Does Evolution Make Jesus A Liar?

[SaintUriah]

So you do agree that appearances suggest that evolution was caused by physical forces alone without divine intervention?

No
The Lord says animals are 8 Different pairs
Perhaps an indication of evolution
But humans have nothing to do with anim evolution

 

[ecco]

Jesus didn't talk about this physical creation, because Jesus despises it . ( like all true Christians do ).
He despises it because He knows who "created" it , including this physical body (flesh), and again, like all true Christians do.

Who decides what constitutes a "true Christian"? You?

 

[ecco]

The truth is that the Genesis “days” were not 24 hour periods but epochs of millions of years

How do you know this?

Let me answer that rhetorical question.

You don't. It's just a belief you need to have to make Genesis fit into your views of what the OT means.


It's really hilarious that you deny and dismiss all evidence for evolution but yet hold and present your made-up stories about stories with no evidence whatsoever.

 

[ecco]

China has succeeded in cloning the monkey
Monkeys ancestor of humans The theory of evolution claims this
Why can't they clone Humans? As monkeys

They same?

Ethics.

 

[ecco]

This claim has been made and I would like to hear from those who know more about it than me.

Wow!

A thread to discuss whether or not a mythical character was a liar.

Awesome!

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Who decides what constitutes a "true Christian"? You?

Christ

 

[Rise]

Scientific theories do not work that way. No scientific theory has ever been proven true, nor will there ever be one that is.

What you just said didn't contradict anything I said.
There is a difference between scientific theory and scientific facts.
Evolutionary theory is not established as scientific fact, and should not be treated as such.

The fact that you even recognize and admit that actually puts you ahead of the curve compared with a lot of evolutionism believers today who routinely try to insist it is established fact, and want it treated as such.

There is no evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.

I only need to present a single piece of evidence to disprove your claim that no evidence exists.

Darwin himself can provide that single piece of evidence:

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer … the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained"


Evolution theory predicts there should be a abundance of transitional lifeforms. Especially prior to the "cambrian explosion". But the evidence shows there is almost nothing there. We see no such abundance of transitions either before or after the cambrian. At no point in the geological record do we see it. Animals pop up fully formed and disappear. There are scant few things they even try to claim are transitional fossils. Nothing can even be said to be factually stated as a transitional fossil as opposed to just being it's own unique lifeform. In fact, one of the things they used to claim was a transitional fossil was actually found in the ocean, proving their conclusions about what constitutes a transitional fossil can be based on bad interpretations and unproven assumptions.
And even those few things they claim are transitional fossils are far too few numbers to support a theory which, if true, would mean there would be a nonstop stream of transitions through the ages.

Their theory doesn't explain or coincide with what we actually see in the ground.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What you just said didn't contradict anything I said.
There is a difference between scientific theory and scientific facts.
Evolutionary theory is not established as scientific fact, and should not be treated as such.

The fact that you even recognize and admit that actually puts you ahead of the curve compared with a lot of evolutionism believers today who routinely try to insist it is established fact, and want it treated as such.



I only need to present a single piece of evidence to disprove your claim that no evidence exists.

Darwin himself can provide that single piece of evidence:

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer … the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained"


Evolution theory predicts there should be a abundance of transitional lifeforms. Especially prior to the "cambrian explosion". But the evidence shows there is almost nothing there. We see no such abundance of transitions either before or after the cambrian. At no point in the geological record do we see it. Animals pop up fully formed and disappear. There are scant few things they even try to claim are transitional fossils. Nothing can even be said to be factually stated as a transitional fossil as opposed to just being it's own unique lifeform. In fact, one of the things they used to claim was a transitional fossil was actually found in the ocean, proving their conclusions about what constitutes a transitional fossil can be based on bad interpretations and unproven assumptions.
And even those few things they claim are transitional fossils are far too few numbers to support a theory which, if true, would mean there would be a nonstop stream of transitions through the ages.

Their theory doesn't explain or coincide with what we actually see in the ground.

What I wrote contradicts what you wrote.

Evolution the process is a fact and it is explained by the theory.

You have not provided evidence against the theory. You are highlighting a gap recognized by Darwin while ignoring all the data that has been accumulated in the 150 years since then. It is ridiculous, desperate and misleading. All Darwin noted was that in his time, there were little if any fossils known from periods prior to the Cambrian. This is no longer a fact. Even if it were still a fact, it would not refute the theory.

The theory explains and is consistent with the fossil evidence. Claiming that there are no transitional forms known is misleading and incorrect.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What you just said didn't contradict anything I said.
There is a difference between scientific theory and scientific facts.
Evolutionary theory is not established as scientific fact, and should not be treated as such.

The fact that you even recognize and admit that actually puts you ahead of the curve compared with a lot of evolutionism believers today who routinely try to insist it is established fact, and want it treated as such.



I only need to present a single piece of evidence to disprove your claim that no evidence exists.

Darwin himself can provide that single piece of evidence:

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer … the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained"


Evolution theory predicts there should be a abundance of transitional lifeforms. Especially prior to the "cambrian explosion". But the evidence shows there is almost nothing there. We see no such abundance of transitions either before or after the cambrian. At no point in the geological record do we see it. Animals pop up fully formed and disappear. There are scant few things they even try to claim are transitional fossils. Nothing can even be said to be factually stated as a transitional fossil as opposed to just being it's own unique lifeform. In fact, one of the things they used to claim was a transitional fossil was actually found in the ocean, proving their conclusions about what constitutes a transitional fossil can be based on bad interpretations and unproven assumptions.
And even those few things they claim are transitional fossils are far too few numbers to support a theory which, if true, would mean there would be a nonstop stream of transitions through the ages.

Their theory doesn't explain or coincide with what we actually see in the ground.

You have still not addressed the points I made regarding scientific theories. They do not exist as proofs. You would have to show that I am incorrect in order to maintain your position on theories.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, because evolutionary theory hasn't been proven to be true, and they have not been able to reconcile all the evidence which contradicts the theory.

Evolutionary theory would have to be true before we could start to talk about how it contradicts anything Jesus said about creation or history.

In referring back to the original post I responded to, you most recent post appears to be an attempt to back out of what you said in the above post.

Scientific theories are not as you describe as something to be proven. They are explanations of the evidence. Either you are confused or your later response is a straw man.

Evolutionary theory does not have to be proven true, since it cannot be, to be a useful explanation. Again, there is no evidence that contradicts it. I would also point out that believed views have no evidence at all supporting them.

 

[McBell]

Evolutionary theory would have to be true before we could start to talk about how it contradicts anything Jesus said about creation or history.

Well then by your own logic, all that evolution would be compared to would also have to proved true less you be a hypocrite, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

2. The Bible seems to speak against macro-evolution, for which the data is in flux and controversial.

That's simply not true. Not even by a long shot.

Even on RF, skeptics admit clades are "done" and "complete" and that cats can never be dogs nor vice versa, which aligns with the Bible's statement of "kinds".

That word "admit"
As if they did something bad and were forced to "admit" it.
As if it's something to be ashamed off or whatever.

It's just what evolution theory predicts.

Would you say that physicists "admit" that internal clocks of satelites must be calibrated to accomodate for relativistic effects?

The use of that one word, gave away the underlying dishonesty of your words.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, because evolutionary theory hasn't been proven to be true

learn2science

Theories are never considered proven in science, only supported.

, and they have not been able to reconcile all the evidence which contradicts the theory.

What evidence contradicts evolution theory?

Evolutionary theory would have to be true before we could start to talk about how it contradicts anything Jesus said about creation or history.

Evolution is so well supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, that it's pretty much as close to fact as a theory could ever get.

People also seem to still have troubles differentiating the fact of evolution from the theory of evolution.
The theory refers to the model, the process, by which the fact of evolution actually occurse (mutation, selection, etc).

That species change over time to the point of speciation, AND that species share genetic ancestors, are evolutionary facts.

That humans and the other great apes (chimps, bonobo's, gorilla's, oerang oetangs) share ancestors, is a genetic fact.

Common ancestry of species in general, is a genetic fact.

The theory of evolution, explains the process of how that occurs. Of how different species can share ancestors. Of how a single species can over time speciate into many other (sub)species.

Consider the theory of gravity. If that gets disproven tomorrow - apples will still be falling down to earth and suddenly shoot of into space.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolutionary theory is not established as scientific fact, and should not be treated as such.

No sh*t, sherlock.... I guess that's why it's called the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution, ha?

Eventhough there are evolutionary facts off course. Those facts are explained by the theory.

Kind of like how the rest of science also works.

The fact that you even recognize and admit that actually puts you ahead of the curve compared with a lot of evolutionism believers today who routinely try to insist it is established fact, and want it treated as such.

Who does this? Can you quote an example on this forum?

I only need to present a single piece of evidence to disprove your claim that no evidence exists.
Darwin himself can provide that single piece of evidence:

(replying as i read)

I have a feeling that I'm going to find this hilarious....

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer … the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained"

Yep, I was right... Hilarious!

First, ever since Darwin said that, you know like.... 2 centuries ago, we actually did find a fossil or two
And many of them by prediction by the way.

As for fossil scarcity of a certain age and older... This obviously has to do with the fact that the further back we go, the more squishy (=invertebrate) life is and living only in the sea. Not exactly conditions particularly favorable for fossilization...

By itself, fossilization is already a very rare process. So obviously, it will become even rarer (till the point of practically impossible) for fossils to form as the environment becomes more and more "hostile" to the entire process.

Evolution theory predicts there should be a abundance of transitional lifeforms

And there are.

Especially prior to the "cambrian explosion". But the evidence shows there is almost nothing there. We see no such abundance of transitions either before or after the cambrian. At no point in the geological record do we see it. Animals pop up fully formed and disappear. There are scant few things they even try to claim are transitional fossils. Nothing can even be said to be factually stated as a transitional fossil as opposed to just being it's own unique lifeform. In fact, one of the things they used to claim was a transitional fossil was actually found in the ocean, proving their conclusions about what constitutes a transitional fossil can be based on bad interpretations and unproven assumptions.
And even those few things they claim are transitional fossils are far too few numbers to support a theory which, if true, would mean there would be a nonstop stream of transitions through the ages.

Their theory doesn't explain or coincide with what we actually see in the ground.

Well, plenty of things you said in there, aren't actually correct.
But nevermind that, I won't even go there because I don't need to.

The point here was for you to provide evidence that contradicts evolution.
You did not do so. You in fact (incorrectly) pointed to an absence of certain specific pieces of evidence.

See, the world doesn't "owe" us any fossils.
First, fossilization is a very rare process.
Next, if a fossil manages to be formed, it still needs to survive and stay intact for countless millions of years - withstanding geological forces like earthquakes, volcano's and other such tectonic activity or things like erosion etc.
And finally, if a fossil manages to remain pretty much undisturbed for all that time, we then still need to find it.

So no, the world does not owe us an "abundance" of fossils. We are in fact lucky to have as many as we do.

Actual evidence against evolution, would actually be finding the WRONG fossils. Fossils of organisms in layers or places where they shouldn't be. Like humans together with dino's. Or rabbits in pre-cambrian strata.

That would actually be fossil evidence against evolution.

As it stands, every single fossil ever found, was found in a place and layer that made sense in context of an evolutionary history. No fossil was ever found in the wrong layer (rabbits in pre-cambrian strata) or in the wrong geographic location (kangaroo's in europe) or in with the wrong physical properties (mammals with 6 limbs).

We never find any of such.

And then, there's off course all the actual evidence which shows your entire paragraphe to be nothing but a misrepresentation of the actual facts. Like how tiktaalik was found by prediction.

Tiktaalik represents a transitional between vertebrate fish-like sea life and land crawling tetrapods.
They pinpointed the historical time when the "migration to land" occured and figured that during that time, there would have been species alive that had both traits of fish-like sea life ancestors and landcrawling tetrapod descendants, which lived in or near shallow waters, being a semi-aquatic species. So they took a geological map and looked for exposed rock of that age which back in those days would have been in or near shallow waters. They went to that place and started digging. There, exactly as predicted, they found tiktaalik. A species with traits of both their fish-like ancestors and landcrawling descendants (= about as transitional as it gets, btw).

That's what we call "explanatory power" and "predictive ability".


If evolution is so wrong, how come they were able to find tiktaalik in this manner, by prediction?
Tiktaalik was a previously unknown species, after all. It was only "speculated" / predicted to exist, based on the knowledge we had about evolutionary history.

If that knowledge is so wrong, how come tiktaalik exists? How come paleontologists were able to predict its existance, its physical traits, its age AND its location so accurately?

 

[Shad]

This claim has been made and I would like to hear from those who know more about it than me.

The Gospel Jesus would be a liar for claiming a truth which contradicts our modern knowledge.

 

[Shad]

They couldn't understand concepts they couldn't relate to their daily lives.

Livestock breeding contains some basic concepts of evolution which a lot of people understood for millennia. The Mule and Hinny are two of the oldest hybrids around. We have used both, mostly the Mule, domestically for millennia. We have created various mules on purpose for our use. We figured out a lot of the hybrids are infertile millennia ago. We just didn't know why at the genetic level.

 

[Jainarayan]

Livestock breeding contains some basic concepts of evolution which a lot of people understood for millennia. The Mule and Hinny are two of the oldest hybrids around. We have used both, mostly the Mule, domestically for millennia. We have created various mules on purpose for our use. We figured out a lot of the hybrids are infertile millennia ago. We just didn't know why at the genetic level.

I agree with that, I'm talking about the more arcane aspects of the natural world and universe. For example, they couldn't possibly know that earthquakes were caused by tectonic plates moving and shifting. Or that comets and asteroids were not God throwing fiery rocks in a temper tantrum.

 

[Rise]

Evolution the process is a fact and it is explained by the theory.

Scientific theories are not as you describe as something to be proven. They are explanations of the evidence. Either you are confused or your later response is a straw man.

Rocks to biological evolution as a process is not an estabalished fact. There is no evidence of this, so there is nothing to explain.
Even species to species evolution is not an established fact. There is no evidence of this, so there is nothing to explain.

Evolutionism speculates that such things took place but it has no evidence that they did.
Evolution is a speculative exercise that tries to extrapolate out what is observed in micro adaptations out to an extreme that there is no evidence for and no reason to believe happened.

You are confused about what evolution is actually a theory of. It's not that we have evidence of minerals to man evolution that then requires an explanation for how that could happen.
It's looking at the fact that we exist, and assuming no one created us, and then trying to invent an explanation for how that could have happened.

Evolution is speculation in search of evidence to back it up - it's not a theory that attempts to explain the evidence we observe.
That's why evolution as an explanation for the origin of life is just speculation, and doesn't even rise to the legitimate level of a scientific theory that is based on observed facts verified with testable experiments. It hasn't even proven to have useful predictive power beyond the micro adaptations we can already observe happening in nature. Even in Darwins day it failed to explain or predict, with regards to macro evolution, what was actually being observed.

You have not provided evidence against the theory. You are highlighting a gap recognized by Darwin while ignoring all the data that has been accumulated in the 150 years since then.

You are committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion. Merely claiming my evidence isn't valid doesn't make it so. You would need to give an actual argument to demonstrate why you think you can claim my argument and evidence wasn't true.

For instance, you could give an example of this supposed later data which you claim solved the problem Darwin observed with the lack of precambrian transitional fossils, or the lack of abundant fossils that could even be attempted to be claimed to be transitions.

It is ridiculous, desperate and misleading.

You are committing the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule. Rather than give an actual argument to refute the evidence I gave, you just try to dismiss it with pejoratives.

All Darwin noted was that in his time, there were little if any fossils known from periods prior to the Cambrian.

You are misrepresenting, or don't understand, what the problem actually was he was referring to.
He was pointing to the fact that there was no evidence prior to the cambrian explosion of a wide array of transitional forms leading up to the cambrian lifeforms. There's no evidence of a gradual process of change brought about by natural selection. He admits this directly contradicts the predictions his theory makes about what you'd expect to find in the ground if his theory were true.

That's usually a sign to honest people that a scientific theory is likely wrong: When it's predictions catastrophically fail.

You've presented nothing to prove your claim that that problem has gone away.

Evolution as a theory would have been dropped a long time ago, on the basis of it's failure to predict and explain what we find, if not the for the fact that there existed no better alternative non-creator creation narrative for the atheist to cling to.

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.
-Arthur Keith

I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.
-George Wald

Evolutionists ... have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
-Richard Lewontin

The theory explains and is consistent with the fossil evidence.

Again, there is no evidence that contradicts it.

Darwin and I just gave you an example where it isn't consistent with the fossil evidence, and you haven't attempted to give any explanation for that contradiction - you've just asserted it's not a problem without any evidence or logical argumentation to establish the truth of your claim. Thereby commiting the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion".

Claiming that there are no transitional forms known is misleading and incorrect.

You are committing the logical fallacy of "strawman". Unable to refute the point I made, you are trying to change what I argued and attack that strawman.

The argument I made had nothing to do with whether or not you think a single transition fossil exists, but points to the same argument Darwin recognized: That for evolutionary theory via natural selection to be true, transition fossils would have to be abundant, especially prior to the supposed cambrian explosion.

In light of that, your attempted point is actually a logical fallacy of "irrelevant conclusion". Because even if we assumed that you had found a handful of examples of fossils you think are convincing candidates for being transitional forms - that is still not consistent with what evolutionary theory predicts and requires to be true. You would expect to see an abundance of these forms, and you would require finding them prior to the supposed cambrian explosion. As Darwin recognized, if you can't find that, it's substantial evidence against his theory.

Which proves your original claim wrong. There is evidence against the theory of evolution.
You tried to claim there is no evidence. There's more evidence against evolutionary theory than just that one thing, but I only needed to give you one piece of evidence to logically disprove your claim that "no evidence" exists that contradicts evolutionary theory.

In referring back to the original post I responded to, you most recent post appears to be an attempt to back out of what you said in the above post.

It is not. And I don't know why you would think that because you give no reason why you would conclude that from my post.

Evolutionary theory does not have to be proven true, since it cannot be, to be a useful explanation.

You're getting close to the territory of the fallacy of equivocation, because arguing over the semantics of how one uses the word "truth" in relation to theory, although perhaps technically true, doesn't actually change the meaning of my original statement and it's implications. So it's not really relevant to your attempt to disprove my statement.

I can modify my original statement from "evolutionary theory hasn't been proven to be true, and they have not been able to reconcile all the evidence which contradicts the theory." to "evolutionary theory has not been shown to be based on truth, as the evidence used to support it hasn't been proven to be a true, and they have not been able to reconcile all the evidence which contradicts the theory", if that would satisify your technical definitions. The later still accurately reflects the original intent and meaning behind my original statement, with just more precise wording.

I would also point out that believed views have no evidence at all supporting them.

Your statement makes no sense. What "believed views" are you talking about, and what is the context or purpose of your statement? I can't tell what you're trying to say here.

 

[Rise]

Well then by your own logic, all that evolution would be compared to would also have to proved true less you be a hypocrite, right?

Your statement doesn't make any sense. I can't tell what you're trying to say. Could you try rewording it more clearly? Then I can respond to it.

 

[ecco]

No
The Lord says animals are 8 Different pairs
Perhaps an indication of evolution
But humans have nothing to do with anim evolution

Please show a quote from the Lord that says: animals are 8 Different pairs