Any other Christians in here interested in evolution? I mean genuinely wants to understand it.

[marks]

Again. This will be the last time I say it.

I stated, I’m not here to debate with those who reject it. There are plenty of other forums to do that.

so those who read that statement and chose to disregard it are choosing to be jerks.
Those that read it and don’t understand it have bad reading comprehension.

If anyone wants to debate I suggest going to this free forum. I’m also there and I’ll debate there as well.
The BioLogos Forum

but this forum I’m not here to debate it. I don’t care that 0.01% of scientists reject evolution and I don’t care that a handful of predominantly Americans and others with westernized foundations don’t understand evolution. It’s not worth my time to debate it. Just like I don’t waste time to debate a flat earth.

This reinforces my point. This is not an honest discussion. Seriously, comparing Intelligent Design (believed by many even not-theistic scientists) to Flat Earth? No, obviously, you have no agenda here!

And given your responses I'm guessing I understand "Evolution" better than you do.

I'm done, don't worry.

Much love!

 

[Skovand1075]

This reinforces my point. This is not an honest discussion. Seriously, comparing Intelligent Design (believed by many even not-theistic scientists) to Flat Earth? No, obviously, you have no agenda here!

And given your responses I'm guessing I understand "Evolution" better than you do.

I'm done, don't worry.

Much love!

Well thank you. If it comes up, I look forward to discussing these things in other places that is appropriate. But yes, intelligent design, young earth creationism, old earth creationism and flat earth all belongs in the same pseudoscientific bubble.

 

[Dropship]

Some 25 years ago I bought Dawkin's book "Climbing Mount Improbable" to bring myself up to date on modern evolutionist thinking because the title implied that evolution was like a smooth easily-explained unbroken progression up a mountain slope.
But after wading through it, I saw that his smooth unbroken slope was in fact full of gaps, crevasses and missing links!
I good-naturedly complained to him by snail mail and he wrote back saying "Of course there are missing links" as if it was perfectly normal !
I answered saying "Thanks for replying but surely God himself wrote the laws of Creation/ Evolution anyway?", and he didn't respond, so I left it at that..

 

[Skovand1075]

Some 25 years ago I bought Dawkin's book "Climbing Mount Improbable" to bring myself up to date on modern evolutionist thinking because the title implied that evolution was like a smooth easily-explained unbroken progression up a mountain slope.
But after wading through it, I saw that his smooth unbroken slope was in fact full of gaps, crevasses and missing links!
I good-naturedly complained to him by snail mail and he wrote back saying "Of course there are missing links" as if it was perfectly normal !
I answered saying "Thanks for replying but surely God himself wrote the laws of Creation/ Evolution anyway?", and he didn't respond, so I left it at that..

I think it’s just that there comes a time where those who don’t understand it and think they found some big flaw, just become unimportant. You’ll drop a few moments of your life talking to them, but you’re just not interested in explaining it to everyone.

for example what is a missing link to you? Why is that something you think is important to understanding evolution as being flawed or whatever it is you think?

 

[Dropship]

...what is a missing link to you? Why is that something you think is important to understanding evolution as being flawed or whatever it is you think?

A missing link could also be described as a 'hole', and the Theory of Evolution is full of holes, guesses and speculations, I suppose that's why it's called the Theory of Evolution and not the Fact of Evolution..
For example here's Dawkins 'detailed' explanation of how the eye evolved-
"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously. Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

Yes folks, he's saying it just appeared on its own out of nowhere like magic!
In reality it's a little more complicated than that, the retina alone looks like a printed circuit diagram ..-


---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[marks]

A missing link could also be described as a 'hole', and the Theory of Evolution is full of holes, guesses and speculations, I suppose that's why it's called the Theory of Evolution and not the Fact of Evolution..
For example here's Dawkins 'detailed' explanation of how the eye evolved-
"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously. Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

Yes folks, he's saying it just appeared on its own out of nowhere like magic!
In reality it's a little more complicated than that, the retina alone looks like a printed circuit diagram ..-

View attachment 25857
---------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 25862

And it all has to exist at the same time, or else none of the parts will serve any purpose. And without the corresponding optical processing in the brain, the eye is meaningless. There is no "evolutionary advantage" without the complete system.

There is no "light sensitive spot" that has any significance without "light image transmission" and "light image interpretation". No single part serves any useful purpose without the other parts, they all have to be there together.

And to imagine that all of these things happened to come into being in a animal all at once for no apparent reason defies belief.

Much love!

 

[michaelvpardo]

Evolution is a theory supported by thousands of facts across dozens of scientific field presented through the research of the experts who specialize in it.

You mentioned studying genetics. I’m a big fan of Francis Collins. One of the worlds most known and highly respected geneticist. He’s the director of NIH and was a lead scientist on the human genome project. He’s also a Christian and accepts evolution and founded Biologos.

The genetic “tree of life” correlates the story of the fossil record.

I made a post before but no one answered it.
Essentially the question was what other explanation besides evolution explains the positioning of fossils within the geological layer showcasing basal forms splitting from one another because of divergent traits?

for example, we don’t see birds predating dinosaurs. We don’t see tetrapods predating the earliest lunged fish. We don’t see bipedalism in primates predating walking on all fours. We don’t see our species predating the earliest primates.

This is not entirely true, sometimes parts of the fossil record are found out of their normal order and in anomalous positions with respect to the theory, but this is "explained" by claiming that massive geological inversion in the strata occurred through geological activity (earthquakes and vulcanism inverting large areas suddenly and catastrophically.) The idea that land masses turn upside down from time to time during extreme geological upheaval has its appeal, especially in supporting a failed hypothesis, but it's never actually been observed.
While it isn't advertised outside of university class rooms and lecture halls, there is no absolute dating method that goes back much further than the historical record. Geological dating is a theoretical system based upon the radioactive decay of heavy elements inside rock, making assumptions that the original rock had none of the elemental isotopes present.
Biological dating is based upon strata for the "oldest" specimens, Carbon 14 dating for newer specimens, and tree ring dating for intermediary specimens. Of the three, the most accurate method is C14 dating, but again the theoretical model is dependent upon a constant concentration of atmospheric C14, and reactions concurrent with coronal mass ejections and geomagnetic storms suggest that the basic premise is faulty (atmospheric C14 levels vary over time and this would happen even if the source were only massive fires.)
Comparison of C14 dating to historical records, such as the fall of Jericho are already divergent by a number of years.
It's possible that regional variations occur rather than worldwide, but atmospheric mixing and wind currents are very effective in redistributing even relatively heavy particles. (There are islands in the America's formed with sands carried by the wind from Africa.)
The so called genetic tree of life is assembled based upon coding similarities that exist over multiple alleles and "key" mutations. Organisms more complicated than bacteria typically have sets of separate alleles, so no direct linkages exist between them. Despite that, the argument for relationship fails in light of the corollary hypothesis of parallel evolution. A non lethal translocation that persists in multiple species can simply be the result of multiple identical translocations that occurred because of structural weaknesses in the tertiary form of the alleles during mitosis or meiosis. The evidences are never proof when alternative explanations are as likely.
Point mutations are probably more common, but again similar point mutations can occur because of inherent weaknesses in the linkages between molecules caused by their dipole moments in the complex structures.
The scientific community has a vested interesting in building support for unprovable and nonreproducable hypotheses, and so it embraces supporting data and rejects anomalous data, until the anomalous data becomes too overwhelming to ignore or surpress. But, since 20th century science embraced the concept that the supernatural doesn't exist, any replacement hypothesis for a failed one must be of "natural" origin in order to be accepted as true, and concepts like irreducible complexity rejected outright as "pseudoscience."

 

[Skovand1075]

A missing link could also be described as a 'hole', and the Theory of Evolution is full of holes, guesses and speculations, I suppose that's why it's called the Theory of Evolution and not the Fact of Evolution..
For example here's Dawkins 'detailed' explanation of how the eye evolved-
"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously. Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

Yes folks, he's saying it just appeared on its own out of nowhere like magic!
In reality it's a little more complicated than that, the retina alone looks like a printed circuit diagram ..-

View attachment 25857
---------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 25862

I think you may be confusing theory for individual facts. A theory is based off of many facts. Evolution is based off of thousands of facts.

instead of me explaining eye evolution, which is very easy. It’s one of the easiest organs to explains the natural history of. I’ll drop two links.
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

this is to a podcast and their blog by two men with doctorate degrees related to evolution.

Episode 68 – Evolution of Eyes

 

[Skovand1075]

This is not entirely true, sometimes parts of the fossil record are found out of their normal order and in anomalous positions with respect to the theory, but this is "explained" by claiming that massive geological inversion in the strata occurred through geological activity (earthquakes and vulcanism inverting large areas suddenly and catastrophically.) The idea that land masses turn upside down from time to time during extreme geological upheaval has its appeal, especially in supporting a failed hypothesis, but it's never actually been observed.
While it isn't advertised outside of university class rooms and lecture halls, there is no absolute dating method that goes back much further than the historical record. Geological dating is a theoretical system based upon the radioactive decay of heavy elements inside rock, making assumptions that the original rock had none of the elemental isotopes present.
Biological dating is based upon strata for the "oldest" specimens, Carbon 14 dating for newer specimens, and tree ring dating for intermediary specimens. Of the three, the most accurate method is C14 dating, but again the theoretical model is dependent upon a constant concentration of atmospheric C14, and reactions concurrent with coronal mass ejections and geomagnetic storms suggest that the basic premise is faulty (atmospheric C14 levels vary over time and this would happen even if the source were only massive fires.)
Comparison of C14 dating to historical records, such as the fall of Jericho are already divergent by a number of years.
It's possible that regional variations occur rather than worldwide, but atmospheric mixing and wind currents are very effective in redistributing even relatively heavy particles. (There are islands in the America's formed with sands carried by the wind from Africa.)
The so called genetic tree of life is assembled based upon coding similarities that exist over multiple alleles and "key" mutations. Organisms more complicated than bacteria typically have sets of separate alleles, so no direct linkages exist between them. Despite that, the argument for relationship fails in light of the corollary hypothesis of parallel evolution. A non lethal translocation that persists in multiple species can simply be the result of multiple identical translocations that occurred because of structural weaknesses in the tertiary form of the alleles during mitosis or meiosis. The evidences are never proof when alternative explanations are as likely.
Point mutations are probably more common, but again similar point mutations can occur because of inherent weaknesses in the linkages between molecules caused by their dipole moments in the complex structures.
The scientific community has a vested interesting in building support for unprovable and nonreproducable hypotheses, and so it embraces supporting data and rejects anomalous data, until the anomalous data becomes too overwhelming to ignore or surpress. But, since 20th century science embraced the concept that the supernatural doesn't exist, any replacement hypothesis for a failed one must be of "natural" origin in order to be accepted as true, and concepts like irreducible complexity rejected outright as "pseudoscience."

that’s not a issue. The geological layers are not a failed hypothesis. It’s supported by all data. Landmass flipping is common.

i suggest checking out this podcast.
Nick Zentner

 

[Dropship]

..instead of me explaining eye evolution, which is very easy. It’s one of the easiest organs to explains the natural history of. I’ll drop two links.
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

this is to a podcast and their blog by two men with doctorate degrees related to evolution.
Episode 68 – Evolution of Eyes

Their attempts to explain the awesome complexity of the eye with a few diagrams is hopelessly shallow and they might as well go whistle dixie rather than waste their time trying to make their theory fly..

Speaking of flying, here's Dawkins 'explanation' of how birds and bats evolved, count the number of guesses and 'perhapses' in it-
"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees..
Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds.. Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees.
Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees. (Climbing Mt Imp, pp. 113–4)

So according to him, wingless creatures either began jumping up and down or jumping out of trees until a couple (male and female) somehow sprouted wings and started producing babies !

 

[Dropship]

Incidentally, Dawkins made a fool of himself again when he claimed that the human eye is badly designed because ‘some of the parts in our eyes have been wired backwards', but scientists hauled him over the coals for it..

Biologist Richard Lumsden said
"..it is critical to have the photoreceptive processes of the rods and cones intimately associated with the pigment layer for another reason, in order to allow the light-sensitive pigment rhodopsin to regenerate.
So if the rods and cones were turned around to face the incoming light, as Dawkins requires, the pigment layer would have to be between the light and the light receptors, thus blocking vision altogether!
In short, it is just as well that God, not Professor Dawkins, designed the eye."
Seeing back to front - creation.com

 

[michaelvpardo]

that’s not a issue. The geological layers are not a failed hypothesis. It’s supported by all data. Landmass flipping is common.

i suggest checking out this podcast.
Nick Zentner

Land mass flipping is common? Yes, the inverted strata is common, but this common phenomenon has never been observed. Perhaps misinterpretation of strata is common or completely misunderstood.
It is true, however, that fossil fields are almost universally associated with catastrophic events, because catastrophic events are the only way to preserve large fossil beds.

 

[Dropship]

Incidentally Dawkins has been married 3 times, it probably went like this with his first two-

WIFEY- "Oh Dickie darling, talk sexy to me"

DAWKINS- "Sperm is the male reproductive cell, or gamete, in anisogamous forms of sexual reproduction (forms in which there is a larger, female reproductive cell and a smaller, male one). Animals produce motile sperm with a tail known as a flagellum, which are known as spermatozoa, while some red algae and fungi produce non-motile sperm cells, known as spermatia.
Sperm cells form during the process known as spermatogenesis, which in amniotes (reptiles and mammals) takes place in the seminiferous tubules of the testes. This process involves the production of several successive sperm cell precursors, starting with spermatogonia, which differentiate into spermatocytes. The spermatocytes then undergo meiosis, reducing their chromosome number by half, which..."

WIFEY- "OH SHUT THE HELL UP !!!"

 

[Skovand1075]

Land mass flipping is common? Yes, the inverted strata is common, but this common phenomenon has never been observed. Perhaps misinterpretation of strata is common or completely misunderstood.
It is true, however, that fossil fields are almost universally associated with catastrophic events, because catastrophic events are the only way to preserve large fossil beds.

Again, just google it. It’s literally that easy. You can google thousands of papers by geologists on this. It’s not some secret info. It’s like 7th grade earth science.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Again, just google it. It’s literally that easy. You can google thousands of papers by geologists on this. It’s not some secret info. It’s like 7th grade earth science.

My introduction to geology began in private study in the 3rd grade, and the fact that something is accepted and repeated is not proof of it being true. The "body" of science at any given time believed, accepted, and taught the body of accumulated belief based upon observable data and reason, not proven truth. We have scientific "laws" in acknowledgement that those "laws" have universality.
Prior to Einstein's theory of special relativity, Newtonian physics was comfortable with the immutability of matter, time and space. Hubbles law is presently being called into question over data from our newest orbital telescope.
The only constant in science is that truth is indeterminate.

 

[marks]

It is true, however, that fossil fields are almost universally associated with catastrophic events, because catastrophic events are the only way to preserve large fossil beds.

Just so. Isn't it common knowledge that dead bodies decay and the bones scattered unless there is some mechanism to bury them? Do we see animals being buried on the sea bed today? Buried on the mountain sides? No. They are scavanged and scattered.

I've seen some studies that show fossil beds have been layered according to bouyancy. And of course the upright fossilized trees that stand through "millions of years" of rock layers show that this "millions of years" is completely untrue.

Much love!

 

[Skovand1075]

My introduction to geology began in private study in the 3rd grade, and the fact that something is accepted and repeated is not proof of it being true. The "body" of science at any given time believed, accepted, and taught the body of accumulated belief based upon observable data and reason, not proven truth. We have scientific "laws" in acknowledgement that those "laws" have universality.
Prior to Einstein's theory of special relativity, Newtonian physics was comfortable with the immutability of matter, time and space. Hubbles law is presently being called into question over data from our newest orbital telescope.
The only constant in science is that truth is indeterminate.

Again…. Just pick up a 7th grade earth science book. I only skimmed the post. But I’m not responding to anymore middle school questions by people who are supposed to be experts.

 

[Skovand1075]

Here’s one response to how fossilized forests are formed.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/gallatin-petrified-forest.pdf

 

[michaelvpardo]

Just so. Isn't it common knowledge that dead bodies decay and the bones scattered unless there is some mechanism to bury them? Do we see animals being buried on the sea bed today? Buried on the mountain sides? No. They are scavanged and scattered.

I've seen some studies that show fossil beds have been layered according to bouyancy. And of course the upright fossilized trees that stand through "millions of years" of rock layers show that this "millions of years" is completely untrue.

Much love!

That's my point. There have been finds of mass kills of wooly mammoths that indicate they were chased off of cliffs or escarpment, but that would've been catastrophic to the mammoths. For flesh to survive to be fossilized, it has to be enclosed in an anaerobic environment, (covered in mud, ash, lime, etc.) Outside of natural and man made disasters, accumulated fossils in one location were the result of hunter gathering, bringing game to a single location for consumption, or display (as in collections of skulls), or accidental submersion in an anaerobic environment like tar pits, or tree sap.
Science, by its 20th century definition excludes the existence of the supernatural. Consequently it is the pursuit of disproving scripture for at least a century.

Many early scientists were of a religious bent. The early astronomers (like Tycho Brahe) sought to make more accurate measurements of the location of planets with respect to the stars in order to make more accurate astrological predictions, believing in the relationship of microcosm to macrocosm and justifying that belief with verses out of the first chapter in Genesis. This is historically documented and my familiarity is from a book titled "God and the Astronomers ."
DaVinci's famous illustration of man (splayed out like a star) was drawn as a representation of that relationship.

The Jesuits were among the early naturalists that sought proofs through experimentation. Gregor Mendel, who performed early hybridization experiments, was a monk.
Early science was the attempt to understand creation. Modern science is the attempt to disprove it.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Again…. Just pick up a 7th grade earth science book. I only skimmed the post. But I’m not responding to anymore middle school questions by people who are supposed to be experts.

I haven't posed questions, just answers, facts, and informed speculation based upon observation and data.