Arguments against Theistic Evolution

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

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

Fred Lamm

New Member
Mar 10, 2014
29
7
0
did answer your question by providing two examples of transitional fossils. But yet again you dodge the question: Where have you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not?

Obviously the answer is, you've not looked anywhere, and that's why you refuse to answer the question.
I do not believe that you have shown us any transitional fossils. What I see is a handful of man and ape fossils which have similar physical characteristics and structure. They both have two legs, two arms , one head and so on. Evolutionary conjecture that these physical similarities constitute ancestry is a huge leap of faith, and as I will show, some of your scientist colleagues do not share your opinions. Evolutionists approach fossils with the pre-conceived notion that since evolution is true, the fossils must be lined up in a way that shows progression. We must recognize the fact that when we see drawings of ape to man evolution that the artists are told how to draw the fossil finds. They are told to draw maybe a little more sloping forehead even though the cranium of the actual find was larger or maybe told to draw hair all over the body etc. Don’t believe me? Just look up “ Nebraska Man”. He was pictured in the ape to man progression from the find of a single tooth. It turns out that the tooth came from a pig. This is just one example of how far off the fossil interpretations of evolutionary biologists get in their zeal to support the theory. Other examples of evolutionary presentations that turned out to be fraudulent include, Piltdown Man, the Miller/Urey experiments, vestigial organs, and the Peppered Moths. Add to this that there are no transitional forms between microscopic organisms to invertebrates or from invertebrates to vertebrates and no fossils showing what apes evolved from.

Oh, is it? Then why did a Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, Dr. Charles Oxnard say; "The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been."
His conclusion, "The australopithecines are unique.”

So do you believe "made in God's image" refers to physical characteristics? If so, do you believe God has a penis?
My dictionary says “image” is; 1.a physical likeness of a person, animal or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.
Seems straightforward to me, what do you think image means? As for the last part of your quote, I believe that only a very irreverent person would go there. If you wish to speculate on what private body parts God does and does not possess then you will have to discuss it with someone else.

So your answer to any genetic evidence for common descent is "God just made it that way". How do you account for genetic similarities even in cases of functional redundancy?
Please be more specific, i.e. give an example of the cases you are talking about.

In 123 you said, "A kind is a type of animal like a horse, a dog or a cat". Do you honestly think that's a useful definition? If so, what "kind" is Caudipteryx?


And you again dodge the same question. Does that specimen display a mosaic of bird and reptile features? Isn't that exactly what we would expect a transitional fossil to show?
Where are the scales? You present a fossil that has no feathers and a fossil that has feathers and no scales. Where is the transition? Furthermore you cannot provide a plausible explanation of just how environmental pressures could cause such an adaptation. It would also seem that there are other biologists that do not share your opinions. Larry D. Martin served as a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and a curator in vertebrate paleontology at the University of Kansas. He authored more than 170 scientific papers in the most prestigious journals and books, and was the recipient of numerous research grants from the National Science Foundation, National Geographic, and NASA. This is what he had to say about reptile to bird evolution “To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.” Also Alan Feduccia from the University of North Carolina, one of the worlds foremost ornithologists and an evolutionist, says this about the subject; “Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.”
What about it is "factual"?


I have, by showing where Gould lamented creationists like you trying to use his quotes to make it seem as if he believed transitional fossils don't exist, even though he believed they are "abundant".
And you dodge yet another question, you have constantly attacked Behe but you have yet to offer a rebuttal to irreducible complexity. Tell us please what is not factual about it.

Perhaps you could be so kind as the post the quote in the context of the paragraphs before and after and explain how it is out of context.

And you didn't correct him on that? Too bad it was you he ended up talking to, rather than the millions of Christians who have no problem at all with evolution.
As a matter of fact, I led this young man to the Lord and he is an active soul-winner for Christ today. No evolution required. Why would God, the supreme supernatural creator of the universe, need a process as clumsy as evolution?

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Fred Lamm said:
I do not believe that you have shown us any transitional fossils. What I see is a handful of man and ape fossils which have similar physical characteristics and structure. They both have two legs, two arms , one head and so on.
Maybe you can clarify then what exactly you mean by "transitional fossil"? Specific to human-primate common ancestry, what would a "transitional fossil" between humans and other primates look like?

Oh, is it? Then why did a Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, Dr. Charles Oxnard say; "The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been."
His conclusion, "The australopithecines are unique.”
What's the date on his quote?

My dictionary says “image” is; 1.a physical likeness of a person, animal or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.
Seems straightforward to me, what do you think image means? As for the last part of your quote, I believe that only a very irreverent person would go there. If you wish to speculate on what private body parts God does and does not possess then you will have to discuss it with someone else.
Personally, I don't believe "created in the image of God" refers to physical characteristics. I don't believe God has reproductive organs. I believe "in the image of God" refers to our spiritual essence, i.e., our soul.

Please be more specific, i.e. give an example of the cases you are talking about.
Sure.

The genetic code itself is informationally redundant; on average there are three different codons (a triplet of DNA bases) that can specify the exact same amino acid. Thus, for cytochrome c (a ubiquitous protein common to all life) there are approximately 1049, different DNA sequences that can specify the exact same protein sequence. Thus, any sequence differences between two functional cytochrome c genes are necessarily functionally neutral. IOW, there's no functional reason for different species to have the same genetic sequence for cytochrome c.

Yet the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical, even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein.


Where are the scales? You present a fossil that has no feathers and a fossil that has feathers and no scales. Where is the transition?
Do you know what "proto-feathers" are? And again, can you please clarify what you think a "transitional fossil" between birds and reptiles would look like? And again, what "kind" is Caudipteryx?

Furthermore you cannot provide a plausible explanation of just how environmental pressures could cause such an adaptation.
Don't move the goalposts here. We don't need to know everything about why an event happened before we can conclude that it did.

It would also seem that there are other biologists that do not share your opinions. Larry D. Martin served as a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and a curator in vertebrate paleontology at the University of Kansas. He authored more than 170 scientific papers in the most prestigious journals and books, and was the recipient of numerous research grants from the National Science Foundation, National Geographic, and NASA. This is what he had to say about reptile to bird evolution “To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.” Also Alan Feduccia from the University of North Carolina, one of the worlds foremost ornithologists and an evolutionist, says this about the subject; “Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.”
So do you believe those two scientists are authorities in this subject and their opinions on it should be taken as authoritative?


And you dodge yet another question, you have constantly attacked Behe but you have yet to offer a rebuttal to irreducible complexity. Tell us please what is not factual about it.
?????????????? You're not making any sense at all. I can't dodge a question you've never asked. So again, what exactly about Behe's work on irreducible complexity do you believe is factual?

Perhaps you could be so kind as the post the quote in the context of the paragraphs before and after and explain how it is out of context.
You posted...

"If Darwinism were true, we would have found hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of transitional fossils by now. But according to the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist), "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; Morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.""

Your fundamental error is you think that Gould arguing against Darwinian gradualism (anagenesis mode of speciation) is the same as him arguing that transitional fossils don't exist. In the quote you posted, he doesn't say transitional fossils don't exist....at all. Yet you tried to preface it as supportive of your argument that transitional fossils don't exist.


As a matter of fact, I led this young man to the Lord and he is an active soul-winner for Christ today. No evolution required. Why would God, the supreme supernatural creator of the universe, need a process as clumsy as evolution?
That's not for you or I to say. The fact is, evolution happens all the time, all around us, every day. So whether or not God "needs" it is irrelevant.
 

Fred Lamm

New Member
Mar 10, 2014
29
7
0
Maybe you can clarify then what exactly you mean by "transitional fossil"? Specific to human-primate common ancestry, what would a "transitional fossil" between humans and other primates look like?
Your question pre-supposes that there is a transitional animal between ape and human, which I do not believe. My point is that you and all other evolutionist biologists approach fossils with the assumption that they are a link in a progression of evolution rather than a unique animal. Anyone can line up a group of skulls on a table and proclaim “this is proof of evolution!” The problem is that you confuse morphology with ancestry. As Jonathan Wells, who has a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of California at Berkeley, said; “the fossil evidence is open to many interpretations because individual specimens can be reconstructed in a variety of ways, and because the fossil record cannot establish ancestor-descendant relationships.” Evolutionists take the one percent of factual information that a fossil gives them and use their academic authority to reconstruct the other 99 percent to depict any missing link that they want, and this is exactly why there have been so many fakes and mistakes presented as proof of evolution.

What's the date on his quote?
The date is 1987, did the fossils of which he speaks miraculously change since that time?

Personally, I don't believe "created in the image of God" refers to physical characteristics. I don't believe God has reproductive organs. I believe "in the image of God" refers to our spiritual essence, i.e., our soul.
So you make scripture say whatever you believe?

The genetic code itself is informationally redundant; on average there are three different codons (a triplet of DNA bases) that can specify the exact same amino acid. Thus, for cytochrome c (a ubiquitous protein common to all life) there are approximately 1049, different DNA sequences that can specify the exact same protein sequence. Thus, any sequence differences between two functional cytochrome c genes are necessarily functionally neutral. IOW, there's no functional reason for different species to have the same genetic sequence for cytochrome c.

Yet the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical, even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein
Let me get this straight, you believe that God guided evolution and that in the process of guiding evolution he would allow two different kinds of animals to possess the same sequence for cytochrome c, but that if God created two different kinds of animals He would not use the same gene sequence twice. What is the basis for this assumption?

Do you know what "proto-feathers" are? And again, can you please clarify what you think a "transitional fossil" between birds and reptiles would look like? And again, what "kind" is Caudipteryx?
Yes, I know what you think they are but in the words of Dr. David Menton ,who holds a Ph.D in cell biology from Brown University; “These structures bear no real resemblance to feathers and may be better interpreted as interwoven collagen fibers in the dermis of these animals.”
It is hard to discern what Caudipteryx is from the small photos that have been posted , I cannot even see the larger details of the fossil clearly. Let us remember that the foundation for this microraptor-to-bird theory comes from the Cretaceous fossil beds of Liaoning Province in northeastern China. National Geographic presented a set of these fossils that a collector paid $80,000 for. This so-called missing link appeared to be a feathered dinosaur that flew like a modern bird. This find made front page news in 1999, but was a great embarrassment when proved a forgery a year later.

Don't move the goalposts here. We don't need to know everything about why an event happened before we can conclude that it did.
There are no “goalposts”. Either your theory can stand up to scrutiny or it cannot, and since you have already concluded that evolution is a fact, then you must provide at the least a plausible explanation of it. Again I ask you to explain the evolution of a butterfly.

So do you believe those two scientists are authorities in this subject and their opinions on it should be taken as authoritative?
You present yourself as an authority in biology, I merely point out that biologists with more letters behind their name than you and who have the respect of the scientific world, emphatically say that birds did not evolve from reptiles.

?????????????? You're not making any sense at all. I can't dodge a question you've never asked. So again, what exactly about Behe's work on irreducible complexity do you believe is factual?
Forgive me if I did not make myself clear when I asked if you wanted to discuss the larger problems of evolution with me, so far all you have done is attack Behe. What about the following statement ; “The fossil record has nothing to tell us about whether the interactions of 11-cts-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase [irreducibly complex systems] could have developed step by step.” is not factual.
You posted...

"If Darwinism were true, we would have found hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of transitional fossils by now. But according to the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist), "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; Morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.""

Your fundamental error is you think that Gould arguing against Darwinian gradualism (anagenesis mode of speciation) is the same as him arguing that transitional fossils don't exist. In the quote you posted, he doesn't say transitional fossils don't exist....at all. Yet you tried to preface it as supportive of your argument that transitional fossils don't exist.
“Stasis” means an unchanging state. This word kind of eliminates transitional forms.

That's not for you or I to say. The fact is, evolution happens all the time, all around us, every day. So whether or not God "needs" it is irrelevant.
Scientists have over a hundred years of work with E.coli, and at 20 minutes per generation time, over 2 million generations of E.coli , and despite forcing and encouraging mutations they have yet to witness anything other than E.coli. This would be similar to observing humans, at 50 years per generation, for over 100 million years. Evolution is happening all around us? I don’t think so. Also you seem to presume that it is for you to say that God needs evolution because even if evolution were a viable means of creation, God doesn’t need it and does not claim it in his word.

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Fred Lamm said:
Your question pre-supposes that there is a transitional animal between ape and human, which I do not believe. My point is that you and all other evolutionist biologists approach fossils with the assumption that they are a link in a progression of evolution rather than a unique animal. Anyone can line up a group of skulls on a table and proclaim “this is proof of evolution!” The problem is that you confuse morphology with ancestry.
Well this has gotten very silly then. :huh:

You came in to this thread declaring there are no transitional fossils, yet now we've learned that not only have you never bothered to look, you can't even say what a "transitional fossil" is! That's so bizarre, it's hard to put into words.

The date is 1987, did the fossils of which he speaks miraculously change since that time?
The fossils that I've posted hadn't been discovered in 1987, so his quote is irrelevant to their status.

So you make scripture say whatever you believe?
So that again causes me to ask....if you think "in the image of God" refers to physical characteristics, do you believe God has reproductive organs?

Let me get this straight, you believe that God guided evolution and that in the process of guiding evolution he would allow two different kinds of animals to possess the same sequence for cytochrome c, but that if God created two different kinds of animals He would not use the same gene sequence twice. What is the basis for this assumption?
You misunderstand the point. There is absolutely no functional reason for humans and chimps to share the same sequence for cytochrome c. You can change the sequences in many, many different ways and it would still work the same. Thus, that leads to an obvious question: Why do humans and chimps have the same sequence for cytochrome c? The obvious answer is that they both inherited that sequence from a common ancestor.

"God made it that way" doesn't make any sense, because there was no functional reason for Him to do so.

Yes, I know what you think they are but in the words of Dr. David Menton ,who holds a Ph.D in cell biology from Brown University; “These structures bear no real resemblance to feathers and may be better interpreted as interwoven collagen fibers in the dermis of these animals.”
Well now you're just being misleading. Menton is a young-earth creationist who works for AIG, and has absolutely no expertise in the field of paleontology. So his musings on what are or aren't proto-feathers is worthless. Not only that, but he was speaking specifically about Sinosauropteryx and Sinornithosaurus, not Caudipteryx.

So were you being intentionally deceptive, or did you just not know what you were quoting?

It is hard to discern what Caudipteryx is from the small photos that have been posted , I cannot even see the larger details of the fossil clearly.
The read through THESE PAPERS.

The Wiki page describes it as...

"Caudipteryx, like many other maniraptorans, has an interesting mix of reptile- and bird-like anatomical features.

Caudipteryx had a short, boxy skull with a beak-like snout that retained only a few tapered teeth in the front of the upper jaw. It had a stout trunk, long legs and was probably a swift runner.

Caudipteryx has a short tail stiffened toward the tip, with few vertebrae, like in birds and other oviraptorosaurs. It has a primitive pelvis and shoulder, and primitive skull details in the quadratojugal, squamosal, quadrate, jugal, and mandibular fenestra (in the cheek, jaw, and jaw joint). It has a hand skeleton with a reduced third finger, like that of primitive birds and the oviraptorid Ingenia.

Caudipteryx had uncinate processes on the ribs, birdlike teeth, a first toe which may or may not be partially reversed and overall body proportions that are comparable to those of modern flightless birds."

There are no “goalposts”. Either your theory can stand up to scrutiny or it cannot, and since you have already concluded that evolution is a fact, then you must provide at the least a plausible explanation of it. Again I ask you to explain the evolution of a butterfly.
I take it you're not familiar with the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts. Here, you claimed that transitional fossils don't exist. I provided you with examples of fossil specimens that meet the primary criterion to be "transitional", i.e., they show a mixture of traits from different taxa. But rather than admit that transitional fossils exist, you suddenly argue "but you can't say how they evolved", which is irrelevant to the original question (do transitional fossils exist).

And I don't know about the evolution of butterflies.

You present yourself as an authority in biology, I merely point out that biologists with more letters behind their name than you and who have the respect of the scientific world, emphatically say that birds did not evolve from reptiles.
No, they're not saying that at all. Again your reliance on third-party creationist sources for quotes sets you up to fail. Feduccia et. al. aren't arguing that birds don't share a common ancestry with reptiles. The mainstream paleontological view is that birds are descended from theropods. Feduccia's view is that birds and theropods are descended from a non-theropod ancestor.

So again, either you were being intentionally deceptive, or you just don't know what you're talking about.

Forgive me if I did not make myself clear when I asked if you wanted to discuss the larger problems of evolution with me, so far all you have done is attack Behe.
?????????? You're making even less sense. You brought up Behe, I pointed out that he recognizes the validity of universal common ancestry, you waved that away as just "opinion", you said his work on irreducible complexity was "factual", and I'm still waiting for you to specify what you were referring to by that.

What about the following statement ; “The fossil record has nothing to tell us about whether the interactions of 11-cts-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase [irreducibly complex systems] could have developed step by step.” is not factual.
It's factual, but irrelevant. Potential evolutionary pathways for biochemical systems are worked out by other means.

“Stasis” means an unchanging state. This word kind of eliminates transitional forms.
No it doesn't. This again gets back to what I tried to lead you to earlier....different modes of speciation.

Under typical Darwinian speciation (anagenesis), an entire population gradually evolves until they all become a new species. This was generally the framework under which paleontologists interpreted patterns in the fossil record. However, population geneticists had known for a long time that the more common mode of speciation is where a small portion of a larger population breaks off (becomes isolated) and evolves into a new species, while the original larger population remains the same (generally referred to as cladogenesis).

So along come Eldredge and Gould and they argue to their fellow paleontologists, "Hey, why are we only thinking of Darwinian evolution when we look at patterns in the fossil record, when most of evolutionary biology is based on cladogenesis?" They then argue that that's why we see many fossil species in "stasis" over long periods of time...they stayed the same, but break-off groups from that population gave rise to other species.

And here's the cool thing....in real time we've seen both types of speciation! And in rare cases where we have a very good record of a taxon's evolutionary history, we see both types of speciation. Evidence of both types is even seen at the molecular level.

Scientists have over a hundred years of work with E.coli, and at 20 minutes per generation time, over 2 million generations of E.coli , and despite forcing and encouraging mutations they have yet to witness anything other than E.coli. This would be similar to observing humans, at 50 years per generation, for over 100 million years. Evolution is happening all around us? I don’t think so.
I've shown you multiple examples of observed evolution, including new species. For you to now say that you don't even think it ever happens at all is the height of delusion.

Also you seem to presume that it is for you to say that God needs evolution because even if evolution were a viable means of creation, God doesn’t need it and does not claim it in his word.
I never once said God "needs evolution". Evolution is reality...it's why we need a new influenza vaccine every year; it's why we have to develop new antibiotics and pesticides.

What amazes me is how so many Christians tie denial of observed reality to Christianity.
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
River Jordan said:
I never once said God "needs evolution". Evolution is reality...it's why we need a new influenza vaccine every year; it's why we have to develop new antibiotics and pesticides.
Just thought I would check in on my thread. I see we have not moved forward yet. No River this is not true as already explained at length and in detail on your thread. KK, done wasting time for now, bye bye.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
KingJ said:
Just thought I would check in on my thread. I see we have not moved forward yet. No River this is not true as already explained at length and in detail on your thread. KK, done wasting time for now, bye bye.
???????? It's not true that we need new flu vaccines, antibiotics, and pesticides?

Wow. I've seen denialism before, but......wow. :blink:
 

snr5557

Member
Jan 19, 2014
307
2
18
KingJ said:
First of all, why you keep going on about being biased I have no idea. No one is free of bias, and you're a good example of this. She has read about the creationist views on things, and she used her knowledge in biology to reject those ideas. It is called critical thinking,

"critical thinking

noun
disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"

Second of all, the publisher of the article, creation.com. This website is incredibly biased toward the creationist point of view, which makes your complaint of River being biased all the more ironic. If you could find a credible source, such as the CDC website or the NIH website (organizations dedicated to keeping us safe and healthy), the claim you are trying to make would be more convincing.

Third, let's talk about the article itself. I glanced through it and saw a few red flags.

"Rather, like actual living things, they do mutate (the term is properly applied) and change."

- We have discussed evolution on this site before, and that it is an important part of evolution.

Here is a link that gives the basics: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

“If so, this new virus is an example of the importance of recombination in evolution. That is, evolution proceeds not only by small mutations of individual DNA or RNA bases, but also by transmission of large pieces of genetic material from one individual to another.

So, despite the evolutionary handwaving there, no evolution! Rearrangement of already existing information doesn’t explain the new encyclopaedic information of more complex living creatures."


- This here does not make sense to me, since it said that the virus did get new information (I underlined the portion). The more I read the article, the more it seems like it is the author doing the hand waving.

I am not an expert in biology, but these few parts of the article are just a few red flags at the credibility of the article.
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
snr5557 said:
First of all, why you keep going on about being biased I have no idea. No one is free of bias, and you're a good example of this. She has read about the creationist views on things, and she used her knowledge in biology to reject those ideas. It is called critical thinking,

"critical thinking

noun
disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"

Second of all, the publisher of the article, creation.com. This website is incredibly biased toward the creationist point of view, which makes your complaint of River being biased all the more ironic. If you could find a credible source, such as the CDC website or the NIH website (organizations dedicated to keeping us safe and healthy), the claim you are trying to make would be more convincing.

Third, let's talk about the article itself. I glanced through it and saw a few red flags.

"Rather, like actual living things, they do mutate (the term is properly applied) and change."

- We have discussed evolution on this site before, and that it is an important part of evolution.

Here is a link that gives the basics: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

“If so, this new virus is an example of the importance of recombination in evolution. That is, evolution proceeds not only by small mutations of individual DNA or RNA bases, but also by transmission of large pieces of genetic material from one individual to another.

So, despite the evolutionary handwaving there, no evolution! Rearrangement of already existing information doesn’t explain the new encyclopaedic information of more complex living creatures."


- This here does not make sense to me, since it said that the virus did get new information (I underlined the portion). The more I read the article, the more it seems like it is the author doing the hand waving.

I am not an expert in biology, but these few parts of the article are just a few red flags at the credibility of the article.
1. I am biased toward scripture. Because I believe in John 1:1 as all Christians should. I have not been deceitful at all. Hence the argument for River's bias carries a couple megatons of weight regarding her Christianity.

As for critical thinking...thanks for making me laugh!! ''disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"''

Evolution is NOT rational. But you need a rational mind to know that. River IS biased toward her studies that exclude valid creationist arguments. You can't tell me its all tripe. River's best defence for her bias is that she parroted her studies and is doing likewise here. Informed by evidence....yawn...has she ''''actually''' seen uphill aka ''moving forward'' aka ''flatworm to human'' evolution?

2. I am not repeating the discussion. You can go find it in her thread. That was not the only article. Heck google it. There is plenty objective arguments to read. I am done expecting / being open to ''apparent facts'' aka false science budging my common sense.

In a couple years time evolutionists and their ilk will be the laughing stock of society. In fact already those at the top, know better. Guess we just need to wait for the recent students to play catch up.

Meditate on this quote by DMS Watson ''the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible''.

.
 

snr5557

Member
Jan 19, 2014
307
2
18
KingJ said:
1. I am biased toward scripture. Because I believe in John 1:1 as all Christians should. I have not been deceitful at all. Hence the argument for River's bias carries a couple megatons of weight regarding her Christianity.

As for critical thinking...thanks for making me laugh!! ''disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"''

The irony in this is astounding.

Evolution is NOT rational. But you need a rational mind to know that. River IS biased toward her studies that exclude valid creationist arguments. You can't tell me its all tripe. River's best defence for her bias is that she parroted her studies and is doing likewise here. Informed by evidence....yawn...has she ''''actually''' seen uphill aka ''moving forward'' aka ''flatworm to human'' evolution?

I remember her stating books from creationists arguing their case, which she rejected. I am not entirely sure you have really studied evolution, since from a previous discussions with you on this site you didn't know or understand that mutation is part of evolution. She explained her studies and her experience in the lab. If you don't accept that it's fine, but that is how we gain information.

2. I am not repeating the discussion. You can go find it in her thread. That was not the only article. Heck google it. There is plenty objective arguments to read. I am done expecting / being open to ''apparent facts'' aka false science budging my common sense.

You are using the common sense fallacy. I am not saying to throw away common sense, but it can often lead to the wrong answers.

In a couple years time evolutionists and their ilk will be the laughing stock of society. In fact already those at the top, know better. Guess we just need to wait for the recent students to play catch up.

I doubt this.

Meditate on this quote by DMS Watson ''the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible''.

.I prefer to meditate on this quote by him: " We know as surely as we shall that evolution has occurred; but we do not know how this evolution has been brought about."

I think this quote was written in 1929. I am not familiar with how far science had progressed up to that time, but I know that we are much further now than were then. He was simply being honest, he accepts that evolution is true but the evidence that they currently had was not entirely satisfactory. That is a part of science. Once we know something, we realize how much more we do not know. So we go out and find out about those things, and again, we realize how much more we do not know. If scientists knew everything there would be no point in training new scientists.


Also, scientists will always disagree with each other. You should not simply look to the scientists who agree with your current ideas and then throw everyone else out to dry. You should read from both sides, think critically, and come to your conclusion. If you really have read scientific articles straight from the source and came to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is not correct, then okay. I honestly cannot ask more from you. It really does not mean anything that you reject or accept it.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
KingJ said:
Hilarious....absolutely hilarious. You complain about me being biased, and then you post a link to this tripe? And without any sense of irony at all? Again....wow. :eek:

The entire argument in that childish article is "Sure it's an example of change and adaptation, but it's not pond scum evolving into humans!!!" See for yourself...

"such changes are not the sort of changes that molecules-to-man evolution requires...

...this sort of change is simply not capable in principle of generating even one small step along the assumed path of vent-mud-to-virologist biological change."

And this has to be one of the dumbest things I've read from a creationist website in a while...

"But viruses, do not “evolve”. Rather, like actual living things, they do mutate (the term is properly applied) and change."

If mutation resulting in heritable change isn't evolution....then what is?

I swear KingJ, the fact that you think that was a valid scientific rebuttal to....well....anything is a perfect demonstration of the childish, vacuous, and goofy nature of young-earth creationism. By posting that, you've done a far better job of making my point about the sort of nonsense people like you are tying to Christianity than I ever could.

It's like I've been saying that the goofiness of young-earth creationism is harming the cause of spreading the Gospel, but all I can ever really do is claim it is so. And now you come along and demonstrate it perfectly for me! It's like we're working together! :p

River IS biased toward her studies that exclude valid creationist arguments.
I bet I know waaaaaaaaaay more about creationists' arguments than you do.

In a couple years time evolutionists and their ilk will be the laughing stock of society. In fact already those at the top, know better. Guess we just need to wait for the recent students to play catch up.
It's like you're doing a stand-up routine. What you just posted is the longest-running failed prediction in creationism. And let's see.....right now about 97% of scientists, and 99% of earth and life scientists recognize the validity of evolutionary theory. So....yeah....I guess we'll keep waiting. :lol:
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
snr5557 said:
1. I am biased toward scripture. Because I believe in John 1:1 as all Christians should. I have not been deceitful at all. Hence the argument for River's bias carries a couple megatons of weight regarding her Christianity.

As for critical thinking...thanks for making me laugh!! ''disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"''

The irony in this is astounding.

Evolution is NOT rational. But you need a rational mind to know that. River IS biased toward her studies that exclude valid creationist arguments. You can't tell me its all tripe. River's best defence for her bias is that she parroted her studies and is doing likewise here. Informed by evidence....yawn...has she ''''actually''' seen uphill aka ''moving forward'' aka ''flatworm to human'' evolution?

I remember her stating books from creationists arguing their case, which she rejected. I am not entirely sure you have really studied evolution, since from a previous discussions with you on this site you didn't know or understand that mutation is part of evolution. She explained her studies and her experience in the lab. If you don't accept that it's fine, but that is how we gain information.

2. I am not repeating the discussion. You can go find it in her thread. That was not the only article. Heck google it. There is plenty objective arguments to read. I am done expecting / being open to ''apparent facts'' aka false science budging my common sense.

You are using the common sense fallacy. I am not saying to throw away common sense, but it can often lead to the wrong answers.

In a couple years time evolutionists and their ilk will be the laughing stock of society. In fact already those at the top, know better. Guess we just need to wait for the recent students to play catch up.

I doubt this.

Meditate on this quote by DMS Watson ''the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible''.

.I prefer to meditate on this quote by him: " We know as surely as we shall that evolution has occurred; but we do not know how this evolution has been brought about."

I think this quote was written in 1929. I am not familiar with how far science had progressed up to that time, but I know that we are much further now than were then. He was simply being honest, he accepts that evolution is true but the evidence that they currently had was not entirely satisfactory. That is a part of science. Once we know something, we realize how much more we do not know. So we go out and find out about those things, and again, we realize how much more we do not know. If scientists knew everything there would be no point in training new scientists.


Also, scientists will always disagree with each other. You should not simply look to the scientists who agree with your current ideas and then throw everyone else out to dry. You should read from both sides, think critically, and come to your conclusion. If you really have read scientific articles straight from the source and came to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is not correct, then okay. I honestly cannot ask more from you. It really does not mean anything that you reject or accept it.
I must laugh at you and River. Still spitting the same tripe out from the day you both arrived. Sorry Snr, you don't get to redeem yourself in one post. Your bias, lack of lateral thought and any sign of respect for scripture are all absent. Discussion with you needs to center around the cross and nothing else.

As for River...she professes to be a Christian. She has more to answer for. I expect no insight from you.

PICK your quote you dishonest Googler http://www.soulwinners.com.au/8.html

Lol, why is the irony astounding when I told you I was biased...

Guess what....the irony is astounding snr!!

River Jordan said:
Hilarious....absolutely hilarious. You complain about me being biased, and then you post a link to this tripe? And without any sense of irony at all? Again....wow. :eek:

The entire argument in that childish article is "Sure it's an example of change and adaptation, but it's not pond scum evolving into humans!!!" See for yourself...

"such changes are not the sort of changes that molecules-to-man evolution requires...

...this sort of change is simply not capable in principle of generating even one small step along the assumed path of vent-mud-to-virologist biological change."

And this has to be one of the dumbest things I've read from a creationist website in a while...

"But viruses, do not “evolve”. Rather, like actual living things, they do mutate (the term is properly applied) and change."

If mutation resulting in heritable change isn't evolution....then what is?

I swear KingJ, the fact that you think that was a valid scientific rebuttal to....well....anything is a perfect demonstration of the childish, vacuous, and goofy nature of young-earth creationism. By posting that, you've done a far better job of making my point about the sort of nonsense people like you are tying to Christianity than I ever could.

It's like I've been saying that the goofiness of young-earth creationism is harming the cause of spreading the Gospel, but all I can ever really do is claim it is so. And now you come along and demonstrate it perfectly for me! It's like we're working together! :p


I bet I know waaaaaaaaaay more about creationists' arguments than you do.
You have a talent for picking lines and jumping on them like a kid. You must be 20 something.

The mutation was discussed...like many other subjects you repeating yourself on...as though you missed the counter arguments. There were more links given. I can Google more. But then so CaN yOu .... remember that phrase ''no uphill evolution''?


It's like you're doing a stand-up routine. What you just posted is the longest-running failed prediction in creationism. And let's see.....right now about 97% of scientists, and 99% of earth and life scientists recognize the validity of evolutionary theory. So....yeah....I guess we'll keep waiting. :lol:

This is quite funny. If you were just HONEST, you WOULD know that evolutionary theories have been debunked MANY times. Many times (edit: always) evolution WAS hanging on fine strings......but there are always atheists to carry the flag....and some disillusioned 'Christians'.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
KingJ said:
You have a talent for picking lines and jumping on them like a kid. You must be 20 something.
*shrug*

Focus on me again....I guess that's what you do when you have nothing else.

The mutation was discussed...like many other subjects you repeating yourself on...as though you missed the counter arguments. There were more links given. I can Google more. But then so CaN yOu ....
Yep, that's a good description of how you approach this issue. Google search, and pick whatever agrees with you, regardless of its quality.

remember that phrase ''no uphill evolution''?
Yep, and I remember how you refused to define "uphill". Care to try this time?

This is quite funny. If you were just HONEST, you WOULD know that evolutionary theories have been debunked MANY times. Many times (edit: always) evolution WAS hanging on fine strings......but there are always atheists to carry the flag....and some disillusioned 'Christians'.
That's a good representation of your mindset on this issue....it's all about atheism for you.
 

snr5557

Member
Jan 19, 2014
307
2
18
KingJ said:
I must laugh at you and River. Still spitting the same tripe out from the day you both arrived. Sorry Snr, you don't get to redeem yourself in one post. Your bias, lack of lateral thought and any sign of respect for scripture are all absent. Discussion with you needs to center around the cross and nothing else.

KingJ, again, no one is free of bias. From what I have read, evolution is a valid theory. I have seen arguments from both sides, and the side with science makes the most sense. It is fine that you disagree, because again it does not matter if you accept evolution. If anything I am the one who has been using lateral thought, and not you. When I first discovered what creationism was, I went straight to creation science journals. They all failed meeting the standards of science. Just because I disagree with you, does not mean I do not respect scripture. I think you're emotions are running a bit high right now, so I will forgive you in advance to any apology you may give to me later on.

As for River...she professes to be a Christian. She has more to answer for. I expect no insight from you.

PICK your quote you dishonest Googler http://www.soulwinners.com.au/8.html

I have not been dishonest, here is all of that quote that I have: "Thus the present position of zoology is unsatisfactory. We know as surely as we shall that evolution has occurred; but we do not know how this evolution has been brought about. The data which we have accumulated are inadequate, not in quantity but in their character, to allow us to determine which, if any, of the proposed explanations is a vera causa. But it appears that the experimental method rightly used will in the end give us, if not the solution of our problem, at least the power of analysing it and isolating the various factors which enter into it."

The website it came from was rude to creationists, but I do think that the quote itself is true. I have seen bits and pieces of it on creationist sites. I cannot find the Nature article that this article was written in however.

Lol, why is the irony astounding when I told you I was biased...

Guess what....the irony is astounding snr!!

Because you kept using it as an insult (that is the way you worded it), so to insult someone else because they were being biases while being biased yourself is ironic.


You have a talent for picking lines and jumping on them like a kid. You must be 20 something.

The mutation was discussed...like many other subjects you repeating yourself on...as though you missed the counter arguments. There were more links given. I can Google more. But then so CaN yOu .... remember that phrase ''no uphill evolution''?

Yes, they said the virus simply changed, not evolved. So, would you accept evolution if you altered it to The Theory of Change? To be honest, it sounded like evolution, they just switched out the words and used a bunch of rhetoric to sound convincing.


This is quite funny. If you were just HONEST, you WOULD know that evolutionary theories have been debunked MANY times. Many times (edit: always) evolution WAS hanging on fine strings......but there are always atheists to carry the flag....and some disillusioned 'Christians'.

I would like to remind you that there are many theist scientists working. Science and religion do not have be separate KingJ, only people like you want this to happen. KingJ...just drop it. There is no point talking to you on this. The site you gave was so childish, and it kind of shows how frustrated or desperate (or both) you are.
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
River, I have no more time or respect for you. You are biased and for a Christian that is a shame.

Snr, when you are open minded and type other lines in Google like ''evolution debunked'', we can talk.

and for the second and last time....YES I AM biased...because of scripture which I already KNOW to be the truth.

I showed River how evolution clashes with it, she evaded it like an atheist.

Conclusion: Sorry snr for being rude to you. You do not have scriptural insight like a Christian should. You can be forgiven for believing as you do.
River on the other hand...I hope for her sake her recent degree (fresh dogma) and pope supporting evolution is her true motivation.
 

Floyd

Active Member
Feb 28, 2014
937
30
28
KingJ said:
1. I am biased toward scripture. Because I believe in John 1:1 as all Christians should. I have not been deceitful at all. Hence the argument for River's bias carries a couple megatons of weight regarding her Christianity.

As for critical thinking...thanks for making me laugh!! ''disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"''

Evolution is NOT rational. But you need a rational mind to know that. River IS biased toward her studies that exclude valid creationist arguments. You can't tell me its all tripe. River's best defence for her bias is that she parroted her studies and is doing likewise here. Informed by evidence....yawn...has she ''''actually''' seen uphill aka ''moving forward'' aka ''flatworm to human'' evolution?

2. I am not repeating the discussion. You can go find it in her thread. That was not the only article. Heck google it. There is plenty objective arguments to read. I am done expecting / being open to ''apparent facts'' aka false science budging my common sense.

In a couple years time evolutionists and their ilk will be the laughing stock of society. In fact already those at the top, know better. Guess we just need to wait for the recent students to play catch up.

Meditate on this quote by DMS Watson ''the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible''.

.
King J has the truth: those fighting the truth have to be regarded with suspicion, (at least), God's Word (Jhn 1:1) has told us the truth; why do you side with Darwin? (who recanted on his deathbed)!

A biologists comment on Darwin: (Dr. Jonathan Wells PHD, PHD interviewed.)

A comment on Evolution (By Philip Johnson, Professor criminal law, Berkeley, USA.)

Age of the Earth Controversy: (Separate study)

"Big Bang" maths: (By Professor Paul Davies)

Darwin quote, Dawkins comments, and others

Did Darwin become a Christian on his deathbed? (By Malcolm Bowden)

Evolution is not supported by FACT (Various comments)

Old relics ignored by science: ( By Dr.J.R.Jochmans, Litt.D.)

Scientists refute Darwin (Discovery Institute Press Release)

You can of course, continue to keep your heads in the sand; that's your freewill privilege (at present); but one has to seriously question the authenticity of your so called "Christian faith"; when you so consistently oppose scripture?
Floyd.
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
snr5557 said:
1. KingJ, again, no one is free of bias. From what I have read, evolution is a valid theory. I have seen arguments from both sides, and the side with science makes the most sense. It is fine that you disagree, because again it does not matter if you accept evolution. If anything I am the one who has been using lateral thought, and not you. When I first discovered what creationism was, I went straight to creation science journals. They all failed meeting the standards of science. Just because I disagree with you, does not mean I do not respect scripture. I think you're emotions are running a bit high right now, so I will forgive you in advance to any apology you may give to me later on.


2. Because you kept using it as an insult (that is the way you worded it), so to insult someone else because they were being biases while being biased yourself is ironic.

3. I would like to remind you that there are many theist scientists working. Science and religion do not have be separate KingJ, only people like you want this to happen. KingJ...just drop it. There is no point talking to you on this.

4. The site you gave was so childish, and it kind of shows how frustrated or desperate (or both) you are.
1. Snr, you cannot ignore all the facts that creationists bring. C'mon be honest.
2. That's because bias toward evolution needs to be explained, given its clash with scripture.
3. I am not proposing they be separate. Just evolution excluded.
4. Not childish or desparate, rather sarcastic. If I can type 'evolution debunked' in Google and find a mulititude of evidence, so too can you.

See you and River are supporting evolution beyond doubt in the face of much evidence to the contrary. That is extreme bias. Hence my simple question to the both of you....

All I want from you two is honesty. It is really hard to miss River's eagerness to jump in defence of evolution :lol:.

You said you respect scripture. But last I recall you said you were an atheist..?
 

snr5557

Member
Jan 19, 2014
307
2
18
KingJ said:
1. Snr, you cannot ignore all the facts that creationists bring. C'mon be honest.
2. That's because bias toward evolution needs to be explained, given its clash with scripture.
3. I am not proposing they be separate. Just evolution excluded.
4. Not childish or desparate, rather sarcastic. If I can type 'evolution debunked' in Google and find a mulititude of evidence, so too can you.

See you and River are supporting evolution beyond doubt in the face of much evidence to the contrary. That is extreme bias. Hence my simple question to the both of you....

All I want from you two is honesty. It is really hard to miss River's eagerness to jump in defence of evolution :lol:.

You said you respect scripture. But last I recall you said you were an atheist..?
I will answer the 4, and I will be done with this whole thing.

1. I have been reading all the Creationist stuff, it all falls flat to me.
2. I don't take genesis literally.
3. ok
4. This is what I was talking about earlier. You purposefully seek out information to suite your needs, disregarding anything that does not fit your pre-established opinions. Confirmation bias.
 

Floyd

Active Member
Feb 28, 2014
937
30
28
snr5557:
I will answer the 4, and I will be done with this whole thing.

1. I have been reading all the Creationist stuff, it all falls flat to me.
2. I don't take genesis literally.
3. ok
4. This is what I was talking about earlier. You purposefully seek out information to suite your needs, disregarding anything that does not fit your pre-established opinions. Confirmation bias.

Are you the Lord's man?
If you are you cannot believe evolution theory!
Floyd.