What would refute creationism?

TagliatelliMonster said:

First of all, it is a misconception that macroevolution hasn't been observed.
Speciation is macro evolution and speciation most definitely has been observed.
But I'm guessing you are talking about macro on the scale of say the common ancestor of humans and chimps to humans and chimps, which is a process that took some 7 million years to unfold.

Yes, a process that took 7 million years, hasn't been observed.

However, that does not mean that we can't test it....
The idea that humans and chimps share ancestors makes LOADS of testable predictions. Predictions that can be tested TODAY. Predictions about anatomy, fossils, geographic distribution, genetics, ... even psychology.

Consider a murder that took place with nobody around to see it and out of side of camera's. All you have are a body, a knife stuck in the body's chest and a couple of clues at the crime scene (a footprint, perhaps a hair, some skin cells under the finger nails of the victim, etc).

You can't observe this murder. It already occured. So you have to piece together what happened based on the circumstantial evidence. That will be your hypothesis. It will be testable.

You pinpoint a suspect. You make predictions about DNA matching the cells under fingernails, the fingerprints on the knife matching the suspect's, the suspect not having a proper alibi, perhaps the suspect's phone records puts him / her at the scene, etc.

Just to show you: one does NOT necessarily require "observation" of events of the past, to figure out what happened in testable ways.

If that were the case, then NO CRIME that took place behind closed doors could ever be solved.
I'm sure you wouldn't even think about saying such a thing. I'm sure you realize that it's very much possible to piece together what happened merely from the evidence, without observing the actual crime itself. Right?



Preaching.

Click to expand...

Hi TagliatelliMonster. Good afternoon. In terms of speciation, barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? No. Look at Eastern and Western Meadowlarks which are nearly identical, but do not mate. Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes (genons) with new information for new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”).

You say that the process of evolution from a common ancestor took about 7 million years. But where's the proof? And how can you with any certainty claim you know what happened millions of years ago when we do not know what happened a few thousand years ago?

In terms of the illustration that you have given about murder, and putting the pieces together to solve a crime. I, or indeed the Bible does not support the convicting of someone on circumstantial evidence. According to Yahweh's Law, you need to have a witness(es) or confession. Might I point out that a number of people have been put to death wrongfully by the death penalty because judges have been swayed by circumstantial evidence. Now apply this to yourself. If you are swayed by what evidence suggests but you have nothing truly observable, tangible, then you are likely to make a decision that is flawed and a death may occur which could be in this example your own. Lies will detract us from the Kingdom. The Word is called the truth for a reason (John 17:17).

I am curious though. You state that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relatives to humans, is non-existent. [ Source: Henry Gee, "Return to the Planet of the Apes" Nature, Vol 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131 ]

But let's explore the analogy you have given. What if you knew a judge who had convicted criminals to death previously, and had still kept his post, regardless of the fact that is came to light that some of those supposed criminals were innocent. We would call these miscarriages of justice, and I want to point out that sometimes the mass media may also be faulted for distorting the public perception of crime. The mass media is on the side of evolution. Would you be inclined to favor that judges decisions for future convictions or would you approach with caution? And I say this because - and I shouldn't have to readdress this - of the many hoaxes down through history which some people still believe to this day support the theory of evolution. Take for example the famous Piltdown Hoax. It was in textbooks for over 40 years. Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Loius Leakey and others in to a form resembling part of the human jaw. Ramapithecus was just an ape. I mean I could go on. Either people have a very faulty memory, or they simply choose to believe in the lie.

Believing in the theory of evolution is one of the most prominent ways how one can deny belief in Yahweh, the Bible and taking the Bible literally and ultimately keeping His Laws. That's why I believe the theory has been embraced worldwide, not because it is well-evidenced because it isn't. The piles of evidence to support the theory is like Ramapithecus - it amounts to a handful of fragments and a lot of wishful thinking.

Messianic Israelite said:

You say that the process of evolution from a common ancestor took about 7 million years. But where's the proof?

Click to expand...

We go by evidence, not proof. Both the fossil record and comparative d.n.a. suggest a split somewhere in the 6–7-million-year range.

What evidence do you have that this didn't happen?

Messianic Israelite said:

Believing in the theory of evolution is one of the most prominent ways how one can deny belief in Yahweh, the Bible and taking the Bible literally and ultimately keeping His Laws.

Click to expand...

Not really since the ToE doesn't cite evidence for or against divine creation.

Messianic Israelite said:

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes (genons) with new information for new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”).

Click to expand...

Source?

The only criterion I know of is that two populations no longer interbreed for it being called a speciation event.

Messianic Israelite said:

Hi TagliatelliMonster. Good afternoon. In terms of speciation, barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? No. Look at Eastern and Western Meadowlarks which are nearly identical, but do not mate. Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes (genons) with new information for new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”).

You say that the process of evolution from a common ancestor took about 7 million years. But where's the proof? And how can you with any certainty claim you know what happened millions of years ago when we do not know what happened a few thousand years ago?

In terms of the illustration that you have given about murder, and putting the pieces together to solve a crime. I, or indeed the Bible does not support the convicting of someone on circumstantial evidence. According to Yahweh's Law, you need to have a witness(es) or confession. Might I point out that a number of people have been put to death wrongfully by the death penalty because judges have been swayed by circumstantial evidence. Now apply this to yourself. If you are swayed by what evidence suggests but you have nothing truly observable, tangible, then you are likely to make a decision that is flawed and a death may occur which could be in this example your own. Lies will detract us from the Kingdom. The Word is called the truth for a reason (John 17:17).

I am curious though. You state that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relatives to humans, is non-existent. [ Source: Henry Gee, "Return to the Planet of the Apes" Nature, Vol 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131 ]

But let's explore the analogy you have given. What if you knew a judge who had convicted criminals to death previously, and had still kept his post, regardless of the fact that is came to light that some of those supposed criminals were innocent. We would call these miscarriages of justice, and I want to point out that sometimes the mass media may also be faulted for distorting the public perception of crime. The mass media is on the side of evolution. Would you be inclined to favor that judges decisions for future convictions or would you approach with caution? And I say this because - and I shouldn't have to readdress this - of the many hoaxes down through history which some people still believe to this day support the theory of evolution. Take for example the famous Piltdown Hoax. It was in textbooks for over 40 years. Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Loius Leakey and others in to a form resembling part of the human jaw. Ramapithecus was just an ape. I mean I could go on. Either people have a very faulty memory, or they simply choose to believe in the lie.

Believing in the theory of evolution is one of the most prominent ways how one can deny belief in Yahweh, the Bible and taking the Bible literally and ultimately keeping His Laws. That's why I believe the theory has been embraced worldwide, not because it is well-evidenced because it isn't. The piles of evidence to support the theory is like Ramapithecus - it amounts to a handful of fragments and a lot of wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

You're a bit behind on your science ... the Chimpanzee Genome Project was completed in 2013 It shows that humans are very closely related to chimps.
Chimpanzee Genome Project

Messianic Israelite said:

Hi TagliatelliMonster. Good afternoon. In terms of speciation, barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? No. Look at Eastern and Western Meadowlarks which are nearly identical, but do not mate. Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes (genons) with new information for new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”).

Click to expand...

We know that new genes are added to the genome of species. So why would that be a problem? Mutations are far more common than most people realize. Can you guess how many (if any) mutations you have in your genome?

You say that the process of evolution from a common ancestor took about 7 million years. But where's the proof? And how can you with any certainty claim you know what happened millions of years ago when we do not know what happened a few thousand years ago?

Click to expand...

You mean evidence, I hope. The word "proof" is not used in the sciences. There is no "proof" of gravity. There is evidence for it. Also you probably do not understand the concept of evidence. Creationists as a rule cannot afford to understand that concept. The most obvious evidence for a lay person is the fossil record, but that is nowhere near the strongest evidence. The evidence that is overwhelming and can only be met with denial is that of DNA. Endogenous retroviruses are especially troublesome for creationists.

In terms of the illustration that you have given about murder, and putting the pieces together to solve a crime. I, or indeed the Bible does not support the convicting of someone on circumstantial evidence. According to Yahweh's Law, you need to have a witness(es) or confession. Might I point out that a number of people have been put to death wrongfully by the death penalty because judges have been swayed by circumstantial evidence. Now apply this to yourself. If you are swayed by what evidence suggests but you have nothing truly observable, tangible, then you are likely to make a decision that is flawed and a death may occur which could be in this example your own. Lies will detract us from the Kingdom. The Word is called the truth for a reason (John 17:17).

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the Bible is simply not a reliable standard when we are talking about reality. DNA can tell us that a man had sex with a woman. You should also know that far more people have been put to death by faulty eyewitness testimony than by faulty circumstantial evidence. If you knew anything about the law you would know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest evidence allowed in a court of law, not the strongest.

I am curious though. You state that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relatives to humans, is non-existent. [ Source: Henry Gee, "Return to the Planet of the Apes" Nature, Vol 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131 ]

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you need to provide links. I am very sure that you did not read that. You are probably quoting a lying source. Creationist sources will lie to you. Did your source have a link to the article? You should be asking yourself if not why not.? By the way, let's say that it is accurate. -The ancestors of chimps were fossilized far less often than our ancestors were. That is because they never left the forest. And forest environments are far from ideal for fossilization. You forgot that we have our half of the line rather well preserved. In fact when our ancestors are lined up creationists cannot draw a single line between mand and ape. That is because man is an ape. You are an ape as am I. Plus this silly argument is refuted by a "So what?" We still have all of the other evidence. Once more, fossil evidence is not the strongest evidence. It is only the most obvious evidence to the uneducated.

But let's explore the analogy you have given. What if you knew a judge who had convicted criminals to death previously, and had still kept his post, regardless of the fact that is came to light that some of those supposed criminals were innocent. We would call these miscarriages of justice, and I want to point out that sometimes the mass media may also be faulted for distorting the public perception of crime. The mass media is on the side of evolution. Would you be inclined to favor that judges decisions for future convictions or would you approach with caution? And I say this because - and I shouldn't have to readdress this - of the many hoaxes down through history which some people still believe to this day support the theory of evolution. Take for example the famous Piltdown Hoax. It was in textbooks for over 40 years. Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Loius Leakey and others in to a form resembling part of the human jaw. Ramapithecus was just an ape. I mean I could go on. Either people have a very faulty memory, or they simply choose to believe in the lie.

Click to expand...

Your analogy fails because you refuse to hold the Bible to the same standards. If your standards were applied to the Bible you would be tossing it ten times faster than you are tossing Also if you are going to make claims about the sciences you need valid sources. Creationist sources are not valid ones. Since there are papers available you need to find and link the originals. Or failing that at least find an honest one.

By the way. there have been far fewer hoaxes in evolution than there have been for the Bible. And when you say that Ramapithecus was just an ape you keep forgetting. You are "just an ape" too. When it comes to Ramapithecus we did make more findings that showed that it was unlikely to be ancestral, but there is no doubt that it is related to humans. Think of it more of as an uncle or even great uncle.

Abd as to the mass media being on the side of evolution, that is because there is only evidence for evolution. There is none for creationism. That is what this thread is about. And this is why you should try to learn what is and what is not evidence. If one cannot make a testable model for a concept then one cannot have evidence. This thread is actually a test to see if creationists can come up with any evidence for their beliefs. So far they have failed.

Believing in the theory of evolution is one of the most prominent ways how one can deny belief in Yahweh, the Bible and taking the Bible literally and ultimately keeping His Laws. That's why I believe the theory has been embraced worldwide, not because it is well-evidenced because it isn't. The piles of evidence to support the theory is like Ramapithecus - it amounts to a handful of fragments and a lot of wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

No, it is just a "prominent way' that one can deny a belief in a false version of Yahweh. There are countless variations of belief in the Christian God. Not all of them make the error of reading Genesis as literally as you do. And you almost surely do not believe the same as Flat Earthers. The Bible is a Flat Earth book of read literally. It never says or implies that the Earth is a sphere They are even stronger deniers of reality than you are, but not by much. And if you claim that the theory of evolution is not well evidence you are either lying or very ignorant. Luckily we can all see that you are very ignorant. You do not even know what qualifies as evidence and why. You merely listen to people that are knowingly lying to others.

Heyo said:

Source?

The only criterion I know of is that two populations no longer interbreed for it being called a speciation event.

Click to expand...

Of course he is almost certainly wrong that genes have to be added for speciation. I am not an expert in the field, but I do believe that speciation can occur from genetic drift alone. But adding new genes is not a problem. I don't see why they think that it is. this may be a bit of a spoiler since I asked him how many mutations that he thinks that he has in the genetic material from his parents. The answer is that he has on the order of 100 mutations. Almost all or perhaps even all of those will be in noncoding DNA. That means that they will not cause any difference in the offspring. But with millions of members of most species that is 100 million "experiments" per generation. That allows for quite a few new genes to arise every generation. The "you need new information" charge is not very worrisome.

metis said:

We go by evidence, not proof. Both the fossil record and comparative d.n.a. suggest a split somewhere in the 6–7-million-year range.

What evidence do you have that this didn't happen?

Click to expand...

Hi metis. Good afternoon. Looking at the fossil record does not prove a split. If anything, the fossil record proves Noah's flood and that of rapid burial. Most of the fossils we have today resulted from the flood. It was just two days ago on the Sabbath Day, when I heard another story of one who had purchased a beautiful farm high up on a hill with an incredible view to see miles around on a clear day. Nearly every one of the rocks that were broken on that elevation contained a sea creature inside. This was undoubtedly resulted from the flood. Many fossils such as fossilized jellyfish, show by the details of their soft, fleshly portions that were were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas. These observations plus the occurence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly - not over hundreds of millions of years. Futhermore, almost all sediments that formed today's rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change or evolution [Source: Harold G. Coffin, Origin by Design (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1983 pp. 30 - 40) ]

Let's look at DNA for a bit and see what science has shown. Evolutionists say the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984 - 2004), evolutionists and the media resorted to lies again by claiming that human DNA is 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These false statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.

Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and compared. The overall differences, which are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected, include about thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions or deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Although only about 4% of human and chimpanzee DNA differ, those critical differences amount to a vast chasm.

I should add that natural processes cannot produce large amounts of information. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books.

Let's pretend that somehow, despite evidence to the contrary, that matter and life arose - perhaps only a bacterium - the probability that mutations and natural selections produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero. It would be similar to producing 4,000 books with the following procedure:

a) Start with a meaningful phrase
b) Retype the phrase, but add letters and make some errors
c) See if the new phrase is meaningful
d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it
e) Return to step "b"

To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10 to the power of 40,000 trials [Source: Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 130]. Does that sound plausible to you? The mechanism of the theory of evolution for the explanation of the development of life is wholly inadequate and studies in to DNA have not supported the theory of evolution. The Bible is however plausible, that life was created and designed by a thoughtful and intelligent Higher Power and that life on this earth is only a few thousands years old.

FYI @Messianic Israelite you should take a look at this...

An Index to Creationist Claims (talkorigins.org)

Notice that it was last updated 16 years ago. So far, all you're doing is repeating old creationist arguments that have been done to death and have had absolutely no impact on science. Therefore, I recommend that before you post more about evolution, first look through the above index. If you see your argument in there, you can safely conclude that it's not only very old, but scientifically irrelevant as well.

Maybe some of what you post seems new to you, but most folks here have seen it all countless times before.

Subduction Zone said:

Of course he is almost certainly wrong that genes have to be added for speciation.

Click to expand...

He is. That claim is one of many straw men creationists use to discredit the ToE.

I am not an expert in the field,

Click to expand...

Neither am I.

but I do believe that speciation can occur from genetic drift alone. But adding new genes is not a problem. I don't see why they think that it is. this may be a bit of a spoiler since I asked him how many mutations that he thinks that he has in the genetic material from his parents. The answer is that he has on the order of 100 mutations.

Click to expand...

Right. The number I heard most is 300.

Almost all or perhaps even all of those will be in noncoding DNA.

Click to expand...

Or point mutations on coding DNA. Most point mutations don't affect function since most amino acids have multiple codons that code for the same acid.

That means that they will not cause any difference in the offspring. But with millions of members of most species that is 100 million "experiments" per generation. That allows for quite a few new genes to arise every generation. The "you need new information" charge is not very worrisome.

Click to expand...

And wrong.

Messianic Israelite said:

Hi metis. Good afternoon. Looking at the fossil record does not prove a split. If anything, the fossil record proves Noah's flood and that of rapid burial. Most of the fossils we have today resulted from the flood. It was just two days ago on the Sabbath Day, when I heard another story of one who had purchased a beautiful farm high up on a hill with an incredible view to see miles around on a clear day. Nearly every one of the rocks that were broken on that elevation contained a sea creature inside. This was undoubtedly resulted from the flood. Many fossils such as fossilized jellyfish, show by the details of their soft, fleshly portions that were were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas. These observations plus the occurence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly - not over hundreds of millions of years. Futhermore, almost all sediments that formed today's rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change or evolution [Source: Harold G. Coffin, Origin by Design (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1983 pp. 30 - 40) ]

Let's look at DNA for a bit and see what science has shown. Evolutionists say the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984 - 2004), evolutionists and the media resorted to lies again by claiming that human DNA is 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These false statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.

Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and compared. The overall differences, which are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected, include about thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions or deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Although only about 4% of human and chimpanzee DNA differ, those critical differences amount to a vast chasm.

I should add that natural processes cannot produce large amounts of information. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books.

Let's pretend that somehow, despite evidence to the contrary, that matter and life arose - perhaps only a bacterium - the probability that mutations and natural selections produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero. It would be similar to producing 4,000 books with the following procedure:

a) Start with a meaningful phrase
b) Retype the phrase, but add letters and make some errors
c) See if the new phrase is meaningful
d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it
e) Return to step "b"

To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10 to the power of 40,000 trials [Source: Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 130]. Does that sound plausible to you? The mechanism of the theory of evolution for the explanation of the development of life is wholly inadequate and studies in to DNA have not supported the theory of evolution. The Bible is however plausible, that life was created and designed by a thoughtful and intelligent Higher Power and that life on this earth is only a few thousands years old.

Click to expand...

Just a short refutation. Science does not "prove" anything. Please stop using the word "proof". You do not even understand the concept of evidence and this thread is about helping creationists find evidence for their claims.

To date there is no scientific evidence for creationism. The rest of your post is arguing on a 5th grade level at best. It needs no refutation.

Subduction Zone said:

Creationists have never asked such questions. Plus you are using a strawman argument. Just because someone accepts reality does not necessarily mean that they don't believe in God.

You seem to be making a common creationist error. Just because your version of God has been refuted does not mean that God has been refuted.

Click to expand...

You didnt answer the point I made...where did the energy and matter come from that is the Big Bang?

You must first answer that dilemma...and no, God and Creationism has not been refuted...I dunno where you get that blanket statement from. I would categorically claim using science in an attempt to answer philosophical questions is stupid. For example...if I were to claim science is a construct of my evolving surroundings, then science itself evolved. It is therefore a construct of one's imagination...it becomes a philosophical problem that science cannot answer its own origins. TOEists always ignore the problem of epistomology...which must come first. So, first adequately answer the origin of energy and matter with something better than "we don't really know yet".

AdamjEdgar said:

You didnt answer the point I made...where did the energy and matter come from that is the Big Bang?

You must first answer that dilemma...and no, God and Creationism has not been refuted...I dunno where you get that blanket statement from. I would categorically claim is my science in an attempt to answer philosophical questions is stupid.)

Click to expand...

No, I don't. That has nothing to do with creationism.

If you demand an answer you must be able to show why your demand is reasonable.

And you have your burden of proof backwards. The proper approach to claims is to not believe them until sufficient evidence has been presented for that claim. To date no one has presented any reliable evidence for either God or creationism . The proper act would be to have lack of belief. Meanwhile there is endless evidence for evolution.

Perhaps you should try to learn what is evidence in this context.

And if you want to discuss how creationism has been refuted you must first give us your version of creationism.

Subduction Zone said:

No, I don't. That has nothing to do with creationism.

If you demand an answer you must be able to show why your demand is reasonable.

And you have your burden of proof backwards. The proper approach to claims is to not believe them until sufficient evidence has been presented for that claim. To date no one has presented any reliable evidence for either God or creationism . The proper act would be to have lack of belief. Meanwhile there is endless evidence for evolution.

Perhaps you should try to learn what is evidence in this context.

And if you want to discuss how creationism has been refuted you must first give us your version of creationism.

Click to expand...

See this is where TOEism goes astray...it refuses to answer the fundamental philosophical questions...

1. Where did we come from? (what are the origins of the big bang...which actually strongly supports creationism btw)
2.Why are we here? I say because God wants to share himself with His creation...you say, I have no philosophical reason
3. Where are we going? I say we will return to the original glory that was this earth before sin. You say, nowhere...I got in the ground...kaput!

Do you not see how deeply flawed your TOEism argument really is philosophically? You are absolutely buying a lottery ticket in a lottery that is a Ponzi scheme!

If it turns out that I am right, you lose. If you are right, you still lose...so who has the better odds here? I'm certain that philosophically the Christians odds are always going to be better simply because the opposing view of TOE do not have any possibility of an outcome where there is life after death. The Christian Bible very specifically states, unless you believe and follow Jesus, you are lost. There are no free passes for those who have been exposed to the gospel and intentionally/willfully deny it.

What I have found is that its at this point that TOEists bring out the morality argument...so if there is a God, why does he allow the rape or untoward death of children! That is the most often pathway these arguments head down. My Grandfather was an evolutionist, he always refused to believe in God because he could not bring himself to allow for the possibility that the answer to the question of evil towards young children is, Satan!

Philosophically, Christians have an explanation for evil in this world...we have a resource that comprehensively explains it. What do evolutionists put it down to exactly...trial and error? I put it to TOEists that is an absurd argument because over the course of written history, have we improved? At what point in the millions of years cycle will we actually see an improvement?

Messianic Israelite said:

Hi metis. Good afternoon.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

Messianic Israelite said:

Looking at the fossil record does not prove a split.

Click to expand...

As anthropologost, we generally don't use the word "prove".

Messianic Israelite said:

If anything, the fossil record proves Noah's flood and that of rapid burial.

Click to expand...

Not at all as there's layers upon layers containing fossils.

Messianic Israelite said:

The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas.

Click to expand...

Ground shifts, thus distortions are to be expected.

Messianic Israelite said:

Evolutionists say the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984 - 2004), evolutionists and the media resorted to lies again by claiming that human DNA is 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These false statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.

Click to expand...

Not true:
With only 1% difference, the human and chimpanzee protein-coding genomes are remarkably similar. Understanding the biological features that make us human is part of a fascinating and intensely debated line of research... -- Humans and chimpanzees share 99% of the same DNA. This is the 1% difference - Genetic Literacy Project

Messianic Israelite said:

In terms of speciation, barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? No.

Click to expand...

That IS what evolution is.
The gradual change of the genetics of a population, eventually leading to new species that can no longer interbreed with the "original", or the "sister population" due to genetic isolation.

The changes just keep on accumulating over time.

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes (genons) with new information for new traits

Click to expand...

1. the addition of new genetic material is demonstrably easily accomplished.

2. your statement is false. There are many types of mutations and additions (mostly brought about through duplication) is by far not the only one.

You say that the process of evolution from a common ancestor took about 7 million years. But where's the proof?

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume that you mean "evidence". No science deals in "proof". Proof is for mathematics only.
The evidence is ridiculously abundant.

The fused chromosome, the fossil record, ERV's, plenty of other genetic markers,....
Humans and chimps factually share ancestors.

Yes, FACTUALLY.
Humans and chimps (and the other great apes and by extension just about all living things) sharing ancestry is a genetic fact.

It's as factual as a DNA test showing that you and your biological brothers are in fact siblings (and thus share an ancestor in your parents).

People think that humans sharing ancestors with chimps is a "theory" or "hypothesis". But this is not correct.
Instead, it's one of the (many) facts of evolution.
Evolution theory is an explanation of the process of evolution. The mechanism by how change comes about and spreads in a population.

The theory explains the facts.
One of the facts it explains is the genetic fact of chimps and humans sharing ancestry.
The process explains how that fact came about.

And how can you with any certainty claim you know what happened millions of years ago

Click to expand...

Because evolutionary events of the past leave evidence that can be studied in the present.
Just like how a murder in the past leaves evidence that can be studied in the present.

This is how we solve crimes also. It's how we piece together what happened by studying the evidence, creating testable hypothesis to explain that evidence and then testing those hypothesis.

In terms of the illustration that you have given about murder, and putting the pieces together to solve a crime. I, or indeed the Bible does not support the convicting of someone on circumstantial evidence.

Click to expand...

You didn't think that through at all, did you?
If that were the case then 99% of all criminals would walk free and get away with it.
It's a ridiculous notion also. Off course it's possible to piece together what happened based on the evidence the event left behind.

It's how the VAST majority of past events are unraveled.
From arsony to murder to geological events to... you name it.

According to Yahweh's Law, you need to have a witness(es) or confession

Click to expand...

First, I don't care what "yahweh's law" is.
Second, so you are saying that if I kill you in a room with closed doors and no camera, then all I need to do is keep on denying I killed you and then I get to walk free?

It matters not that your blood is on my shirt? It matters not that my phone records put me at the crime scene at the time of your death? It matters not that my finger prints are on the knife? It matters not that my DNA is under your finger nails (suggesting you tried to fight me and scratched me in the process)?

None of that matters?

It is all rejected at face value and deemed unimportant simply because there was no witness and I don't confess?

You don't believe that yourself, do you?

Might I point out that a number of people have been put to death wrongfully by the death penalty because judges have been swayed by circumstantial evidence

Click to expand...

Dude................................

Innocence Project - Help us put an end to wrongful convictions!


Go take a look on that website on the "cases" sections.

The VAST majority of them were wrongfully convicted based on:
- false confessions done after blackmail or torture
- incorrect witness testimony (deliberate or honestly mistaken)

ALL of them were set free after years of imprisonment on.... evidence, like DNA testing.

Now apply this to yourself. If you are swayed by what evidence suggests but you have nothing truly observable, tangible, then you are likely to make a decision that is flawed and a death may occur which could be in this example your own. Lies will detract us from the Kingdom. The Word is called the truth for a reason (John 17:17).

Click to expand...

Dude.. You have no idea what you are talking about.
If humans and chimps share ancestry through the mechanism of biological evolution, then LOADS of testable predictions naturally flow from that. Specifically about our collective genomes and the structures we should find therein.

Like the pattern of shared ERV's and other markers, the fused chromosome (since we have 46 and chimps 48),... it also makes predictions about comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of populations and fossils, etc.

It ALL checks out. No exception.

You really have no idea, do you?

I am curious though. You state that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relatives to humans, is non-existent. [ Source: Henry Gee, "Return to the Planet of the Apes" Nature, Vol 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131 ]

Click to expand...

Chimpansees notoriously live in places where fossilization is going to be very hard. And fossilization by itself already is a rare process - even in regions where fossils "more easily" form.
We aren't guaranteed any fossils. The earth doesn't "owe" us any fossils. Evolution theory doesn't predict the existence of fossils. In fact, we are lucky to have as many as we do... What it does do is predict properties of fossils in case fossils exist.

So this is not an argument against evolution.
In fact... remove ALL fossils from existence. And the case for evolution remains just as strong from the extant genetic record alone.

As said... that humans and chimps share ancestors is nothing short of a genetic fact.

But let's explore the analogy you have given. What if you knew a judge who had convicted criminals to death previously, and had still kept his post, regardless of the fact that is came to light that some of those supposed criminals were innocent. We would call these miscarriages of justice, and I want to point out that sometimes the mass media may also be faulted for distorting the public perception of crime. The mass media is on the side of evolution. Would you be inclined to favor that judges decisions for future convictions or would you approach with caution?

Click to expand...

I will refer you back to the innocence project website.

If this is truly how you feel, then you should RIGHT NOW reject all conclusions and judgements based on "witness testimony".

But you won't, will you?

And I say this because - and I shouldn't have to readdress this - of the many hoaxes down through history which some people still believe to this day support the theory of evolution. Take for example the famous Piltdown Hoax. It was in textbooks for over 40 years.

Click to expand...

The only reason it is famous is because creationists made it famous.
First, this was hyped in the media. Very few scientists actually picked it up and were very skeptical right from the get-go.

Secondly, focusing on the one mistake / hoax while ignoring the millions of valid ones is nothing short of dishonest.

Third, who was it again that exposed this hoax?
Right. Scientists themselves.

The irony is also that Piltdown never fitted into the evolutionary narrative. So it being a hoax actually made the case for evolution stronger. It would have been a problem for evolutionary history if it were a real fossil.
Ironic, right?

Believing in the theory of evolution is one of the most prominent ways how one can deny belief in Yahweh,

Click to expand...

More christians accept evolution then there are christians that reject it.

So this is another falshood.

That's why I believe the theory has been embraced worldwide, not because it is well-evidenced because it isn't.

Click to expand...

Clearly you are wrong.
And clearly you have no idea of how well-evidence it is, since you don't even master the basics of the basics.

When I need to even explain to you what macro-evolution is..... that just about says everything I need to know.

Everybody who has even only rudimentary knowledge of how evolution works on the most basic of levels, would not make such mistakes as you do.


o well....
I have no hopes that any of what I said will actually stick.
You'll just come and repeat the same falsehoods. That's my prediction

Messianic Israelite said:

The Bible is however plausible, that life was created and designed by a thoughtful and intelligent Higher Power and that life on this earth is only a few thousands years old.

Click to expand...

I do believe, but we well know that the Earth is billions of years old.

The Creation accounts are probably myths [not falsehoods] to counteract that earlier and much more widespread polytheistic Babylonian accounts. IMO, it's likely they involved the fine art of storytelling used by societies throughout the world and dealt with as they were real events.

AdamjEdgar said:

See this is where TOEism goes astray...it refuses to answer the fundamental philosophical questions...

1. Where did we come from? (what are the origins of the big bang...which actually strongly supports creationism btw)
2.Why are we here? I say because God wants to share himself with His creation...you say, I have no philosophical reason
3. Where are we going? I say we will return to the original glory that was this earth before sin. You say, nowhere...I got in the ground...kaput!

Click to expand...

None of these questions have anything to do with the scope of evolution, which is just explaining the diversity of living things. The origins of species.

AdamjEdgar said:

See this is where TOEism goes astray...it refuses to answer the fundamental philosophical questions...

1. Where did we come from? (what are the origins of the big bang...which actually strongly supports creationism btw)
2.Why are we here? I say because God wants to share himself with His creation...you say, I have no philosophical reason
3. Where are we going? I say we will return to the original glory that was this earth before sin. You say, nowhere...I got in the ground...kaput!

Do you not see how deeply flawed your TOEism argument really is philosophically? You are absolutely buying a lottery ticket in a lottery that is a Ponzi scheme!

If it turns out that I am right, you lose. If you are right, you still lose...so who has the better odds here? I'm certain that philosophically the Christians odds are always going to be better simply because the opposing view of TOE do not have any possibility of an outcome where there is life after death. The Christian Bible very specifically states, unless you believe and follow Jesus, you are lost. There are no free passes for those who have been exposed to the gospel and intentionally/willfully deny it.

What I have found is that its at this point that TOEists bring out the morality argument...so if there is a God, why does he allow the rape or untoward death of children! That is the most often pathway these arguments head down. My Grandfather was an evolutionist, he always refused to believe in God because he could not bring himself to allow for the possibility that the answer to the question of evil towards young children is, Satan!

Philosophically, Christians have an explanation for evil in this world...we have a resource that comprehensively explains it. What do evolutionists put it down to exactly...trial and error? I put it to TOEists that is an absurd argument because over the course of written history, have we improved? At what point in the millions of years cycle will we actually see an improvement?

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the theory of evolution does not even attempt to deal with those questions so it cannot be a failure of the theory. From there on you just post one bit of nonsense after another.

All that the theory of evolution does is to explain the development of life on this planet. It has nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of a god.

In fact if God cannot be a liar then we know that Genesis is mythical. Of course the fact that Genesis is mythical does not refute God any more than a spherical Earth does.

The Bible is not a science book. It is rather blasphemous to treat it as one.