Arguments against Theistic Evolution

[River Jordan]

Fred,

This is from the "Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2"

There's your problem. You're getting your information about evolutionary biology from some creationist website, rather than....you know, actual scientists. That's like relying on an atheist website for all your information about the Bible and Christianity.

It's how you end up with....

Darwin recognized that there was no evidence that any species had evolved from any other species. His contention that the only practical solution was, first, to classify plants and animals; second, point to similarities between them, and, then, declare that, therefore, one must have evolved from the other, or from a common ancestor.

...which honestly is one of the astoundingly ignorant things I've read in a long time.

Your copied article also stated that "kind" = "species" (except when it doesn't). Does that mean you believe Noah took two of every species aboard the ark? And if I provide an example of the evolution of new species, would that mean evolution can produce new "kinds"?

If you truly want to have a discussion, you need to actually respond to what people say to you, as in answer the questions they ask you, engage in follow-up discussion, etc. Just posting lengthy copied stuff from websites and ignoring all responses isn't a conversation. It's the equivalent of standing on a street corner and yelling through a bullhorn.

If that's not what you're doing, then you can start with....

Where exactly have you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not?

Is it only "evolution" if the changes cross a specific taxonomic line? If so, what is that line?

What's the difference between a population evolving and one adapting?

What makes you more qualified than S.J. Gould in the field of paleontology? He says transitional fossils are "abundant", you claim they don't exist. Why should we believe you over a Harvard paleontologist?

 

[Fred Lamm]

River,
So now your argument is that only evolutionists can have knowledge? If you can't refute the content then attack the source,this is the tactic of some one who knows they have no real argument. Again, you have to prove your theory. Your assertion that my challenge to your theory is a theory which must be proven is logic that is so convoluted as to be ridiculous. If transisitional fossils exist, no one should have to search for them , because there should be millions of them. Just send us some photos of you holding those transitional fossils and I'll call Scott Pelley, I'm sure he can get you on the evening news. Your theory says that at some point, dog came from not-dog and horse from not-horse. You keep saying i'm moving the goalposts because you want to define the goalposts with the language (taxonomic line) of a science that is based on assumptions. The difference between adapting and evolving is that no matter how many adaptations are made, the horse or dog always remains a horse or a dog. You cannot extrapolate that because minor changes occur, major transformations also occur. Who are we to believe on this, you or a Professor of biochemistry at Lehigh university? ( you didn't read his book , did you?) As for your Harvard paleontologist, he either lied when he said that fossil species appear suddenly,fully formed and remain the same until extinction without any directional change, or he lied when he later said that transitional fossils exist, either way he is a liar. I think that about covers everything.
By the way, do you consider yourself a Christian, if so please explain how your attack on the factual and historical veracity of the Bible gives glory to Jesus Christ. Do you think that theistic evolution will win young hearts and minds to Christ? Do you really believe that when you tell them, the Bible isn't factually or historically true but its spiritually accurate that they won't just say to themselves, then why should I believe any of it? Just Curious about your motivation.

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

 

[River Jordan]

So now your argument is that only evolutionists can have knowledge? If you can't refute the content then attack the source,this is the tactic of some one who knows they have no real argument.

What would you tell a teenager who said they got all their information about Christianity and the Bible from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens?

Again, you have to prove your theory. Your assertion that my challenge to your theory is a theory which must be proven is logic that is so convoluted as to be ridiculous. If transisitional fossils exist, no one should have to search for them , because there should be millions of them. Just send us some photos of you holding those transitional fossils and I'll call Scott Pelley, I'm sure he can get you on the evening news.

I've given you examples in this thread and you ignored them. I even provided where S.J. Gould gave a specific examples of transitionals, directly in response to your wondering why he didn't....and you ignored it.

So your pattern continues....you ignore most of what people post to you. Do you think that's an honest way of conversing?

You keep saying i'm moving the goalposts because you want to define the goalposts with the language (taxonomic line) of a science that is based on assumptions.

Well, it's either that or whatever you make up off the top of your head.

The difference between adapting and evolving is that no matter how many adaptations are made, the horse or dog always remains a horse or a dog.

Exhibit A. Here you're the one saying that the difference between adapting and evolving is related to taxonomy. Not only that, previously you said (through your copied material) that "species = kind", but now you seem to be saying "family = kind". So which is it?

Go back to post #167 and read the material I provided. After you've done that, please tell me what "kind" that organism is in and how you reached your conclusion.

You cannot extrapolate that because minor changes occur, major transformations also occur. Who are we to believe on this, you or a Professor of biochemistry at Lehigh university? ( you didn't read his book , did you?)

Behe? I've read two of his books. You do realize that he accepts universal common descent including the relatedness of humans and chimps, don't you? He just disagrees over the mechanism (he believes an "intelligence" is required).

As for your Harvard paleontologist, he either lied when he said that fossil species appear suddenly,fully formed and remain the same until extinction without any directional change, or he lied when he later said that transitional fossils exist, either way he is a liar.

Boy, you didn't learn anything from our earlier exchange, did you? He specifically said that creationists who tried to quote him as saying that transitional fossils were doing so either out of stupidity or dishonesty.....yet here you are doing just that. I even posted his description of clear transitions in the fossil record and......you ignored it.

I think that about covers everything.

Not quite...

Where exactly have you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not?

By the way, do you consider yourself a Christian, if so please explain how your attack on the factual and historical veracity of the Bible gives glory to Jesus Christ.

Because science is not an attack on scripture or Christ.

Do you think that theistic evolution will win young hearts and minds to Christ? Do you really believe that when you tell them, the Bible isn't factually or historically true but its spiritually accurate that they won't just say to themselves, then why should I believe any of it? Just Curious about your motivation.

I work with youth a lot. What I see are kids who come in having been told the sort of ignorant junk about science you've been copying here. They're told that transitional fossils don't exist, that no species have ever evolved, that Gould said this, or Darwin said that....and then they go to school and see clear obvious examples of transitionals, the evolution of new species, and that creationists are dishonestly misrepresenting the words of Gould and Darwin. Then they get told that if they don't believe all the creationism junk, they can't be Christians.

A lot of those kids figure if that's the sort of absurdities and lies they have to believe to be Christian, then Christianity isn't for them, and they walk away. A recent survey of youth showed this to be a significant factor in why kids are leaving the faith in droves.

"One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries."

IOW, people like you are telling kids that it's either science or Christianity...one or the other. And a lot of kids today are scientifically-oriented, so they're turning their back on the faith.

It doesn't have to be this way.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Again, Behe's work on irreducible complexity is in no way dependent upon the age of the earth or universal common descent.

One can accept his work in Darwin's Black Box while holding the position he has lost his marbles in The Edge of Evolution.

So River can believe Dawkins' blind watch maker while thinking Dawkins has lost his marbles when he claims that God is a maniacal serial killer. Please tell me I am correct.

 

[River Jordan]

Again, Behe's work on irreducible complexity is in no way dependent upon the age of the earth or universal common descent.

One can accept his work in Darwin's Black Box while holding the position he has lost his marbles in The Edge of Evolution.

But that same question....on what basis do you accept one and reject the other? Is it the "do some work" I showed earlier, or something else?

So River can believe Dawkins' blind watch maker while thinking Dawkins has lost his marbles when he claims that God is a maniacal serial killer. Please tell me I am correct.

Those are two entirely different subjects. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, so his views on that subject carry some weight. His views on God OTOH carry about as much weight as his views on Thai food.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

But his bias affects his ability to do evolutionary science.

So, I suggest giving people the benefit of your acceptance based upon their work coupled with their presuppositions.

 

[River Jordan]

But his bias affects his ability to do evolutionary science.

If so, then it would be evident in his work. Yet his work in evolutionary biology is entirely consistent with the work of Christian evolutionary biologists like Francis Collins. Thus, there is no sign of bias.

So, I suggest giving people the benefit of your acceptance based upon their work coupled with their presuppositions.

Exactly. Dawkins, Collins, and biologists from every walk of faith and non-faith reach the same conclusions about evolution. Not only that, but their work produces real, tangible benefits and insights.

So on what basis would I reject their work?

 

[Fred Lamm]

quote name="River Jordan" post="223367" timestamp="1395766894"]
What would you tell a teenager who said they got all their information about Christianity and the Bible from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens?

I don't get "all" my information from websites, Christian or atheistic. Again, you are ignoring information not based on its merits, but based on who presents it.

I've given you examples in this thread and you ignored them. I even provided where S.J. Gould gave a specific examples of transitionals, directly in response to your wondering why he didn't....and you ignored it.


"Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid that lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago." And according to Evolution And PreHistory: The Human Challenge, it is thought that (translation, assumed) it was more closely related to the genus homo than any other known primate from the same time.

So your pattern continues....you ignore most of what people post to you. Do you think that's an honest way of conversing?


I don't believe I ignore your posts. I may not answer them as quickly as you'd like, but I have a family to raise while it seems you have all day to sit in front of a computer. But since you've opened the door about ignoring posts, in another thread on this forum, in which you had posted, there's a post by a gentleman named Floyd that details the discoveries of modern human skeletons in strata ranging from 20 million to 425 million years old. This would seem to make Gould's theory of us evolving from these apes an impossibility since they pre-date the earliest ape.

Well, it's either that or whatever you make up off the top of your head.


Precisely my point. The nomenclature of evolution was made up off the tops of their heads. I reject your use of modern scientific parameters such as phylum, family. species due to its non-scientific arbitrary nature.

Exhibit A. Here you're the one saying that the difference between adapting and evolving is related to taxonomy. Not only that, previously you said (through your copied material) that "species = kind", but now you seem to be saying "family = kind". So which is it?


Kind is from Genesis 1. You want to use the arbitrary groupings and definitions of species so that you can say that some bird with a larger beak or different colored plumage has "evolved". It's still a bird. You cannot tell me what words I can and cannot use.

Go back to post #167 and read the material I provided. After you've done that, please tell me what "kind" that organism is in and how you reached your conclusion.
It plainly says that the presence of feathers is "inferred". Did the pot evolve form the teaspoon? There is an awful lot of assuming going on here just because of hollow bones.

Behe? I've read two of his books. You do realize that he accepts universal common descent including the relatedness of humans and chimps, don't you? He just disagrees over the mechanism (he believes an "intelligence" is required).

I don't understand why you think that this is an embarrasment to me. Rather than calling his work, showing that darwinian evolution is not possible because of irreducible complexity, into question, it validates the work as completely objective since it's coming from a scientist that holds any part of evolution to be true.

Boy, you didn't learn anything from our earlier exchange, did you? He specifically said that creationists who tried to quote him as saying that transitional fossils were doing so either out of stupidity or dishonesty.....yet here you are doing just that. I even posted his description of clear transitions in the fossil record and......you ignored it.

No, you keep ignoring what he said; I did not misquote him, He said those things. And I think I addressed his idea of a transitional fossil above.


Not quite...

Where exactly have you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not?

This is like me stating that green and purple aliens exist, and when you say that they don't, I ask you where have you looked?
This question is irrelevant. You say that evolutionary theory is fact, and YOU must prove it. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Because science is not an attack on scripture or Christ.

The reality is that science supports creation. The Bible says that God created Man "from the dust of the ground". How does what you teach not attack this statement?


I work with youth a lot. What I see are kids who come in having been told the sort of ignorant junk about science you've been copying here. They're told that transitional fossils don't exist, that no species have ever evolved, that Gould said this, or Darwin said that....and then they go to school and see clear obvious examples of transitionals, the evolution of new species, and that creationists are dishonestly misrepresenting the words of Gould and Darwin. Then they get told that if they don't believe all the creationism junk, they can't be Christians.

As I said before, I have not misquoted Darwin or Gould and your continued inference that I did amounts to an intentional lie. They go to school and are pummeled into submission by people like you that the Bible is not historically and factually true and 75% of them walk away from the faith. One day you will be asked about this by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. What will you say to Him? More importantly, what will He say to you?


A lot of those kids figure if that's the sort of absurdities and lies they have to believe to be Christian, then Christianity isn't for them, and they walk away. A recent survey of youth showed this to be a significant factor in why kids are leaving the faith in droves.

"One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries."

IOW, people like you are telling kids that it's either science or Christianity...one or the other. And a lot of kids today are scientifically-oriented, so they're turning their back on the faith.


No, it's people like you telling kids that science doesn't support the Bible.
It doesn't have to be this way.


No, it doesn't have to be this way...I'll pray for you, River.
[/quote]

 

[River Jordan]

I don't get "all" my information from websites, Christian or atheistic.

So where do you get most of your information about evolutionary biology from? Let's take one example, your quotes of S.J. Gould. Are you quoting directly from his books that you have in front of you and have read, or are you copying from someone else?

"Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid that lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago." And according to Evolution And PreHistory: The Human Challenge, it is thought that (translation, assumed) it was more closely related to the genus homo than any other known primate from the same time.

Is it a transitional fossil or not? It shows a mosaic of anatomic features between primitive apes and members of the genus Homo. Isn't that exactly what a transitional should be?

I don't believe I ignore your posts.

You've doing much better here, where you're actually responding to what I post to you.

But since you've opened the door about ignoring posts, in another thread on this forum, in which you had posted, there's a post by a gentleman named Floyd that details the discoveries of modern human skeletons in strata ranging from 20 million to 425 million years old.

Floyd posted about a 10,000 word paste job. That's spamming, not conversing.

This would seem to make Gould's theory of us evolving from these apes an impossibility since they pre-date the earliest ape.

If it were true. Do you believe it is?

Precisely my point. The nomenclature of evolution was made up off the tops of their heads. I reject your use of modern scientific parameters such as phylum, family. species due to its non-scientific arbitrary nature.

How did you reach that conclusion? Have you studied taxonomy?

Kind is from Genesis 1. You want to use the arbitrary groupings and definitions of species so that you can say that some bird with a larger beak or different colored plumage has "evolved". It's still a bird. You cannot tell me what words I can and cannot use.

So "bird" is a "kind"?

It plainly says that the presence of feathers is "inferred". Did the pot evolve form the teaspoon? There is an awful lot of assuming going on here just because of hollow bones.

Does that specimen display a mosaic of bird and reptile features? Isn't that exactly what we would expect a transitional fossil to show?

I don't understand why you think that this is an embarrasment to me. Rather than calling his work, showing that darwinian evolution is not possible because of irreducible complexity, into question, it validates the work as completely objective since it's coming from a scientist that holds any part of evolution to be true.

You're the one citing Behe as an authority. So why do you reject his position on common ancestry?

This is like me stating that green and purple aliens exist, and when you say that they don't, I ask you where have you looked?
This question is irrelevant. You say that evolutionary theory is fact, and YOU must prove it. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

If someone tells me "transitional fossils don't exist", my first question is always "where have you looked". And you still haven't answered....have you scoured through museum collections? Do you regularly read scientific journals?

The reality is that science supports creation. The Bible says that God created Man "from the dust of the ground". How does what you teach not attack this statement?

How do you know what the science does or doesn't support?

As I said before, I have not misquoted Darwin or Gould and your continued inference that I did amounts to an intentional lie. They go to school and are pummeled into submission by people like you that the Bible is not historically and factually true and 75% of them walk away from the faith. One day you will be asked about this by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. What will you say to Him? More importantly, what will He say to you?

You tried to quote Gould as saying that transitional fossils don't exist, even though he specifically complained about creationists doing exactly that and called it either dishonest or stupid. And kids are not told that in science classes that the Bible isn't true, that would be illegal. The people telling them that science conflicts with the Bible are people like you. It's you, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, et al. who are telling kids that if science is correct on evolution, then the Bible is a lie.

I'm telling kids the exact opposite.

No, it's people like you telling kids that science doesn't support the Bible.

I've never said anything like that in my entire life.

 

[Fred Lamm]

If someone tells me "transitional fossils don't exist", my first question is always "where have you looked". And you still haven't answered....have you scoured through museum collections? Do you regularly read scientific journals?

Yes, you and all your evolutionist friends always answer this question with a question, in order to deflect attention away from the fact that you cannot produce such transitional fossils. You seem to "answer" a lot of my questions with a question. Is there a pattern here?

Is it a transitional fossil or not? It shows a mosaic of anatomic features between primitive apes and members of the genus Homo. Isn't that exactly what a transitional should be?

No, its not a transitional fossil. We all know that apes and men are "similar". The point that you and your evolutionists do not get is that apes and humans have no resemblance to fungus, snakes or grass. But according to darwinism, all living things evolved from a common ancestor. You are still ignoring the fact that modern human skeletons have been found that predate the fossil of which you are speaking which makes it kind of silly to think that this ape, dated millions of years later, is somehow our ancestor.

Let's take one example, your quotes of S.J. Gould. Are you quoting directly from his books that you have in front of you and have read, or are you copying from someone else?

This question is irrelevant, but the quote came from " Evolutions Erratic Pace," Natural History 86 (1977):13-14.

Floyd posted about a 10,000 word paste job. That's spamming, not conversing.

So you claim to have read Behe's books, but throw out evidence that doesn't fit your theory because it has 100,000 words. Evolutionists always ignore and even hide evidence that is contrary to their theory.

How did you reach that conclusion? Have you studied taxonomy

This is a circular argument with you. I have posted material which shows that "taxonomy and phylum" is arbitrarily based on the assumptions and opinions of a handful of evolutionists. They chose arbitrarily what traits are important enough to pose a relationship between "species", a word which they seem to define by whether or not two animals are willing to mate with each other. No one, myself included, has to conduct a debate in a nomenclature based on opinion.

So "bird" is a "kind"?

Again this is a circular argument with you. Kind is a term used in Genesis. Even children have no problem understanding it. Either accept my use of the word or move on.

Does that specimen display a mosaic of bird and reptile features? Isn't that exactly what we would expect a transitional fossil to show?

You know, God is so good. Just today, a young man that I led to the Lord was telling me that his whole biology class at the local college was in revolt! When I asked him what he meant, he said that the professor had presented the very fossil you are talking about, and then he proceeded to read from a textbook how that upright reptiles evolved to have feathers because they "flapped their arms while evading predators in order to run faster". The absurdity of this statement was not lost on these kids. "Zero" animals flap their arms in order to run faster. Just try it yourself and see if you go faster or slower. Also there were no fossilized imprints of feathers of any kind found. Oh, and they loved your cartoon of what they thought the animal looked like based on his skeleton. The real kicker is that there are only 2 Christian students in the class.

You're the one citing Behe as an authority. So why do you reject his position on common ancestry?

A scientist's opinions do not negate his factual work.

How do you know what the science does or doesn't support?

The same way that you know what science does or doesn't support.

You tried to quote Gould as saying that transitional fossils don't exist, even though he specifically complained about creationists doing exactly that and called it either dishonest or stupid. And kids are not told that in science classes that the Bible isn't true, that would be illegal. The people telling them that science conflicts with the Bible are people like you. It's you, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, et al. who are telling kids that if science is correct on evolution, then the Bible is a lie.

I'm telling kids the exact opposite.

If Gould didn't mean the quote, he shouldn't have said it. It's not like he said " I had waffles for lunch" and later corrected himself, "no, it was for breakfast". No, his statement directly conflicts with what he said later. Did he have an epiphany? I had a young man tell me just this week that the reason that he never came to Christ before was that he believed in evolution. Would the shepherd who left the 99 to look for the one use a method of creation that would cause even one soul to disbelieve? I think not. You have been slipped a counterfeit, and you are passing it on to as many as you can.

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

 

[River Jordan]

Yes, you and all your evolutionist friends always answer this question with a question, in order to deflect attention away from the fact that you cannot produce such transitional fossils. You seem to "answer" a lot of my questions with a question. Is there a pattern here?

The pattern I see is I keep asking you where you've looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not, and you keep dodging the question. So I'm left to conclude that the reason you refuse to answer is because the truth is, you've not bothered to look at all. And that begs another obvious question; if you've never actually looked to see if transitional fossils exist, how can you say they don't? But I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that too.

No, its not a transitional fossil. We all know that apes and men are "similar".

???????? You're not making sense. If your reason for excluding that species as a transitional is just "apes and men are similar", then you're basically saying it's impossible for transitionals between humans and other primates to exist....because they're too similar? :blink:

The point that you and your evolutionists do not get is that apes and humans have no resemblance to fungus, snakes or grass. But according to darwinism, all living things evolved from a common ancestor.

So if say, we shared genes with those things, that would be evidence for common ancestry, right?

You are still ignoring the fact that modern human skeletons have been found that predate the fossil of which you are speaking which makes it kind of silly to think that this ape, dated millions of years later, is somehow our ancestor.

No, I'm not ignoring it. If you've got something tangible on that, please post it.

This question is irrelevant, but the quote came from " Evolutions Erratic Pace," Natural History 86 (1977):13-14.

And you dodge yet another question. So do you have that issue?

So you claim to have read Behe's books, but throw out evidence that doesn't fit your theory because it has 100,000 words.

No, I just don't respond to pasted spam. If you think there's something important to discuss, then bring it into this thread.

This is a circular argument with you. I have posted material which shows that "taxonomy and phylum" is arbitrarily based on the assumptions and opinions of a handful of evolutionists. They chose arbitrarily what traits are important enough to pose a relationship between "species", a word which they seem to define by whether or not two animals are willing to mate with each other. No one, myself included, has to conduct a debate in a nomenclature based on opinion.

No, you've not posted anything of the sort. All you've done is say that's the case, but FYI, things aren't true just because you say they are.

Again this is a circular argument with you. Kind is a term used in Genesis. Even children have no problem understanding it. Either accept my use of the word or move on.

And you dodge yet another question. Is "bird" a "kind"?

You know, God is so good. Just today, a young man that I led to the Lord was telling me that his whole biology class at the local college was in revolt! When I asked him what he meant, he said that the professor had presented the very fossil you are talking about, and then he proceeded to read from a textbook how that upright reptiles evolved to have feathers because they "flapped their arms while evading predators in order to run faster". The absurdity of this statement was not lost on these kids. "Zero" animals flap their arms in order to run faster. Just try it yourself and see if you go faster or slower. Also there were no fossilized imprints of feathers of any kind found. Oh, and they loved your cartoon of what they thought the animal looked like based on his skeleton. The real kicker is that there are only 2 Christian students in the class.

And you dodge yet another 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?

A scientist's opinions do not negate his factual work.

So what from Behe do you see as his "factual work"?

The same way that you know what science does or doesn't support.

Really? You have a BS in biology and are finishing up your MS? You actually work as a biologist?

If Gould didn't mean the quote, he shouldn't have said it.

No, he meant what he said. Some creationist has dishonestly taken his words out of context and you've blindly copied it.

I had a young man tell me just this week that the reason that he never came to Christ before was that he believed in evolution.

Who told him that he had to pick between evolution and Christ?

 

[Suhar]

We accept that scripture is not an encyclopedia of all there is to know

Who died and made you a spokesman for all of "we"? There is only one and He is not you.

 

[Purity]

Who died and made you a spokesman for all of "we"? There is only one and He is not you.

This is true.
Many Christians struggle here.

 

[KingJ]

Who died and made you a spokesman for all of "we"? There is only one and He is not you.

This is Christianity 101 though. Do you disagree? Watch out with this kind of banter my friend. We all need to be ever mindful of 1 Chron 16:22.

This is true.
Many Christians struggle here.

No, many Christians have simply not yet arrived at the truth 2 Tim 3:7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

The full statement = The bible is not an ecyclopedia of all there is to know (duh, common sense 101) but what it does state, needs to be accepted and dealt with (Christianity 101).

 

[Purity]

KingJ

Sorry I grabbed the wrong post when responding too quickly.
I was agreeing with you statement "We accept that scripture is not an encyclopedia of all there is to know"
Purity

 

[Suhar]

This is Christianity 101 though. Do you disagree? Watch out with this kind of banter my friend.

Your arguments are not with me. He said there was no evolution. Christianity 101 is Creation.

 

[Fred Lamm]

Yes, you and all your evolutionist friends always answer this question with a question, in order to deflect attention away from the fact that you cannot produce such transitional fossils. You seem to "answer" a lot of my questions with a question. Is there a pattern here?

The pattern I see is I keep asking you where you've looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not, and you keep dodging the question. So I'm left to conclude that the reason you refuse to answer is because the truth is, you've not bothered to look at all. And that begs another obvious question; if you've never actually looked to see if transitional fossils exist, how can you say they don't? But I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that too.

You keep demanding that I answer all your questions when you won't answer the first one I asked you. You don't have any transitional fossils to show us and you have "zero" observable scientific evidence that evolution is true. It's you who claim that evolution is true and that means that you must answer all challenges to it, because if you let a challenge stand, you have admitted defeat.

???????? You're not making sense. If your reason for excluding that species as a transitional is just "apes and men are similar", then you're basically saying it's impossible for transitionals between humans and other primates to exist....because they're too similar? :blink:

You biologists find an ape that has one or two bones that are more similar to humans than that of other apes and from this you conclude that this ape is a progression from the other apes to humans. That's a lot of assumption and conjecture. The Bible says man was made in God's image and though I have no scriptural basis for what I'm about to say, I do not believe that God is an ape.

The point that you and your evolutionists do not get is that apes and humans have no resemblance to fungus, snakes or grass. But according to darwinism, all living things evolved from a common ancestor.

So if say, we shared genes with those things, that would be evidence for common ancestry, right?





No, that would be evidence that we were all created by the same creator to live in the same biosphere.

You are still ignoring the fact that modern human skeletons have been found that predate the fossil of which you are speaking which makes it kind of silly to think that this ape, dated millions of years later, is somehow our ancestor.

No, I'm not ignoring it. If you've got something tangible on that, please post it.





Why should I re-post what Floyd has already posted? I can't understand why someone with a BS has trouble reading 100,000 words.


Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

This question is irrelevant, but the quote came from " Evolutions Erratic Pace," Natural History 86 (1977):13-14.

And you dodge yet another question. So do you have that issue?




You seem to suggest that the validity of knowledge lies in whether or not you own the book that contains it or that this has a bearing on my being able to understand the subject matter. Neither of these statements is true. It does not matter whether I own a book or a library card, the contents of the book and my ability to understand it do not change and so I refuse to indulge you in this irrelevant and arrogant question.

So you claim to have read Behe's books, but throw out evidence that doesn't fit your theory because it has 100,000 words.

No, I just don't respond to pasted spam. If you think there's something important to discuss, then bring it into this thread



As I said above, there is no need to re-post what Floyd has already posted. This is just another example of evolutionist unwillingness to face evidence that contradicts their theory.

This is a circular argument with you. I have posted material which shows that "taxonomy and phylum" is arbitrarily based on the assumptions and opinions of a handful of evolutionists. They chose arbitrarily what traits are important enough to pose a relationship between "species", a word which they seem to define by whether or not two animals are willing to mate with each other. No one, myself included, has to conduct a debate in a nomenclature based on opinion.

No, you've not posted anything of the sort. All you've done is say that's the case, but FYI, things aren't true just because you say they are.




My apologies, please allow me to correct this oversight. Let's take the word "species" for example. It originates in the mid- 1500's and originally meant "sort" or "kind". Since then, the word has been redefined by scientists over the years and no longer means "kind" as referred to in the Bible.

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

Quote (River);
And you dodge yet another question. Is "bird" a "kind"?

I answered this question in post 123. You just didn't like my answer. You keep asking me "again, what is a kind?" and you will keep asking it until you get the definition you want.

Fred said;
You know, God is so good. Just today, a young man that I led to the Lord was telling me that his whole biology class at the local college was in revolt! When I asked him what he meant, he said that the professor had presented the very fossil you are talking about, and then he proceeded to read from a textbook how that upright reptiles evolved to have feathers because they "flapped their arms while evading predators in order to run faster". The absurdity of this statement was not lost on these kids. "Zero" animals flap their arms in order to run faster. Just try it yourself and see if you go faster or slower. Also there were no fossilized imprints of feathers of any kind found. Oh, and they loved your cartoon of what they thought the animal looked like based on his skeleton. The real kicker is that there are only 2 Christian students in the class.

Quote (River)
And you dodge yet another 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?


Let's examine your use of the word "mosaic". Mosaic would imply an arrangement of pieces from different sources, as if the fossil contained pieces of both bird and reptile, thus adding a presumption of correctness about your conclusion that this was a transitional animal. You assume a lot just because of hollow bones. If the squid had become extinct and you found it's fossil, would you assume it was an ancestor of birds because of its beak? You also ignore the point of my post which is that the explanation of environmental pressures that produced such changes is absurd. Why don't you entertain us further with the official evolutionary explanation of how butterflies evolved?

So what from Behe do you see as his "factual work"?

His work on irreducible complexity.

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

Quote (River);Really? You have a BS in biology and are finishing up your MS? You actually work as a biologist?

Fred; I do not need a BS in biology to know the difference between fact and speculation, but since you brought it up, perhaps biologists need a refresher course in logic as they accepted "piltdown man" as genuine for over 40 years.

Quote (River)No, he meant what he said. Some creationist has dishonestly taken his words out of context and you've blindly copied it

Fred; At last you have admitted that he meant what he said. As for his words being taken out of context, if that were true you would have already proved it.

Quote (River); Who told him that he had to pick between evolution and Christ?

Fred; That is my point. No one told this young man anything, he reasoned for himself that if evolution was true, he was not going to change his immoral lifestyle for a fairy tale.


Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

 

[KingJ]

KingJ

Sorry I grabbed the wrong post when responding too quickly.
I was agreeing with you statement "We accept that scripture is not an encyclopedia of all there is to know"
Purity

Your arguments are not with me. He said there was no evolution. Christianity 101 is Creation.

Oh, I agree 100% with you . ''It is not an encyclopedia of all there is to know but it does mention creation and we need to deal with that''.

 

[River Jordan]

You keep demanding that I answer all your questions when you won't answer the first one I asked you. You don't have any transitional fossils to show us and you have "zero" observable scientific evidence that evolution is true.

I 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.

You biologists find an ape that has one or two bones that are more similar to humans than that of other apes and from this you conclude that this ape is a progression from the other apes to humans.

Except for the nearly complete skeletons of organisms that have a mixture of human and primitive primate characteristics. So yet again, another one of your claims is factually wrong.

The Bible says man was made in God's image and though I have no scriptural basis for what I'm about to say, I do not believe that God is an ape.

So do you believe "made in God's image" refers to physical characteristics? If so, do you believe God has a penis?

No, that would be evidence that we were all created by the same creator to live in the same biosphere.

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?

Why should I re-post what Floyd has already posted? I can't understand why someone with a BS has trouble reading 100,000 words.

I have no trouble reading it, but there's a difference between a conversation and one person spamming the board. Again, if you think there's something relevant, bring it here.

You seem to suggest that the validity of knowledge lies in whether or not you own the book that contains it or that this has a bearing on my being able to understand the subject matter. Neither of these statements is true. It does not matter whether I own a book or a library card, the contents of the book and my ability to understand it do not change and so I refuse to indulge you in this irrelevant and arrogant question.

Again you dodge another question.

Obviously the answer is, you don't have that issue and just copied the quote from someone else. That's why you refuse to answer.

Let's take the word "species" for example. It originates in the mid- 1500's and originally meant "sort" or "kind". Since then, the word has been redefined by scientists over the years and no longer means "kind" as referred to in the Bible.

So that means the entire field of taxonomy is arbitrary? :blink:

I answered this question in post 123. You just didn't like my answer. You keep asking me "again, what is a kind?" and you will keep asking it until you get the definition you want.

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?

Let's examine your use of the word "mosaic". Mosaic would imply an arrangement of pieces from different sources, as if the fossil contained pieces of both bird and reptile, thus adding a presumption of correctness about your conclusion that this was a transitional animal. You assume a lot just because of hollow bones. If the squid had become extinct and you found it's fossil, would you assume it was an ancestor of birds because of its beak? You also ignore the point of my post which is that the explanation of environmental pressures that produced such changes is absurd. Why don't you entertain us further with the official evolutionary explanation of how butterflies evolved?

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?

The obvious answer is that yes, that specimen does show a mixture of bird and reptile features, which makes it a transitional fossil, which means transitional fossils do exist.

His work on irreducible complexity.

What about it is "factual"?

I do not need a BS in biology to know the difference between fact and speculation

Clearly it would help, as just about everything you've said on this subject has been wrong. Evolution happens, transitional fossils exist, the evolution of multicellularity (including propagation of the life history) has been observed in the lab, Gould proposed a specific mechanism for his hypothesis (allopatric speciation), nearly complete hominid fossils have been found....

At last you have admitted that he meant what he said. As for his words being taken out of context, if that were true you would have already proved it.

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".

That is my point. No one told this young man anything, he reasoned for himself that if evolution was true, he was not going to change his immoral lifestyle for a fairy tale.

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.

 

[Suhar]

Oh, I agree 100% with you . ''It is not an encyclopedia of all there is to know but it does mention creation and we need to deal with that''.

It does not just "mention". There is a creation or there is no word of God. You believe all of it or non at all.