation. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are.
As for the Church and Galileo his position was at the time found to be unfaithful to Scripture;

The sun stood still, the moon stayed,
This is recorded in the Book of Jashar. The sun halted halfway across the heavens; not for an entire day did it press on.
Joshua 10:13

Unlike others the Church does not stagnate in a literalist interpretation of Scripture but moves on reinterpreting for what it means today. And today this hypothesis is the most probable solution.
You need to let God be God, not neatly boxed in your idea of him.
 
Top