PDA

View Full Version : Evolution... Do we believe?



Pages : [1] 2 3

PopeFrancieLXIX
August 5th, 2015, 02:38 PM
Many Christians dislike even uttering the word evolution, but we must be intelligent in our walk with Christ.

While we lack solid scientific proof of macro evolution, we understand microevolution occurs on a constant basis. The idea that Organisms can change and adapt is very easy to prove.

We must realize that science and Christianity can not only coexist, but complement one other if we are honest and intelligent about our discernment of both.

What think ye?

Hedshaker
August 5th, 2015, 02:50 PM
Many Christians dislike even uttering the word evolution, but we must be intelligent in our walk with Christ.

While we lack solid scientific proof of macro evolution, we understand microevolution occurs on a constant basis. The idea that Organisms can change and adapt is very easy to prove.

We must realize that science and Christianity can not only coexist, but complement one other if we are honest and intelligent about our discernment of both.

What think ye?

Science concerns itself not one iota what religion thinks. It's sole objective is to interpret the evidence and develop theories based on the scientific method. Nothing more nothing less. And it has been shown to be the most effective endeavour in human history.

If Religions wish to stay abreast of scientific breakthroughs then it is their place to incorporate it into their belief systems, or get left behind and ridiculed.

That all

nonanomanon
August 5th, 2015, 03:39 PM
Acts 10:11-16 (Unclean Animals come from the Temple in Heaven, three times, and are offered up by the Apostle Peter)
ACTS 3:10 And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.
ACTS 3:11 And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.
ACTS 3:12 And when Peter saw [it], he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?

1. God told the Hebrews to go into Canaan
2. God allowed the Babylonians to take the Hebrews into Custody
3. God allows the body of Judah (the nations) to take the Hebrews into Custody after the Crucifixion

Jewish Diaspora, in which the Jewish people were taken as a besieged people began after Solomon's temple was destroyed. The Jewish people entered Egypt when Joseph was reigning under the Pharoah, so they were not taken as a besieged people, even though they did become distressed.

After the Crucifixion of Christ, the Jewish people would somehow confirm the principle of evolution, as they were besieged of all nations to reveal the dominion of the messiah, or taken as a heresy, the dominion of satan. The Holocaust appears to be based on just that theory, that the Jewish people were the leftovers of evolutions, because they clung to the old wives fables of the Gospel. (2 Chronicles 28:9, Jeremiah 29:22, (in which Zechariah 2:16 says Judah's Marriage by Fire ends their previous taking of the Hebrews into custody) says, Samaria/Babylon took the Hebrew first, and Judah would take the Hebrews Second, before Babylon was allowed to Marry Judah (in a Marriage by Fire, at the end of time).

(The Marriage by Fire, coincidentally is between the Holocaust Countries, Pig Countries, and India "Clarence Larkin Chart" discussion)

6days
August 5th, 2015, 05:05 PM
Many Christians dislike even uttering the word evolution, but we must be intelligent in our walk with Christ.

While we lack solid scientific proof of macro evolution, we understand microevolution occurs on a constant basis. The idea that Organisms can change and adapt is very easy to prove.

We must realize that science and Christianity can not only coexist, but complement one other if we are honest and intelligent about our discernment of both.

What think ye?
I agree :)
God created the heavens and the earth, and the rules which govern our universe. So of course science and God's Word are always in harmony. It is some scientists opinions which are not in agreement, and thus wrong.

Cruciform
August 5th, 2015, 05:40 PM
I'd like to ask you about your screen name: "PopeFrancieLXIX." Please explain its meaning and significance.

PopeFrancieLXIX
August 5th, 2015, 05:51 PM
Pope Francie is Pope Francis (just more hip hop)

LXIX is the model number on my roman daggers displayed on my desk. Oddly enough I have never looked up what the numbers are in Arabic numerals.

PopeFrancieLXIX
August 5th, 2015, 05:52 PM
I agree :)

God created the heavens and the earth, and the rules which govern our universe. So of course science and God's Word are always in harmony. It is some scientists opinions which are not in agreement, and thus wrong.


Indeed!! We need more educated intellectual Christians. :)

Caino
August 5th, 2015, 06:56 PM
Many Christians dislike even uttering the word evolution, but we must be intelligent in our walk with Christ.

While we lack solid scientific proof of macro evolution, we understand microevolution occurs on a constant basis. The idea that Organisms can change and adapt is very easy to prove.

We must realize that science and Christianity can not only coexist, but complement one other if we are honest and intelligent about our discernment of both.

What think ye?

Yes, evolution is a fact, region should concern itself exclusively with the scientist not science.

way 2 go
August 5th, 2015, 07:40 PM
Yes, evolution is a fact, region should concern itself exclusively with the scientist not science.

evolution is just the religion atheists are using today

Stuu
August 6th, 2015, 03:00 AM
While we lack solid scientific proof of macro evolution
That's where you're wrong*.

Stuart

*'Proof' isn't the right name for it, but it is the right concept for it.

Caino
August 6th, 2015, 03:40 AM
evolution is just the religion atheists are using today

I'm not an Atheist, I'm a cosmic evolutionist. I believe life was created and evolved as we know it from ancient times.

gcthomas
August 6th, 2015, 04:18 AM
Pope Francie is Pope Francis (just more hip hop)

LXIX is the model number on my roman daggers displayed on my desk. Oddly enough I have never looked up what the numbers are in Arabic numerals.

LXIX is '69' , an interesting number in its own right, especially for a hip hop pope. ;)

Squeaky
August 6th, 2015, 04:21 AM
Many Christians dislike even uttering the word evolution, but we must be intelligent in our walk with Christ.

While we lack solid scientific proof of macro evolution, we understand microevolution occurs on a constant basis. The idea that Organisms can change and adapt is very easy to prove.

We must realize that science and Christianity can not only coexist, but complement one other if we are honest and intelligent about our discernment of both.

What think ye?

I said
In the past 20 years isn't science pretty much falling apart?

Stuu
August 6th, 2015, 04:23 AM
I said
In the past 20 years isn't science pretty much falling apart?
No.

Stuart

gcthomas
August 6th, 2015, 04:32 AM
I said
In the past 20 years isn't science pretty much falling apart?

Nope. It has come on in leaps and bounds, advancing more in the last 20 years than the previous 50.

Man.0
August 6th, 2015, 04:46 AM
I believe there is such a thing as societal evolution - its progression and development.

But the biological evolution of nature? Bogus!

Jonahdog
August 6th, 2015, 04:52 AM
I believe there is such a thing as societal evolution - its progression and development.

But the biological evolution of nature? Bogus!

Based upon your years of study of the real world, no doubt.

PopeFrancieLXIX
August 6th, 2015, 05:28 AM
LXIX is '69' , an interesting number in its own right, especially for a hip hop pope. ;)


!!! Wow...I probably should have checked that before slapping it on my name then. Colour me awkward...

PopeFrancieLXIX
August 6th, 2015, 05:30 AM
I said

In the past 20 years isn't science pretty much falling apart?


No! Science is flourishing!! We are finally at a point where we can start to see deeper scientific truths in the bible.

PopeFrancieLXIX
August 6th, 2015, 05:34 AM
That's where you're wrong*.



Stuart



*'Proof' isn't the right name for it, but it is the right concept for it.


Lol. Yes in proper science "proof" is not an accurate word...I wasn't aware the general readership of this forum are on par to minds such as Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye. ;)

I will attempt to use more precise wording in my future academic statements. :p

Man.0
August 6th, 2015, 06:44 AM
Based upon your years of study of the real world, no doubt.

Yes, how did you know?

Stuu
August 6th, 2015, 09:21 AM
Lol. Yes in proper science "proof" is not an accurate word...I wasn't aware the general readership of this forum are on par to minds such as Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye. ;)

I will attempt to use more precise wording in my future academic statements. :p
Quite right. So, if we accept that point and use language as it is commonly used here, then the fact of the matter is that evolution by natural selection is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

Stuart

Hawkins
August 6th, 2015, 10:20 AM
Quite right. So, if we accept that point and use language as it is commonly used here, then the fact of the matter is that evolution by natural selection is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

Stuart

Hate to burst your bubble but the one trick which can make you unable to answer the question is,

The evolution of what and from what is proved beyond doubt?

Stuu
August 6th, 2015, 10:55 AM
Hate to burst your bubble but the one trick which can make you unable to answer the question is,

The evolution of what and from what is proved beyond doubt?
The evolution of life, from an ancestor common to all life on earth today.

What did you think I meant?

Stuart

Jamie Gigliotti
August 6th, 2015, 11:27 AM
Many Christians dislike even uttering the word evolution, but we must be intelligent in our walk with Christ.

While we lack solid scientific proof of macro evolution, we understand microevolution occurs on a constant basis. The idea that Organisms can change and adapt is very easy to prove.

We must realize that science and Christianity can not only coexist, but complement one other if we are honest and intelligent about our discernment of both.

What think ye?
It is not true. Chromosome change through genetic mutation does not add or subtract chromosome pairs. Adding chromosomes causes downs syndrome.

HisServant
August 6th, 2015, 11:44 AM
I believe that trying to use science which deals with natural world is never going to jive with a supernatural event like creation.

The natural world is what it is, based on our science... but it in no way conflicts with God's supernatural creation event.

Jose Fly
August 6th, 2015, 11:53 AM
These threads are hilarious.

PopeFrancieLXIX
August 6th, 2015, 12:08 PM
I believe that trying to use science which deals with natural world is never going to jive with a supernatural event like creation.

The natural world is what it is, based on our science... but it in no way conflicts with God's supernatural creation event.


Actually, I fully believe that with further advances of science, we can understand things that seem supernatural. Look at what would be considered supernatural if we had read about it 200 years ago..

HisServant
August 6th, 2015, 12:12 PM
Actually, I fully believe that with further advances of science, we can understand things that seem supernatural. Look at what would be considered supernatural if we had read about it 200 years ago..

I think there is a ceiling to human intelligence.. thus limiting science.

I actually think we are getting dumber these days (on average) so the outlook is looking more dim every day.

PopeFrancieLXIX
August 6th, 2015, 12:12 PM
The evolution of life, from an ancestor common to all life on earth today.



What did you think I meant?



Stuart


While we do share commonalities with many things and that our fundamental building blocks are the same... There is reasonable doubt that one organism could mutate or evolve into a completely new organism. Not to say that an organism through evolution could not have dramatic changes making it appear different.

Jose Fly
August 6th, 2015, 12:17 PM
There is reasonable doubt that one organism could mutate or evolve into a completely new organism.

What does that even mean?

PopeFrancieLXIX
August 6th, 2015, 12:42 PM
What does that even mean?


Basically a fish cannot evolve into a monkey.

Jose Fly
August 6th, 2015, 01:07 PM
Basically a fish cannot evolve into a monkey.

Do you think "a fish evolving into a monkey" is part of evolutionary theory?

6days
August 6th, 2015, 01:36 PM
Nope. It has come on in leaps and bounds, advancing more in the last 20 years than the previous 50.

Yes... agree! :)
It is an exciting time to be a Christian

6days
August 6th, 2015, 01:41 PM
The evolution of life, from an ancestor common to all life on earth today.

Stuart
That's called blind faith

6days
August 6th, 2015, 01:44 PM
While we do share commonalities with many things and that our fundamental building blocks are the same...
Strong evidence of a common Designer.

PopeFrancieLXIX
August 6th, 2015, 02:15 PM
Do you think "a fish evolving into a monkey" is part of evolutionary theory?


To the general public? Yes...

But to be more specific, no. It is equally as improbable that a microorganism could evolve into different unrelated organisms.

Jose Fly
August 6th, 2015, 02:50 PM
To the general public? Yes...

That's not what I asked. I asked if you think "a fish evolving into a monkey" is part of evolutionary theory.


But to be more specific, no.

So you agree that "a fish evolving into a monkey" is not a part of evolutionary theory.


It is equally as improbable that a microorganism could evolve into different unrelated organisms.

Your statement doesn't make any sense. If a population evolves into a new species, the two are by definition, related.

Cruciform
August 6th, 2015, 04:36 PM
Pope Francie is Pope Francis (just more hip hop)
And why do you call yourself "Pope Francis" when you identify yourself here as a Mormon? :think:

Jonahdog
August 6th, 2015, 05:05 PM
To the general public? Yes...

But to be more specific, no. It is equally as improbable that a microorganism could evolve into different unrelated organisms.

And you know this based on your years of scientific work. Please explain in detail with references to the scientific literature

Stuu
August 7th, 2015, 02:23 AM
While we do share commonalities with many things and that our fundamental building blocks are the same... There is reasonable doubt that one organism could mutate or evolve into a completely new organism. Not to say that an organism through evolution could not have dramatic changes making it appear different.
There is 100% doubt that one organism would mutate into a completely new organism.

Why did you mention it? it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Stuart

Stuu
August 7th, 2015, 02:24 AM
To the general public? Yes...

But to be more specific, no. It is equally as improbable that a microorganism could evolve into different unrelated organisms.
Go for impossible, not just improbable.

I recommend you read a book and finding out what evolution by natural selection actually is. The subject is a rewarding one to study.

Stuart

Stripe
August 7th, 2015, 07:40 AM
While we lack solid scientific proof of macro evolution, we understand microevolution occurs on a constant basis.Nope.

Evolution, regardless of prefix, is bunk.

Evidence easily shows that "micro" evolution contains no random mutations and no natural selection.


The idea that Organisms can change and adapt is very easy to prove.Yeah. I'm losing hair, therefore: EVOLUTION! :nono:

We must realize that science and Christianity deny evolution if we are honest and intelligent about our discernment of both.

PureX
August 7th, 2015, 08:45 AM
Many Christians dislike even uttering the word evolution, but we must be intelligent in our walk with Christ.

While we lack solid scientific proof of macro evolution, we understand microevolution occurs on a constant basis. The idea that Organisms can change and adapt is very easy to prove.

We must realize that science and Christianity can not only coexist, but complement one other if we are honest and intelligent about our discernment of both.

What think ye?The problem is that most religion comes from a time when the process and concept of science was completely unknown. So that religion tended to fill in those intellectual gaps with religious mythology, as a way conveying their spiritual ideas and messages.

Then science came along and dispelled those myths with facts, while completely ignoring the spiritual ideas and messages the myths were created to convey. And naturally, religionists saw this as a kind of 'assault' on them and their way of life. It's an understandable reaction, though a pointless and counterproductive one.

And in the grand scheme of human history, this only happened very recently, so the religionists of the world are still reacting to it in fear and anger. It will take some time for the religionists to calm down, let go of their fears and resentments about 'science', and find new ways of presenting their spiritual ideas and messages to the world without the use of ancient mythology.

Frankly, I wish they'd quit raging and get on with it. The world needs their spiritual ideals and messages; it does not need their knee-jerk negative emotional reactions.

Jamie Gigliotti
August 7th, 2015, 09:17 AM
The problem is that most religion comes from a time when the process and concept of science was completely unknown. So that religion tended to fill in those intellectual gaps with religious mythology, as a way conveying their spiritual ideas and messages.

Then science came along and dispelled those myths with facts, while completely ignoring the spiritual ideas and messages the myths were created to convey. And naturally, religionists saw this as a kind of 'assault' on them and their way of life. It's an understandable reaction, though a pointless and counterproductive one.

And in the grand scheme of human history, this only happened very recently, so the religionists of the world are still reacting to it in fear and anger. It will take some time for the religionists to calm down, let go of their fears and resentments about 'science', and find new ways of presenting their spiritual ideas and messages to the world without the use of ancient mythology.

Frankly, I wish they'd quit raging and get on with it. The world needs their spiritual ideals and messages; it does not need their knee-jerk negative emotional reactions.

My faith in Jesus does not cause my mind to reason that DNA strands mutating Do add or subtract information, it doesn't add chromosomes with any good outcome.

Caino
August 7th, 2015, 09:36 AM
That's called blind faith

Or just blind :maxi:

Jose Fly
August 7th, 2015, 10:20 AM
Evidence easily shows that "micro" evolution contains no random mutations and no natural selection.

Have you told 6days that? He seems to believe that natural selection is real.

Hawkins
August 7th, 2015, 10:28 AM
The evolution of life, from an ancestor common to all life on earth today.

What did you think I meant?

Stuart

It never happens if you can't be more specific.

Try again,

The evolution of what from what (you need to just point out one example), but you can't) is proven beyond doubt?

I will give you a counter list here,

1. the evolution of humans from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt
2. the evolution of mammals from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt
....

1 million and 1. the evolution of <whatever you can put here among the millions of species on the current earth today> from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt

PureX
August 7th, 2015, 03:52 PM
My faith in Jesus does not cause my mind to reason that DNA strands mutating Do add or subtract information, it doesn't add chromosomes with any good outcome.If your faith in Jesus depends on the behavior of DNA then your faith in Jesus is either very weak, or very misguided.

Jamie Gigliotti
August 7th, 2015, 04:00 PM
If your faith in Jesus depends on the behavior of DNA then your faith in Jesus is either very weak, or very misguided.

My point was that reason is not suspended because of My faith. Evolution is far from fact.

PureX
August 7th, 2015, 04:03 PM
It never happens if you can't be more specific.

Try again,

The evolution of what from what (you need to just point out one example), but you can't) is proven beyond doubt?

I will give you a counter list here,

1. the evolution of humans from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt
2. the evolution of mammals from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt
....

1 million and 1. the evolution of <whatever you can put here among the millions of species on the current earth today> from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubtWhat does doubt have to do with anything? We are human beings, we can't be absolutely certain of anything, really, because we are not omniscient nor omnipresent. Both of which would be required for us to be absolutely certain of something we think we know.

Scientific theories are called theories, and not certainties, because it is universally recognized among scientists that we humans are not omniscient. So it is assumed that any theory, no matter how apparently true, could still be found untrue under some circumstance, or via some as yet unknown and untried experiment.

Science isn't proclaiming anything to be absolutely true. And any human being who is expecting that level of certainty is expecting the impossible.

So I don't get your point, here.

PureX
August 7th, 2015, 04:07 PM
My point was that reason is not suspended because of My faith. Evolution is far from fact.Evolution is not far from fact. It is a theory based not only on the facts, but on facts that have been tested and retested.

Why you think the theory of evolution has something to do with Jesus is what I don't understand. Can you explain what you think the connection is?

Stuu
August 7th, 2015, 04:34 PM
It never happens if you can't be more specific.

Try again,

The evolution of what from what (you need to just point out one example), but you can't) is proven beyond doubt?

I will give you a counter list here,

1. the evolution of humans from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt
2. the evolution of mammals from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt
....

1 million and 1. the evolution of <whatever you can put here among the millions of species on the current earth today> from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt
What I wrote is more than specific enough. It contains all of your sample statements above.

If you would like yet another variation, here is one: all life on earth has arisen through evolution by natural selection from a common ancestor population of a species of single-celled organism.

In the way most people use language, that is proved beyond doubt.

Stuart

Jamie Gigliotti
August 7th, 2015, 04:40 PM
Evolution is not far from fact. It is a theory based not only on the facts, but on facts that have been tested and retested.

Why you think the theory of evolution has something to do with Jesus is what I don't understand. Can you explain what you think the connection is?

You argued that people are against evolution because of our religious beliefs.
Again chromosomal errors do not add or subtract chromosomes. And again if the genetic error is that grevious in humans downs syndrome results. Not some new glorious result.

Obviously there are philosophical/religious implications if it is true or not, but none the less is not true.

Stuu
August 7th, 2015, 04:44 PM
The problem is that most religion comes from a time when the process and concept of science was completely unknown. So that religion tended to fill in those intellectual gaps with religious mythology, as a way conveying their spiritual ideas and messages.

Then science came along and dispelled those myths with facts, while completely ignoring the spiritual ideas and messages the myths were created to convey. And naturally, religionists saw this as a kind of 'assault' on them and their way of life. It's an understandable reaction, though a pointless and counterproductive one.

And in the grand scheme of human history, this only happened very recently, so the religionists of the world are still reacting to it in fear and anger. It will take some time for the religionists to calm down, let go of their fears and resentments about 'science', and find new ways of presenting their spiritual ideas and messages to the world without the use of ancient mythology.

Frankly, I wish they'd quit raging and get on with it. The world needs their spiritual ideals and messages; it does not need their knee-jerk negative emotional reactions.
Well said. Indeed the newness is a factor that I might be liable to forget in considering this. And might I add, although perhaps not as eloquently as you, that there are very many people in the world building their spirituality around our modern understanding of our place within the universe. The knowledge we each personally possess, or have easy access to now is astonishing compared to two centuries ago, and when understood should have a revolutionary effect on ones own self-perception, especially when ancient knowledge and its mythological padding are considered critically.

Stuart

PureX
August 7th, 2015, 04:53 PM
You argued that people are against evolution because of our religious beliefs.
Again chromosomal errors do not add or subtract chromosomes. And again if the genetic error is that grevious in humans downs syndrome results. Not some new glorious result.

Obviously there are philosophical/religious implications if it is true or not, but none the less is not true.The only contention between religion and science that I am aware of seems to rest almost entirely on the fact that science has shown ancient religious mythology to be ancient religious mythology. That shouldn't really be a problem, since religious mythology was never intended to be anything other than what it is, while science has never intended to replace religion or it's mythology with something else. But there is a sector of both the religionists, and the materialists, who do not properly understand what mythology is, and what it's function is. Nor do they properly understand what science is, and what it's purpose is. So they think these two are in contention with each other as competing representations of Truth, rather than being completely different methods and means of representing different aspects of Truth (which is what they are).

These are the folks who constitute the 'raging religious zealots' on the one side and the 'raging materialist zealots' on the other. Both of which are misguided and counter-productive to human understanding.

In my opinion.

nonanomanon
August 7th, 2015, 05:26 PM
The evolution of what from what (you need to just point out one example), but you can't) is proven beyond doubt?

The Gospel does not deal in dehumanization, that being true, it will be laborious to prove a position the gospel seems to avoid. We need to categorize spirituality to 4 degrees ... ... ... ... then we can understand that science is not being faithful in its claims that humans are closer to chimpanzees (infact only specific portions of the people are closer to chimpanzees ... ... ... ... science has obtained a conclusion about the fertilization of primates, since that time it has discontinued the practice).

NUMBERS 32:38 And Nebo, and Baalmeon, (their names being changed,) and Shibmah: and gave other names unto the cities which they builded.
GENESIS 10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.

At the same time Melchisedek appeared before God as a High Priest, another Priest came baring the cloak of corruption. The gospel conceals the identity of the spiritual begins. We can simply say, Nebo was Naphtali, because Melchisedek came to divide the 144,000 of Reuben, so that the 144,000 of Benjamin could be judged, and the 144,000 of Joseph could eventual be the inheritor of the Gospel's Completion.

Simplifying the spirituality based tribes (the 144,000 being of the same):

144,000 of Reuben (5 Wise Virgins)
144,000 of Benjamin (5 Wise Virgins)
144,000 of Joseph (5 Foolish Virgins)
200,000,000 of Naphtali (5 Foolish Virgins, having no value, until the Genetic Line based Tribes this branches into are killed, namely Dan, and also Aaron)

The Gospel avoids dehumanization, and 200,000,000 is a Separatist Inheritance for Naphtali* not attributed to either Dan or Aaron ... ... ... ... the gospel avoids dehumanization by giving them some version of salvation in the here and now, to mitigate their desires for cruelty and death. The lesser spirituality of Naphtali is an expression of "Free Will", this follows the body as an expression of that free will to some degree. This doesn't mean everyone attributed to Naphtali are killers, but it does means, Dan and Aaron are enough of a danger to themselves to immediately necessitate some resolution in loss of life to benefit the final process of the judgment. Spirituality is a result of "Free Will", so this is not absolute, however, by proportion of the population, this is an absolute for Genetic Dan and Aaron. (Spiritually speaking, some people are associated with Naphtali, but not in a sinful way, that is probably what qualifies the shift in Aaron's inheritance, without the genetic implication of Aaron, but they can be seen the same, considering how the law dances around quite a bit).

MATTHEW 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
MATTHEW 25:2 And five of them were wise, and five [were] foolish.

These divisions are of the Genealogy of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. So we can simply add 10 Virgins + 5 Wise Virgins for 15 Total Virgins, meaning God has immediately placed the spirituality of the last 5 Foolish Virgins in a state of disregard, or of low degree. Lets view this differently:

After the 3 Days of Darkness are completed ... 144,000 of Reuben taken, 144,000 of Benjamin taken and 144,000 of Joseph are separated from Judah, but the 200,000,000 of Naphtali remain for the 5 Months of Revelation 9, under the Antichrist as he reigns over Judah. So what is God doing? He is trying the Remnant of Judah for sin, but at the same time they are a picture of salvation, since they are being redeemed to the 144,000 of Joseph (the 5 Foolish Virgins that found favor, essentially).

So we can really make out 4 divisions in 1Chronicles5:1 (Reuben, Genealogy not Reckoned in Creation or Benjamin, Joseph, and not reckoned for any birthright (forsaken Naphtali until the end of time).

(the homecoming of the south migrants to a certain place in europe, have many people scratching their heads since most of their boats just sink and they drown, and they don't seem to care ... there is no Blood Sacrifice with Aaron taking place at the moment, where it should be done, but there evidence of this being acted out in the world)

Stuu
August 7th, 2015, 05:38 PM
Again chromosomal errors do not add or subtract chromosomes. And again if the genetic error is that grevious in humans downs syndrome results. Not some new glorious result.
The Holy Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormality#Structural_abnormalities) has this to say about chromosome abnormalities:

Deletions: A portion of the chromosome is missing or deleted. Known disorders in humans include Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, which is caused by partial deletion of the short arm of chromosome 4; and Jacobsen syndrome, also called the terminal 11q deletion disorder.

Duplications: A portion of the chromosome is duplicated, resulting in extra genetic material. Known human disorders include Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A, which may be caused by duplication of the gene encoding peripheral myelin protein 22 (PMP22) on chromosome 17.

Translocations: A portion of one chromosome is transferred to another chromosome. There are two main types of translocations:
Reciprocal translocation: Segments from two different chromosomes have been exchanged.

Robertsonian translocation: An entire chromosome has attached to another at the centromere - in humans these only occur with chromosomes 13, 14, 15, 21, and 22.

Inversions: A portion of the chromosome has broken off, turned upside down, and reattached, therefore the genetic material is inverted.

Insertions: A portion of one chromosome has been deleted from its normal place and inserted into another chromosome.

Rings: A portion of a chromosome has broken off and formed a circle or ring. This can happen with or without loss of genetic material.

Isochromosome: Formed by the mirror image copy of a chromosome segment including the centromere.
I would add too that chromosome abnormalities are not the only way that the genome can change. Random changes happen to individual bases along the DNA chains, for example.

In the case of Down Syndrome chromosome 21 is duplicated and the health problems are caused by overproduction of the proteins coded on that chromosome.

If the extra chromosome was inherited and became commonplace in the population (not likely with DS) then selection pressure would apply as random mutations happened in that extra chromosome.

Maybe natural selection would 'find a way' to turn off the genes in one of the chromosome 21 copies, and there would be convergence back to a non-Down human phenotype. Or the genetic material could end up as something else, maybe leading to speciation.

There is a case of this in our genetic history as humans. Following the common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans, two chromosomes fused, which is why the other great apes all have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we have only 23.

The 'new glorious result' you describe is really a strawman argument. There are interesting examples, like sickle cell anaemia. If you have a copy of the sickle cell trait gene and a good, non-sickle cell copy then you have some protection against malaria. Malaria has been the cause of half of all human deaths. So it has been a pretty big selection pressure. The sickle mutation is common in areas of the world where malaria is also common. It's an example of a beneficial mutation! But if you get two copies of the sickle cell trait gene then you will get sickle cell disease, which is life-threatening.

Genomes contain genes that code for proteins, and the proteins make the body. Either the protein becomes tissues or the protein acts as a catalyst for chemical processes that build tissues and regulate them. Genomes also contain switches that turn genes off or on. Sometimes a gene is turned off because it's role in development is no longer needed.

Modern species carry genes that may have been turned off in an ancestor species. The gene for teeth that was present in archosaurs, a common ancestor for birds and alligators, was turned off at some point down the bird line, and the modern bird descendents no longer make teeth. But the genes are still present in the birds and can be accidentally switched on again (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mutant-chicken-grows-alli/).

However, evolution by natural selection is almost entirely about tiny mutations that give a tiny improvement in the ability to survive and reproduce. These tiny changes will be spread throughout the population more successfully over time than the alternatives that aren't quite as good. If the environment changes then there is a change in the needs for survival and reproduction, so selection pressure changes to a different direction, and species will change as a result.

Multiply up the time, and those tiny changes add up to massive differences, given long enough. The range of multi-celled living species on the planet today have had a half a billion years to accumulate differences by natural selection, and that started after single-celled organisms had existed for a few billion years. I don't know about you but I struggle to comprehend 100 years, let alone 1,000,000,000 years. Remember too that more than 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct, so it's not as if the mutations that once were beneficial remained beneficial in a changing environment.

Sorry about the long post, but I was keen to give you an idea of how much more complicated things are than you suggested in your post.

Stuart

The Barbarian
August 7th, 2015, 06:13 PM
1. the evolution of humans from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt
2. the evolution of mammals from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt

Good thing for evolutionary theory, too. If someone could prove that, evolutionary theory would be overthrown. Humans evolved from multicellular hominids. Mammals evolved from multicellular therapsid reptiles.

Would you like to learn about some of the evidence for that?

nonanomanon
August 7th, 2015, 06:17 PM
Genomes contain genes that code for proteins, and the proteins make the body. Either the protein becomes tissues or the protein acts as a catalyst for chemical processes that build tissues and regulate them. Genomes also contain switches that turn genes off or on. Sometimes a gene is turned off because it's role in development is no longer needed.

DANIEL 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment [was] white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne [was like] the fiery flame, [and] his wheels [as] burning fire.
GENESIS 27:22 And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice [is] Jacob's voice, but the hands [are] the hands of Esau.
GENESIS 27:23 And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau's hands: so he blessed him.
GENESIS 37:22 And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood, [but] cast him into this pit that [is] in the wilderness, and lay no hand upon him; that he might rid him out of their hands, to deliver him to his father again.

The Antichrist Christ, can have no biological father, because he is a representation of the 144,000 of Reuben. His blood will resist certain types of corruption for this reason. For this reason, he is called the infertility of the Generations of Esau. Meaning a certain level of corruption is the limitation of Esau, but it is not necessarily the limitation of Jacob. Years ago when the Antichrist decided, that it would be better construed if he were seen as a hero of church and state, to eliminate a good portion of the false witnessing that already had taken root, he decided to enlist in the military for service. After they took a sample of his blood, they did not want to cooperate, and decided to change his preferences around ... ... ... ... ultimately for other reasons he simply decided to be a troll, but a faithful one, and terminate the resistance to the potential by making their force against his testimony as much of a moot point as possible, and as distasteful as possible. (Steadfast in awarding them the title of abusers of the fatherless, widow and the poor, and abusers of themselves with their own misplaced satisfaction (sui****), which is probably the best possible position, as humanity has completely disregarded the authority of the Antichrist as his days now come to a close).

Stuu
August 7th, 2015, 06:35 PM
DANIEL 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment [was] white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne [was like] the fiery flame, [and] his wheels [as] burning fire.
GENESIS 27:22 And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice [is] Jacob's voice, but the hands [are] the hands of Esau.
GENESIS 27:23 And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau's hands: so he blessed him.
GENESIS 37:22 And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood, [but] cast him into this pit that [is] in the wilderness, and lay no hand upon him; that he might rid him out of their hands, to deliver him to his father again.

The Antichrist Christ, can have no biological father, because he is a representation of the 144,000 of Reuben. His blood will resist certain types of corruption for this reason. For this reason, he is called the infertility of the Generations of Esau. Meaning a certain level of corruption is the limitation of Esau, but it is not necessarily the limitation of Jacob. Years ago when the Antichrist decided, that it would be better construed if he were seen as a hero of church and state, to eliminate a good portion of the false witnessing that already had taken root, he decided to enlist in the military for service. After they took a sample of his blood, they did not want to cooperate, and decided to change his preferences around ... ... ... ... ultimately for other reasons he simply decided to be a troll, but a faithful one, and terminate the resistance to the potential by making their force against his testimony as much of a moot point as possible, and as distasteful as possible. (Steadfast in awarding them the title of abusers of the fatherless, widow and the poor, and abusers of themselves with their own misplaced satisfaction (sui****), which is probably the best possible position, as humanity has completely disregarded the authority of the Antichrist as his days now come to a close).
I see that your neurons are no longer on speaking terms.

Stuart

Jamie Gigliotti
August 7th, 2015, 06:53 PM
The Holy Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormality#Structural_abnormalities) has this to say about chromosome abnormalities:

Deletions: A portion of the chromosome is missing or deleted. Known disorders in humans include Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, which is caused by partial deletion of the short arm of chromosome 4; and Jacobsen syndrome, also called the terminal 11q deletion disorder.

Duplications: A portion of the chromosome is duplicated, resulting in extra genetic material. Known human disorders include Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A, which may be caused by duplication of the gene encoding peripheral myelin protein 22 (PMP22) on chromosome 17.

Translocations: A portion of one chromosome is transferred to another chromosome. There are two main types of translocations:
Reciprocal translocation: Segments from two different chromosomes have been exchanged.

Robertsonian translocation: An entire chromosome has attached to another at the centromere - in humans these only occur with chromosomes 13, 14, 15, 21, and 22.

Inversions: A portion of the chromosome has broken off, turned upside down, and reattached, therefore the genetic material is inverted.

Insertions: A portion of one chromosome has been deleted from its normal place and inserted into another chromosome.

Rings: A portion of a chromosome has broken off and formed a circle or ring. This can happen with or without loss of genetic material.

Isochromosome: Formed by the mirror image copy of a chromosome segment including the centromere.
I would add too that chromosome abnormalities are not the only way that the genome can change. Random changes happen to individual bases along the DNA chains, for example.

In the case of Down Syndrome chromosome 21 is duplicated and the health problems are caused by overproduction of the proteins coded on that chromosome.

If the extra chromosome was inherited and became commonplace in the population (not likely with DS) then selection pressure would apply as random mutations happened in that extra chromosome.

Maybe natural selection would 'find a way' to turn off the genes in one of the chromosome 21 copies, and there would be convergence back to a non-Down human phenotype. Or the genetic material could end up as something else, maybe leading to speciation.

There is a case of this in our genetic history as humans. Following the common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans, two chromosomes fused, which is why the other great apes all have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we have only 23.

The 'new glorious result' you describe is really a strawman argument. There are interesting examples, like sickle cell anaemia. If you have a copy of the sickle cell trait gene and a good, non-sickle cell copy then you have some protection against malaria. Malaria has been the cause of half of all human deaths. So it has been a pretty big selection pressure. The sickle mutation is common in areas of the world where malaria is also common. It's an example of a beneficial mutation! But if you get two copies of the sickle cell trait gene then you will get sickle cell disease, which is life-threatening.

Genomes contain genes that code for proteins, and the proteins make the body. Either the protein becomes tissues or the protein acts as a catalyst for chemical processes that build tissues and regulate them. Genomes also contain switches that turn genes off or on. Sometimes a gene is turned off because it's role in development is no longer needed.

Modern species carry genes that may have been turned off in an ancestor species. The gene for teeth that was present in archosaurs, a common ancestor for birds and alligators, was turned off at some point down the bird line, and the modern bird descendents no longer make teeth. But the genes are still present in the birds and can be accidentally switched on again (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mutant-chicken-grows-alli/).

However, evolution by natural selection is almost entirely about tiny mutations that give a tiny improvement in the ability to survive and reproduce. These tiny changes will be spread throughout the population more successfully over time than the alternatives that aren't quite as good. If the environment changes then there is a change in the needs for survival and reproduction, so selection pressure changes to a different direction, and species will change as a result.

Multiply up the time, and those tiny changes add up to massive differences, given long enough. The range of multi-celled living species on the planet today have had a half a billion years to accumulate differences by natural selection, and that started after single-celled organisms had existed for a few billion years. I don't know about you but I struggle to comprehend 100 years, let alone 1,000,000,000 years. Remember too that more than 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct, so it's not as if the mutations that once were beneficial remained beneficial in a changing environment.

Sorry about the long post, but I was keen to give you an idea of how much more complicated things are than you suggested in your post.

Stuart
I get tiny gene changes that cause adaptive changes such as a Tiger who you can't necessarily identified by His stripes because Lions look entirely different and yet are really the same species because of chromosomes being the same and interbreeding possibilities.

The whole chromosomal fusing for humans is pure conjecture and not backed with any scientific proof. Theory undoubtedly, yet portrayed as proven. That is unequivocally a lie. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

I know the assumptions that go into evolution, and I'm all for science that's proven. Evolution is not proven science. Adaptation through gene mutation is.

Jamie Gigliotti
August 7th, 2015, 06:56 PM
The only contention between religion and science that I am aware of seems to rest almost entirely on the fact that science has shown ancient religious mythology to be ancient religious mythology. That shouldn't really be a problem, since religious mythology was never intended to be anything other than what it is, while science has never intended to replace religion or it's mythology with something else. But there is a sector of both the religionists, and the materialists, who do not properly understand what mythology is, and what it's function is. Nor do they properly understand what science is, and what it's purpose is. So they think these two are in contention with each other as competing representations of Truth, rather than being completely different methods and means of representing different aspects of Truth (which is what they are).

These are the folks who constitute the 'raging religious zealots' on the one side and the 'raging materialist zealots' on the other. Both of which are misguided and counter-productive to human understanding.

In my opinion.

I have talked to many who use the 'fact of evolution' as a reason for their agnosticism or atheism. It most certainly has philosophical and theological implications.

alwight
August 7th, 2015, 06:59 PM
I know the assumptions that go into evolution, and I'm all for science that's proven. Evolution is not proven science. Adaptation through gene mutation is.Proof is for mathematics and whisky, not science.

nonanomanon
August 7th, 2015, 08:35 PM
I get tiny gene changes that cause adaptive changes such as a Tiger who you can't necessarily identified by His stripes because Lions look entirely different and yet are really the same species because of chromosomes being the same and interbreeding possibilities.

The whole chromosomal fusing for humans is pure conjecture and not backed with any scientific proof. Theory undoubtedly, yet portrayed as proven. That is unequivocally a lie. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

I know the assumptions that go into evolution, and I'm all for science that's proven. Evolution is not proven science. Adaptation through gene mutation is.

LUKE 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
II SAMUEL 11:8 And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess [of meat] from the king.

David is listed in the genealogy of Reuben's 144,000 in Luke 3. If that is true and David was attributed to Reuben, genetic Dan or Aaron could not bare his seed. David declares that Bathsheba could not bare his child, but instead we can say David took the child as his own. Because it was unlawful to put his servant (uriah as a servant of the state) to death, and to create a widow, but Uriah became a butcher, and if David appointed him, then he put him down to not create a controversy. This incident may have fueled their kind to kill, but if what we understand is true, David would of never laid a hand on that women, it would of been unclean for him to do as a King, and inhumane in the Old Testament. This explains why Moses did not take a wife from the egyptians. (just some thoughts that sometimes leak when the weapons reach members of the public instead of remaining affixed on the Antichrist).

Stuu
August 7th, 2015, 09:26 PM
I get tiny gene changes that cause adaptive changes such as a Tiger who you can't necessarily identified by His stripes because Lions look entirely different and yet are really the same species because of chromosomes being the same and interbreeding possibilities.
You really don't get that, I promise you.


The whole chromosomal fusing for humans is pure conjecture and not backed with any scientific proof. Theory undoubtedly, yet portrayed as proven. That is unequivocally a lie. I'm sorry to be so blunt.
Sorry to have bothered you. I can see that a hammer and chisel wouldn't be enough to impress on your brain the extent of your ignorance.


I know the assumptions that go into evolution, and I'm all for science that's proven. Evolution is not proven science. Adaptation through gene mutation is.
There are books. Have you been to a library before?

Stuart

popsthebuilder
August 7th, 2015, 11:35 PM
Christianity and science actually go together quite nicely. Evolution can be seen as a process of a being adapting to its environment to the best of its ability in order for it to advance. All life is of one creation and one Creator God. All existence does its very best to advance to exist. Even other intelligent creatures work together in a social manner for the betterment of all. Humans being inherently evil and good are the only creatures that seem to actually work against the rest of existence due to free will and the lack of acknowledgement of our responsibility also due to free will our gift from God. Evolution can be seen as everything going along its path directed by God.

Stripe
August 8th, 2015, 12:00 AM
Proof is for mathematics and whisky, not science.

Math is science. :Plain:

gcthomas
August 8th, 2015, 01:38 AM
Math is science. :Plain:

And dogs are cats. :idunno:

Stuu
August 8th, 2015, 01:39 AM
Math is science. :Plain:
At Waikato University you can get an arts degree majoring in mathematics.

You can't get an arts degree majoring in any of the physical or biological sciences.

Just thought you might have known that already.

Stuart

alwight
August 8th, 2015, 03:29 AM
Math is science. :Plain:
Mathemology? :think:

Stripe
August 8th, 2015, 03:46 AM
Evolutionists do not think math is science. :Plain:

Something so trivial should be simple to agree with, but not when a YEC says it.

Stuu
August 8th, 2015, 03:52 AM
Christianity and science actually go together quite nicely.

Evolution can be seen as a process of a being adapting to its environment to the best of its ability in order for it to advance.
Nope. Evolution happens to populations, not to individuals.


All life is of one creation and one Creator God.
There is no intent evident in the living world. As Richard Dawkins puts it, natural selection is the blind watchmaker. I don't think you see your god that way.


All existence does its very best to advance to exist. Even other intelligent creatures work together in a social manner for the betterment of all.
Orangutans are quite solitary.


Humans being inherently evil and good
That's your value judgment, not an empirical conclusion (if we are still talking about science).


... are the only creatures that seem to actually work against the rest of existence due to free will and the lack of acknowledgement of our responsibility also due to free will our gift from God.
What responsibility? Science pays no attention to religious platitudes like these.


Evolution can be seen as everything going along its path directed by God.
Only by idiots.

Stuart

gcthomas
August 8th, 2015, 04:01 AM
Evolutionists do not think math is science. :Plain:

Something so trivial should be simple to agree with, but not when a YEC says it.

How many universities have mathematics taught by the Science faculty vs have an entirely separate faculty? :think:

No one agrees with you, not even creationists will chime in to support you.

Trivial? Yes. But that doesn't mean you get automatic assent when you say silly things.

The Barbarian
August 8th, 2015, 04:52 AM
Evolutionists do not think math is science.

Because science is a process of inferring the rules by observing particulars, it is very different from math, in which some basic rules are assumed, from which the particularly are determined.

There can be deductive thinking in science, and there are inductive proofs in math, but they are basically two entirely different processes. Stipe seems to have no clue about math whatever (his declaration of "math that refutes evolution" has been repeatedly challenged, and he has yet to offer any calculations whatever to support his belief) so it might be worth seeing what a real mathematician has to say about it:

Is Mathematics a Science?
Mathematics is certainly a science in the broad sense of "systematic and formulated knowledge", but most people use "science" to refer only to the natural sciences. Since mathematics provides the language in which the natural sciences aspire to describe and analyse the universe, there is a natural link between mathematics and the natural sciences. Indeed schools, universities, and government agencies usually lump them together. (1) On the other hand, most mathematicians do not consider themselves to be scientists and vice versa. So is mathematics a natural science? (2) The natural sciences investigate the physical universe but mathematics does not, so mathematics is not really a natural science. This leaves open the subtler question of whether mathematics is essentially similar in method to the natural sciences in spite of the difference in subject matter. I do not think it is.
http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html

(thoughtful discussion of the issue follows)

PureX
August 8th, 2015, 05:03 AM
I have talked to many who use the 'fact of evolution' as a reason for their agnosticism or atheism. It most certainly has philosophical and theological implications.More likely they are simply rejecting the absurd claims of religionists who do not understand what their own religious mythology is about. Or perhaps they don't understand that science doesn't propose evolution as a fact, but as a working theory. There is plenty of ignorance on both sides.

Stuu
August 8th, 2015, 06:26 AM
Evolutionists do not think math is science. :Plain:

Something so trivial should be simple to agree with, but not when a YEC says it.
Mathematicians don't think mathS is science.

Scientists don't think maths is science.

YECs don't think reality should have any attention paid to it.

I think that's all the relevant categories here.

Stuart

Stripe
August 8th, 2015, 07:26 AM
How many universities have mathematics taught by the Science faculty vs have an entirely separate faculty? :think::yawn:


No one agrees with you, not even creationists will chime in to support you. :yawn:

Wake us up when you've got a rational argument.


Mathematicians don't think mathS is science.No?

This guy thinks it is (http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html).


Scientists don't think maths is science.No?

These guys think it is (http://www.livescience.com/38936-mathematics.html).

Admittedly, there seems to be some debate over the matter, but the knee-jerk reaction of evolutionists to a trivial assertion by a YEC shows how utterly committed they are to contrarianism rather than rational discourse.

The Barbarian
August 8th, 2015, 08:25 AM
Stipe finds a "guy" who thinks math is a science:

This guy thinks it is.

Elaine J. Hom
@elainehom

Marketer at a nonprofit, contributor for @LiveScience, dance teacher, celiac, proud mom of two fuzzy cats. Married name is Eastwood but too lazy to change it.
https://twitter.com/elainehom

I see. Very convincing, Stipe. Marketing dance teachers are famous for their understanding of the nature of science.

Jonahdog
August 8th, 2015, 08:30 AM
Stipe finds a "guy" who thinks math is a science:


Elaine J. Hom
@elainehom

Marketer at a nonprofit, contributor for @LiveScience, dance teacher, celiac, proud mom of two fuzzy cats. Married name is Eastwood but too lazy to change it.
https://twitter.com/elainehom

I see. Very convincing, Stipe. Marketing dance teachers are famous for their understanding of the nature of science.

The scary part is that she may understand science better than our friend Stripe.

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 09:05 AM
Stuu,

By being I mean one consciousness under God which all creation is.

There is evedint intent through out all creation. It all strives for the same goal; the best existence possible.

Didn't say all intelligent creatures were social creatures. Irrelevant.

Due to free will all humans have The potential for positive and negative e effects relating to our surroundings, and other life. We seem to be the only creatures hell bent on destroying our chances at meaningful life along with the rest of life on earth.

What is your point? The op asked if science and Christianity were linked and gave the example of evolution. It has little to do with if scientist think humans are pertinent to existence or not.

Tell me of a single thing that doesn't go allong a preordained path other than humans. Your negativity is not welcome.

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 09:06 AM
How many universities have mathematics taught by the Science faculty vs have an entirely separate faculty? :think:

No one agrees with you, not even creationists will chime in to support you.

Trivial? Yes. But that doesn't mean you get automatic assent when you say silly things.
Science stems from math. Any science that does not is simply theory.

Nope. Evolution happens to populations, not to individuals.


There is no intent evident in the living world. As Richard Dawkins puts it, natural selection is the blind watchmaker. I don't think you see your god that way.


Orangutans are quite solitary.


That's your value judgment, not an empirical conclusion (if we are still talking about science).


What responsibility? Science pays no attention to religious platitudes like these.


Only by idiots.

Stuart

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 09:07 AM
Mathematicians don't think mathS is science.

Scientists don't think maths is science.

YECs don't think reality should have any attention paid to it.

I think that's all the relevant categories here.

Stuart
Science is math.

gcthomas
August 8th, 2015, 09:34 AM
:yawn:

:yawn:

Wake us up when you've got a rational argument.

No?

This guy thinks it is (http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html).

Err, your link is to a paper with this as the abstract :

"Abstract:*Mathematics is not a science, but there are grey areas at the fringes."

So, to be clear, your evidence that maths is a science is a paper by a mathematician who says that it isn't? Good work, Tripe.

:chuckle:

Stripe
August 8th, 2015, 09:36 AM
Evolutionists hate reading.

Jonahdog
August 8th, 2015, 09:54 AM
Evolutionists hate reading.

Fundamentalists hate.

gcthomas
August 8th, 2015, 10:01 AM
Evolutionists hate reading.

So no comment from you about your link proving the diametrically opposite to what you claimed it did?

And you know that I always follow through posted links, so that was pretty stupid of you.

:rotfl:

Stripe
August 8th, 2015, 10:33 AM
So no comment from you about your link proving the diametrically opposite to what you claimed it did?It agreed with me. I wouldn't have posted it otherwise. :idunno:

However, it seems clear that this subject is something of a philosophical quagmire. I just thought Alwight's comment showed a slight flaw.

Though I notice the evolutionists have seized upon a rabbit trail to deflect from the objection being made. Typical.

And you know that I always follow through posted links.It doesn't help to "follow through" when you can't read.

Evolutionists will do anything to show that they are arguing with a YEC. They hate the notion that one of them might have said something correct, no matter how trivial.

nonanomanon
August 8th, 2015, 10:37 AM
Stuu,

By being I mean one consciousness under God which all creation is.

There is evedint intent through out all creation. It all strives for the same goal; the best existence possible.

Didn't say all intelligent creatures were social creatures. Irrelevant.

Due to free will all humans have The potential for positive and negative e effects relating to our surroundings, and other life. We seem to be the only creatures hell bent on destroying our chances at meaningful life along with the rest of life on earth.

What is your point? The op asked if science and Christianity were linked and gave the example of evolution. It has little to do with if scientist think humans are pertinent to existence or not.

Tell me of a single thing that doesn't go allong a preordained path other than humans. Your negativity is not welcome.

Science has only recently began to distinguish medical administration between the different genders. Now I've mentioned two types of vaccinations, one type of vaccination derived from the Blood of the Sons of Man, and one type of vaccination derived from the Blood of Animals.

1. Ezra 2 Genealogy appears to Match Nehemiah 7 Genealogy
2. Ezra 10 Genealogy has the name Joseph with a partial accounting of the tribes, with most of the tribes identifiable
3. Nehemiah 12 Genealogy has the name Joseph, with just a few tribes identifiable, its not as complete as Ezra 10's references

Vaccinations derived from the Blood of the Sons of Man, sterilize the fertility of Dan and Aaron

1. (Positive - Baring Fruit) EZRA 10:44 All these had taken strange wives: and [some] of them had wives by whom they had children.
2. (Negative - Sterile) NEHEMIAH 12:47 And all Israel in the days of Zerubbabel, and in the days of Nehemiah, gave the portions of the singers and the porters, every day his portion: and they sanctified [holy things] unto the Levites; and the Levites sanctified [them] unto the children of Aaron.

We didn't want to rain in on their "lives don't matter campaigns" so soon. The medical fact is, if even one of these new vaccines, like the HPV, Ebola, or the HIV vaccines they've been experimenting with and implementing with the public are derived from the Blood of the Antichrist, then Genetic Dan and Aaron are infertile when they are subjected to these, their numbers already should be in the hundreds of thousands.

Until now, the medical community has only experimented with vaccines derived from the Blood of animals, we are still in the same generation in which these newer vaccines have been introduced into certain members of the population. So we will not know the predictable effects completely, until most of them progress further along their life processes. There were a few celebrity deaths recently, they are typically the ones to reach the newer vaccines first, and unfortunately, some can cause death if it is introduced into them, their kind, as you have seen in the news recently.

(Joseph is accounted with the tribes in some respect, before the book of revelations ... ... ... ... clearly indicating God affords mankind some version of a blessing in the earth, in addition to indicating that God himself can push aside certain laws about the universe to a limited degree ... for those reasons God cast the Ark of the Covenant into the Earth, Goliath was cast into the earth when he fell down, and the alleged Holy Grail argument at the last supper is supposed to be buried in Jerusalem, but nobody seems to have found it ... ... ... ... this holy grail in particular seems to deal with vaccination or miracle healing ... ... ... ... perhaps all these truths have a much simpler reconciliation, that is that we should just keep watch for the signs of the end. ... ... ... ... the damage has already been done to this population we talked about, the best thing to do in the future is to give them placebo vaccinations, until you can develop a non-cascausian and non-asian dna tester like you have those instant diabetic tests, nothing to approximate just a few generations of relative purity ... ... ... ... percentage wise the majority if not all will have those effects from the newer vaccines developed) (it would be very unfortunate if credibility was added to any of this information ... ... ... ... with that said, they have been looking for the missing link for sometime, and the military already took a blood sample some time ago, unfortunately the antichrist did not know they were screening, so the charade was up long ago) (beyond that, they learned something, when they did something unclean in secret, which gave them an unction to castrate the antichrist prior to the events of 9/11/2001, sometimes the universe removes corruption from the body of the antichrist, so their hands were already dirty, but that is after the fact of the military blood testing)

Stripe
August 8th, 2015, 10:39 AM
Science has only recently began to distinguish medical administration between the different genders. Now I've mentioned two types of vaccinations, one type of vaccination derived from the Blood of the Sons of Man, and one type of vaccination derived from the Blood of Animals.

1. Ezra 2 Genealogy appears to Match Nehemiah 7 Genealogy
2. Ezra 10 Genealogy has the name Joseph with a partial accounting of the tribes, with most of the tribes identifiable
3. Nehemiah 12 Genealogy has the name Joseph, with just a few tribes identifiable, its not as complete as Ezra 10's references

Vaccinations derived from the Blood of the Sons of Man, sterilize the fertility of Dan and Aaron

1. (Positive - Baring Fruit) EZRA 10:44 All these had taken strange wives: and [some] of them had wives by whom they had children.
2. (Negative - Sterile) NEHEMIAH 12:47 And all Israel in the days of Zerubbabel, and in the days of Nehemiah, gave the portions of the singers and the porters, every day his portion: and they sanctified [holy things] unto the Levites; and the Levites sanctified [them] unto the children of Aaron.

We didn't want to rain in on their "lives don't matter campaigns" so soon. The medical fact is, if even one of these new vaccines, like the HPV, Ebola, or the HIV vaccines they've been experimenting with and implementing with the public are derived from the Blood of the Antichrist, then Genetic Dan and Aaron are infertile with they are subjected to these, their numbers already should be in the hundreds of thousands.

Until now, the medical community has only experimented with vaccines derived from the Blood of animals, we are still in the same generation in which these newer vaccines have been introduced into certain members of the population. So we will not know the predictable effects completely, until most of them progress further along their life processes. There were a few celebrity deaths recently, they are typically the ones to reach the newer vaccines first, and unfortunately, some can cause death if it is introduced into them, their kind, as you have seen in the news recently.

:kook:

gcthomas
August 8th, 2015, 10:54 AM
"Abstract:*Mathematics is not a science, ... "

It agreed with me. I wouldn't have posted it otherwise. :idunno:
Riiiggghhht. Which bit of the report's "Mathematics is not a science" statement did you think meant that the author thought mathematics IS a science?

Tripe, you are a certifiable numpty. Funny, in a laughing at the disabled person's funny walk sort of a way, but still providing weak amusement.

Stripe
August 8th, 2015, 01:17 PM
Riiiggghhht. Which bit of the report's "Mathematics is not a science" statement did you think meant that the author thought mathematics IS a science? Tripe, you are a certifiable numpty. Funny, in a laughing at the disabled person's funny walk sort of a way, but still providing weak amusement.

Evolutionists hate reading.

gcthomas
August 8th, 2015, 01:36 PM
Evolutionists hate reading.

;)

Man up, Tripe. Admit the failure. You are looking more adult than usual.

Stripe
August 8th, 2015, 01:48 PM
Admit the failure.

You can't read and you call me a failure. :rolleyes:

Congratulations on steering the conversation as far away as possible from the challenge issued to your precious evolutionism.

gcthomas
August 8th, 2015, 02:16 PM
Congratulations on steering the conversation as far away as possible from the challenge issued to your precious evolutionism.

I don't recall a serious challenge being made. If you want to leave your mistakes behind that's fine.

So, what was this serious 'challenge' that was allegedly made?

:)

Cruciform
August 8th, 2015, 02:19 PM
Evolutionists hate reading.
"Biblical creationists" hate thinking---but they're unaware of that fact, since they haven't allowed themselves to think about it. (See, I can do it, too!) :yawn:

Stripe
August 8th, 2015, 02:36 PM
If you want to leave your mistakes behind that's fine.I haven't made a mistake.


So, what was this serious 'challenge' that was allegedly made?

Evolutionists hate reading.

gcthomas
August 8th, 2015, 02:46 PM
I haven't made a mistake.



Evolutionists hate reading.

So no mistake, and no challenge. I got it.

:rotfl: :mock: Tripe

Stripe
August 8th, 2015, 03:00 PM
So no mistake.That's right. The only problem here is the evolutionists, who will do anything to make sure the conversation travels as far away from the challenge to their evolutionism as possible. They will latch on to anything as long as their precious religion is protected.


No challenge.

Evolutionists hate reading.

gcthomas
August 8th, 2015, 03:20 PM
That's right. The only problem here is the evolutionists, who will do anything to make sure the conversation travels as far away from the challenge to their evolutionism as possible.

So asking you to spell out the challenge is running way from the alleged challenge?

I'm surprised you are clever enough to remember to breathe. :chuckle:

Jonahdog
August 8th, 2015, 04:08 PM
If Stripe spells out the challenge then someone will call him on it. But he will fall back on his usual and not respond. Man up? Too late for that.

Cruciform
August 8th, 2015, 04:14 PM
If Stripe spells out the challenge then someone will call him on it. But he will fall back on his usual and not respond. Man up? Too late for that.

:thumb:

Stuu
August 8th, 2015, 04:30 PM
:kook:
That's one you got right!

Stuart

Stuu
August 8th, 2015, 04:41 PM
Admittedly, there seems to be some debate over the matter, but the knee-jerk reaction of evolutionists to a trivial assertion by a YEC shows how utterly committed they are to contrarianism rather than rational discourse.
Pot, kettle, black.

Just as with your other assertions, like the hydroplate comedies, the claim that the earth was created 6 thousand years after the agricultural revolution, and the flood fantasy, you are inventing a controversy that doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way anywhere else.

There is no debate to be had about the hydroplates. They are fantasies.

There is no debate about evolution. It is, if you will excuse my language, 'proved beyond any doubt'. There is debate about mechanisms, but not about natural selection as the general principle.

There is no debate about a global flood some few thousands of years ago. It is utterly disproved.

There is no debate about maths and science as disciplines. It's pretty clear how they differ from how they are used. Inductive logic is fundamental to science. Maths proves deductively, science doesn't prove (hence my quotation marks around 'proved beyond any doubt').

These are all examples of your 'contrarianism'.

Stuart

Stuu
August 8th, 2015, 05:07 PM
By being I mean one consciousness under God which all creation is.
I see. So you are talking about psychological states and mythological fantasies.


There is evedint intent through out all creation. It all strives for the same goal; the best existence possible.
This is something that I think people should really take some time to consider in detail.

Superficially the universe looks very ordered and full of intent, as if a superpowered human has set everything going for whatever purpose it had.

But cosmology really boils down to gravity; the illusion of design in living species is all down to evolution by natural selection; all events are regulated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a statement that implies events are spontaneous if energy or matter are spread out.

What is clearly true is natural selection has given us a very powerful sense of design, because that is central to our survival as a species. We are primed to read things into the merest suggestion of a pattern, even if no pattern really exists. That's how our ancestors survived the sabretooths on the African savannah. Those who reacted even when there was no sabretooth tended to survive ahead of those who didn't react. We see faces in everything: the surface of Mars, the moon, currant buns: the reason we see faces is because faces are so important to us. But those other faces we see aren't really there. The human brain is ripe for seeing intent where none exists.

So, what would you say cannot be explained without the concept of intent? I feel I have thought about this question in quite a lot of depth, and I haven't found anything.

Now you might argue that you need some kind of intelligence to set up these 'laws'. But with every passing century that god-of-the-gaps idea gets whittled down. Is your god a shrinkable one? Sure there are things that don't have an explanation yet, but you can't conclude intent from that.


Due to free will all humans have The potential for positive and negative e effects relating to our surroundings, and other life. We seem to be the only creatures hell bent on destroying our chances at meaningful life along with the rest of life on earth.
And what do you think free will is? The freedom to choose to leap over a building in a single bound? The freedom to make ethical choices of which religious zealots would disapprove?

Clearly there is no such thing as 100% free will. We are limited by genetics to have brains that work in a particular way, and those brains are the products of natural selection which is not a designer but a cobbler-together of things that 'just work'. The concept of free will is a religious platitude, not actually a helpful idea for analysing human behaviour.


What is your point? The op asked if science and Christianity were linked and gave the example of evolution. It has little to do with if scientist think humans are pertinent to existence or not.
Both christianity and science need mystery. But while science sees mystery as a challenge to explain, christianity has to protect mystery for its own survival.

Scientists come up with ideas then do their best to disprove them, but religions tend to ignore disproofs and carry on, accumulating stupid ideas as they go.

Science is interested in the whole universe, whatever it turns out to be like. Christianity seems really only interested in getting its members into the Heaven Club, one of the most selfish and deluded aims in all humanity.


Tell me of a single thing that doesn't go allong a preordained path other than humans.
An electron.


Your negativity is not welcome.
So you would rather everyone just agreed with you? I'm not being personal here; I would rather discuss ideas. But your ideas strike me as not very well thought-through. I am also keen to learn. What can you teach me?

Stuart

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 06:50 PM
Stuu,

No myth. Everything goes along a preordained path in order for the universe and existence to work as we know it. You can call it evolution. Evolution is the product of being that all has in order to be.

Even if the universe or big bang came to be from absolutely nothing, it couldn't have started itself if it is only nothing.

The laws you speak of were set in motion because they where what worked for creation. This was caused by creation. Remember, let there be light i.e. the big bang.

Free will is your conscience. It allows us to wander off the path that all other existence conforms to.
It is a gift with great potential and responsability.

Just because your biased knowledge that is based on manipulated religions doesn't add up within scientific examination doesn't mean that the truth does not.

God is all existence, you could refer to it as the universe if it made you feel better. So how is that selfish to try and get people to unify with the universe or creation or God?

Electrons are only half protons are the other. They have order.

Questions are great and very welcome, needless sarcasm and negativity are not needed to ask a question, or make a statement. Thanks.

Stripe
August 8th, 2015, 08:11 PM
So asking you to spell out the challenge is running way from the alleged challenge?Whatever it takes. That's the evolutionists' unspoken motto.

Arthur Brain
August 8th, 2015, 08:25 PM
Whatever it takes. That's the evolutionists' unspoken motto.

How about you just state what this "challenge" is exactly and then folk can address it?

Otherwise this is just typical mantra Stripe nonsense - that went way beyond tedious and dull about four and a half years ago. You've already made a complete plank of yourself in regards to maths being science so don't compound the matter...

Stuu
August 8th, 2015, 08:38 PM
No myth.
Humans aren't born of one parent. Humans don't walk again after they have been judicially executed. So, myth.

Christianity gets your commitment partly because of the principle that the more ridiculous the dogma you have to believe, the more commitment you will have to make.


Everything goes along a preordained path in order for the universe and existence to work as we know it. You can call it evolution. Evolution is the product of being that all has in order to be.
Two religious platitudes. Let me know when you have something meaningful to say.


Even if the universe or big bang came to be from absolutely nothing, it couldn't have started itself if it is only nothing.
Why not?

Matter and energy are borrowed from the gravitational energy of the inflation of space-time. If we ever go into a Big Crunch, a reversal of the Big Bang, then all the borrowed gravitational energy will be paid back. So the total energy of the universe is actually zero.


The laws you speak of were set in motion because they where what worked for creation. This was caused by creation.
Two more platitudes.


Remember, let there be light i.e. the big bang.
The Big Bang didn't release light at the start. And don't forget that your mythology has the earth created before the light. If you aren't using Genesis, then what the heck are you using?


Free will is your conscience. It allows us to wander off the path that all other existence conforms to. It is a gift with great potential and responsability.
Responsibility for what? This is another religious platitude. We can pretty much completely explain the phenomenon of the conscience with respect to our survival in tribal groups, and the selection pressure that has.

Compare that explanation with your just-so story of a 'gift', presumably from some 'giver', for which the unambiguous evidence is zero.


Just because your biased knowledge that is based on manipulated religions doesn't add up within scientific examination doesn't mean that the truth does not.
Huh?


God is all existence,
Religious platitude.


you could refer to it as the universe if it made you feel better.
Your universe has intent. Mine doesn't.


So how is that selfish to try and get people to unify with the universe or creation or God?
Because it is a lie, perpetrated to make the believer feel better.


Electrons are only half protons are the other. They have order.
Good grief.


Questions are great and very welcome, needless sarcasm and negativity are not needed to ask a question, or make a statement. Thanks.
Maybe the sarcasm is necessary.

Stuart

Stuu
August 8th, 2015, 09:00 PM
For those playing along at home, here are all Stripe's contributions to this thread, entitled ' Evolution... Do we believe? ', so far. I'm beginning to wonder if he might not be a genius:


Nope.
Evolution, regardless of prefix, is bunk.
Evidence easily shows that "micro" evolution contains no random mutations and no natural selection.
Yeah. I'm losing hair, therefore: EVOLUTION! :nono:
We must realize that science and Christianity deny evolution if we are honest and intelligent about our discernment of both.


Math is science. :Plain:


Evolutionists do not think math is science. :Plain:
Something so trivial should be simple to agree with, but not when a YEC says it.


:yawn:
:yawn:
Wake us up when you've got a rational argument.
No?
This guy thinks it is (http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html).
No?
These guys think it is (http://www.livescience.com/38936-mathematics.html).
Admittedly, there seems to be some debate over the matter, but the knee-jerk reaction of evolutionists to a trivial assertion by a YEC shows how utterly committed they are to contrarianism rather than rational discourse.


Evolutionists hate reading.


It agreed with me. I wouldn't have posted it otherwise. :idunno:
However, it seems clear that this subject is something of a philosophical quagmire. I just thought Alwight's comment showed a slight flaw.
Though I notice the evolutionists have seized upon a rabbit trail to deflect from the objection being made. Typical.
It doesn't help to "follow through" when you can't read.
Evolutionists will do anything to show that they are arguing with a YEC. They hate the notion that one of them might have said something correct, no matter how trivial.


:kook:

(Stripe got that one right).


Evolutionists hate reading.


You can't read and you call me a failure. :rolleyes:
Congratulations on steering the conversation as far away as possible from the challenge issued to your precious evolutionism.


I haven't made a mistake.
Evolutionists hate reading.


That's right. The only problem here is the evolutionists, who will do anything to make sure the conversation travels as far away from the challenge to their evolutionism as possible. They will latch on to anything as long as their precious religion is protected.
Evolutionists hate reading.


Whatever it takes. That's the evolutionists' unspoken motto.


Are we getting full value from our YECs?

I don't find any of this as entertaining and hilarious as I feel I have the right to expect.

Stuart

popsthebuilder
August 9th, 2015, 01:41 AM
Stuu,

Again just because you are confused on some smaller issues doesn't mean that there is no God or creator or creation or existence or universe.

Sorry, that isn't a principal, it's poorly thought out opinion. Assumption will just make you the nk something is true when it is way off. You may think I'm full of it, but I don't assume what I say pertaining to the rightious, and God.

Something meaningful? Look you think evolution is some thing evidently, all I'm sayin is that it is pertinent to
Productive existince, so what is your problem with what I said? Note; disliking me has little to do with theoretical discussion, and isn't a viable answer as far as I am concerned. Really, though, If you are trying to convince me that evolution is some survival of the fittest thing that at the same time has nothing to do with advancing to our highest capacity, then you might as well just not bother. Really.

Wow did you really say that. 0 equals 0 therefore nothing cannot create anything.

I'm not talking to sound interesting, or fun to you. I am speaking of truth in existence. Sorry it doesn't tickle your fancy. Don't ask next time, I guess. Why would you pretend to want real answers if all you want fun time stories. If you want stories then you should be a big fan of the bible which according to your hypocritical self is a fairy tail or myth. If you don't want to have serious discussion, fine. But stop pretending like you do, please.


Earth is the word used for matter. In the first few lines. No wonder you are so lost. Your comprehension isn't too great. That's okay though, that's why I'm here.

Wow you are really misusing the word platitude. Look it up maybe? Uhm, no, I, actually, am the first instance of the gift of free will being linked to potential, or responsability. So it is the opposite of a platitude.


Even if I was lying about it(which I will never due because I'm not really down with goin to hell) it still wouldn't be selfish you little ball of angst.

You can keep with the sarcasm if it helps you cope with being wrong about everything you posted, whatever. I'll just consider you little stewy till you fix you.

Thanks, little stewy.

gcthomas
August 9th, 2015, 02:12 AM
I don't find any of this as entertaining and hilarious as I feel I have the right to expect.

Stuart

He has been disappointing, just like those newly discovered comedians. You know, you see them on TV, and you think they are great, a breath of fresh air. Then each time you see them again if dawns on you that they only really had one idea, and it wasn't that good a one anyway.

He certainly needs some fresh material. "Evolutionists can't read" was a funny catch phrase for a while but it's getting a bit tired now.

:idunno:

Stuu
August 9th, 2015, 04:17 AM
Again just because you are confused on some smaller issues doesn't mean that there is no God or creator or creation or existence or universe.
I was being specific about christianity. But the conclusion that there is no god of the kind you believe in, or any intelligence behind the universe, is based entirely on the complete lack of any unambiguous evidence for any such thing. You can believe, but you have absolutely no good reason to do so.


Something meaningful? Look you think evolution is some thing evidently, all I'm sayin is that it is pertinent to Productive existince, so what is your problem with what I said? Note; disliking me has little to do with theoretical discussion, and isn't a viable answer as far as I am concerned. Really, though, If you are trying to convince me that evolution is some survival of the fittest thing that at the same time has nothing to do with advancing to our highest capacity, then you might as well just not bother. Really.
Natural selection doesn't have goals. Evolution happens in the direction of being fittest for survival and reproduction. When you think about it, those criteria are obvious.


Wow did you really say that. 0 equals 0 therefore nothing cannot create anything.
No. What I said was that the total energy of the universe is zero. That means that the net total of nothing came from an original state of nothing. The matter and energy we see are borrowed from the gravitational energy of the inflation of the universe. The gravitational energy is negative; we are in debt to it.


I'm not talking to sound interesting, or fun to you. I am speaking of truth in existence. Sorry it doesn't tickle your fancy. Don't ask next time, I guess. Why would you pretend to want real answers if all you want fun time stories. If you want stories then you should be a big fan of the bible which according to your hypocritical self is a fairy tail or myth. If you don't want to have serious discussion, fine. But stop pretending like you do, please.
Do you not believe I am serious?


Earth is the word used for matter. In the first few lines. No wonder you are so lost. Your comprehension isn't too great. That's okay though, that's why I'm here.
Ha•'a•retz, the word used in Genesis 1:1 means earth or land.


Wow you are really misusing the word platitude. Look it up maybe? Uhm, no, I, actually, am the first instance of the gift of free will being linked to potential, or responsability. So it is the opposite of a platitude.
A platitude is a statement that is written to appear impressive, but actually doesn't mean anything. Your platitudes were exactly that.


Even if I was lying about it(which I will never due because I'm not really down with goin to hell) it still wouldn't be selfish you little ball of angst.
I wouldn't worry about going to hell if I were you. It too is a lie.


You can keep with the sarcasm if it helps you cope with being wrong about everything you posted, whatever. I'll just consider you little stewy till you fix you.

Thanks, little stewy.
I see that by resorting to a sort of name-calling informality you have run out of proper arguments. I guess that must mean you agree with me. I can't remember anyone giving up so quickly before.

Stuart (as it is spelled)

Hedshaker
August 9th, 2015, 05:14 AM
Hello popsthebuilder,

You might find the video interesting, enjoy:-


?v=4Y5ia2CEt5c

Jonahdog
August 9th, 2015, 05:34 AM
Whatever it takes. That's the evolutionists' unspoken motto.

In a sense, our boy is correct. But the accurate statement should be more along the line of "Whatever it takes, that is evolution's motto."

Yes I know, evolution really does not have a motto. But it appears that is how it works. Whatever might give a population an advantage, even if it has some problems, works. Our eyes are not perfect (we can only see a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum for example), our upright stance often provides back problems, etc. But all-in-all we work. We work well enough to have become the dominant species on the planet (Well maybe except for cockroaches---but their overall impact is less---unless your spouse sees one in the kitchen!).

Why do honey bees die when they sting you? Would it not be better if one were able to keep stinging? Probably, but for the group, losing one individual from many in exchange for the warning to the predator is "just good enough"---"whatever works" based on efficiency.

oatmeal
August 9th, 2015, 06:29 AM
Many Christians dislike even uttering the word evolution, but we must be intelligent in our walk with Christ.

While we lack solid scientific proof of macro evolution, we understand microevolution occurs on a constant basis. The idea that Organisms can change and adapt is very easy to prove.

We must realize that science and Christianity can not only coexist, but complement one other if we are honest and intelligent about our discernment of both.

What think ye?

There is evolution with species, you can breed dogs to get different dogs, but they are always going to be dogs.

You cannot breed frogs long enough to produce kittens.

Genesis 1 everything after its kind. Kind is the word genos, from which we get the biological term genus.

In the horse, donkey world, you can breed a horse with a donkey and get a mule, but mules do not reproduce, the horse and donkey though close, are not close enough to produce reproducing animals.

Jonahdog
August 9th, 2015, 06:41 AM
There is evolution with species, you can breed dogs to get different dogs, but they are always going to be dogs.

You cannot breed frogs long enough to produce kittens.

Genesis 1 everything after its kind. Kind is the word genos, from which we get the biological term genus.

In the horse, donkey world, you can breed a horse with a donkey and get a mule, but mules do not reproduce, the horse and donkey though close, are not close enough to produce reproducing animals.

3 things;
1. If you buy the Noah story, then all intra species change happened in the last 4000 years or so, correct?
2. what prevents change from going beyond the species level?
3. in what language is genos = kind?

Stripe
August 9th, 2015, 07:28 AM
There is evolution with species.there is no natural selection and there is not random mutation. Also, "species" is a vague and malleable term, only useful for evolutionists who want to speak in ways that hide the fact that they assume the truth of their ideas and use it as evidence.

Dogs can be bred to get different dogs, but there is no evolution, or speciation, involved.


1. If you buy the Noah story, then all intra species change happened in the last 4000 years or so, correct?The bulk of it. Likely not all.


What prevents change from going beyond the species level?The limited size of the genome and the fact that random changes does not mean infinite changes. Put simply, a genome can be altered only so much before further changes would be terminal.

Stuu
August 9th, 2015, 07:56 AM
Dogs can be bred to get different dogs, but there is no evolution, or speciation, involved.
And nor is there any natural selection.

Stuart

Stuu
August 9th, 2015, 07:57 AM
1. If you buy the Noah story, then all intra species change happened in the last 4000 years or so, correct?
That's the thing with YEC evolution deniers. They believe in breakneck speeds of evolution.

Stuart

Daniel1611
August 9th, 2015, 08:08 AM
That's the thing with YEC evolution deniers. They believe in breakneck speeds of evolution.

Stuart

I can breed two dogs within months. 4000 years is plenty of time to do that. You can give it 400,000,000,000 years and they will never turn into hominids.

The Barbarian
August 9th, 2015, 08:28 AM
I can breed two dogs within months. 4000 years is plenty of time to do that. You can give it 400,000,000,000 years and they will never turn into hominids.

That's what evolutionary theory says. Hominids evolved from primitive primates. The idea that a carnivore could become a hominid by evolutionary processes is silly.

If you'd like to learn how we know how hominids evolved, we can talk about that.

Stuu
August 9th, 2015, 08:31 AM
I can breed two dogs within months. 4000 years is plenty of time to do that. You can give it 400,000,000,000 years and they will never turn into hominids.
I agree. So what?

Stuart

PureX
August 9th, 2015, 08:31 AM
Stuu,

No myth. Everything goes along a preordained path in order for the universe and existence to work as we know it. You can call it evolution. Evolution is the product of being that all has in order to be.

Even if the universe or big bang came to be from absolutely nothing, it couldn't have started itself if it is only nothing.

The laws you speak of were set in motion because they where what worked for creation. This was caused by creation. Remember, let there be light i.e. the big bang.Hi pops, I think I understand what you're saying, and I agree. I would just point out as a technicality; that the Theory of Evolution only applies to how life forms came to be as they are, once life began. It doesn't address the transcendence of life from from non-living matter and energy, or the source of matter and energy, itself.

Free will is your conscience. It allows us to wander off the path that all other existence conforms to.
It is a gift with great potential and responsibility.Again, I agree, but with some clarification. Existence seems to have sprung from the interplay between the chaotic force we call "energy", and the limitations that have somehow been indemnified within that force. So that the chaos manifests as random activity (chance), as the limitations manifest as order being imposed on the result of all that random activity. It is those limitations within the way energy expresses itself that generates and defines existence as we know it.

'Chance' is a fundamental aspect of existence. And I would contend that a human being's 'free will' is a direct expression of that 'chance' that is a fundamental aspect of existence. It's not unique to mankind. It's evident in everything, all around us.

Just because your biased knowledge that is based on manipulated religions doesn't add up within scientific examination doesn't mean that the truth does not.Amen, brother!

Religions are ways of expressing and living with the truth of our being as we understand it. That understanding is limited, and biased, and fraught with misperceptions. But the truth of our being remains. And so do the questions of purpose and origin. We're all looking through the glass, dimly.

Daniel1611
August 9th, 2015, 08:36 AM
That's what evolutionary theory says. Hominids evolved from primitive primates. The idea that a carnivore could become a hominid by evolutionary processes is silly.

If you'd like to learn how we know how hominids evolved, we can talk about that.

It's all silly.

nonanomanon
August 9th, 2015, 10:28 AM
Pot, kettle, black.

Just as with your other assertions, like the hydroplate comedies, the claim that the earth was created 6 thousand years after the agricultural revolution, and the flood fantasy, you are inventing a controversy that doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way anywhere else.

HAGGAI 2:21 Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;
HAGGAI 2:22 And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.
HAGGAI 2:12 If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
HAGGAI 2:13 Then said Haggai, If [one that is] unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.

The Gospel has no specific word that can be translated into "Evolution", but if we follow the presumption that "Genetic Dan and Aaron". Have closer genetic ties to the evolutionary period before the homosapien, then it follows their males can still impregnate chimpanzees, their closest genetic partner (whatever the scientific community has learned, never seems to associate the two, if you google any and all previous scientific observations on the subject). ... ... ... ... Where as the "Sons of God", are the closest Genetic Partner for the rest of man outside of that classification.

In Haggai, the Gospel says if the "Clean Brother" (Haggai 2:12) pollutes his body, it will see corruption. Now the Gospel makes a contrary statement that the "Unclean Brother" (Haggai 2:13) pollutes his body if he attempts to receive the blessing that the "Clean Brother" has received. ... ... ... ... We've tied this previously to certain medical activities such as vaccinations ... ... ... ... but it is also true, they are caused a deal of discomfort by the hearing of the gospel's message, and so they will literally rewrite the gospel to remove the Sons of God, just because of the difference in their spiritual nature. That being said, Italy has unified itself under the replacement theologies of the Apostle Paul, but in a sinful way, to remove the messiah and to replace the messiah with the image of a man, made in the image of themselves. ... ... ... ... This follows the global gross paganisms in the modern era that defies reasons and supports the high murder and suicide rates in certain members of the population, as you have learned ... ... ... ... if you challenge their ability to do that, they will only do it more ... ... ... ... (lives don't matter campaigns, promoting suicide by police officers, this is at the end of time, so it follows a natural progression).

There are a few arguments floating around ... ... ... ... that states the passage of Nibiru/Star Wormwood, happened a few times in the Gospel, generally (With Noah, With Abraham and Lot, With Moses, With Jesus Christ, and at the End of time), that marked evolutionary divisions or that has created greater rifts in genetic divisions, further separating Genetic Dan and Aaron, from the Genetic Pools of Manasseh, Judah, and Ephraim.

Spiritually speaking, at some level because humanity is allowed to have "Free Will", a slightly more archaic version of the Human Experience is more valuable as a compliment to the judgment program for some, then the more modern version. This differences genetically are small enough not to mean anything spiritually, outside of the realm of "Free Will", but they are consistent enough to create major divides in the biological function and limitation. Humanity has not evolved its sciences enough to make these differences clear, the Antichrist whoever he is does not want humanity to go into this direction. Its already to late given the timetable, however, just about all distractions from killing and attempting to kill the Antichrist on a daily basis are essentially absent, so there is more than enough of this activity to remove any qualms from the God Head about eliminating more then 95% of human life on earth in less then the few days we have remaining.

(Small Dehumanization statement is being attached: A Portion of Genetic Dan and Aaron have the ability to inherit the New Universe ... the gospel does not promote dehumanization as a consequence of "Free Will", more then it promotes Free Will as a consequence of the Judgement)

6days
August 9th, 2015, 11:27 AM
If you'd like to learn how we know how hominids evolved, we can talk about that.

If you would like to learn how God created woman from man's rib... read His Word.

gcthomas
August 9th, 2015, 12:35 PM
If you would like to learn how God created woman from man's rib... read His Word.

How did women become genetically distinct if they were cloned from men? Where did the second copy of the x-chromosome come from if chromosome duplication causes such illness as has been discussed already?

jgarden
August 9th, 2015, 01:05 PM
The focus on timelines (4000 vs 4 billion years) and mechanics (creationism vs natural selection) has embroiled Christianity in an unnecessary diversion that could have been avoided.

How God created the world is not a "make or break" issue and when the Church has gone "head to head" against science (ie Galileo) it has not produced the desired results.

Our focus of attention should be on why we are here, not how we got here.

Ben Masada
August 9th, 2015, 01:25 PM
Yes, I do. I believe in the evolution of the universe. It is called Expansion.

I believe in the evolution of the species: Human evolution through culture, intellect, education and growth of population. And evolution of the irrational animals through mutation and adaptation which affects man also; but animals are not affected by the human evolution of culture, intellect and education.

Stripe
August 9th, 2015, 01:49 PM
:mock: Stuu

Stripe
August 9th, 2015, 01:52 PM
How God created the world is not a "make or break" issue.It is called science. Feel free to butt out of the conversation if you don't care. :up:


When the Church has gone "head to head" against science.
You mean like with Galileo, the YEC?

alwight
August 9th, 2015, 03:01 PM
You mean like with Galileo, the YEC?
Darwin was a YEC until he learnt better. :Plain:

popsthebuilder
August 9th, 2015, 05:19 PM
HAGGAI 2:21 Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;
HAGGAI 2:22 And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.
HAGGAI 2:12 If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
HAGGAI 2:13 Then said Haggai, If [one that is] unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.

The Gospel has no specific word that can be translated into "Evolution", but if we follow the presumption that "Genetic Dan and Aaron". Have closer genetic ties to the evolutionary period before the homosapien, then it follows their males can still impregnate chimpanzees, their closest genetic partner (whatever the scientific community has learned, never seems to associate the two, if you google any and all previous scientific observations on the subject). ... ... ... ... Where as the "Sons of God", are the closest Genetic Partner for the rest of man outside of that classification.

In Haggai, the Gospel says if the "Clean Brother" (Haggai 2:12) pollutes his body, it will see corruption. Now the Gospel makes a contrary statement that the "Unclean Brother" (Haggai 2:13) pollutes his body if he attempts to receive the blessing that the "Clean Brother" has received. ... ... ... ... We've tied this previously to certain medical activities such as vaccinations ... ... ... ... but it is also true, they are caused a deal of discomfort by the hearing of the gospel's message, and so they will literally rewrite the gospel to remove the Sons of God, just because of the difference in their spiritual nature. That being said, Italy has unified itself under the replacement theologies of the Apostle Paul, but in a sinful way, to remove the messiah and to replace the messiah with the image of a man, made in the image of themselves. ... ... ... ... This follows the global gross paganisms in the modern era that defies reasons and supports the high murder and suicide rates in certain members of the population, as you have learned ... ... ... ... if you challenge their ability to do that, they will only do it more ... ... ... ... (lives don't matter campaigns, promoting suicide by police officers, this is at the end of time, so it follows a natural progression).

There are a few arguments floating around ... ... ... ... that states the passage of Nibiru/Star Wormwood, happened a few times in the Gospel, generally (With Noah, With Abraham and Lot, With Moses, With Jesus Christ, and at the End of time), that marked evolutionary divisions or that has created greater rifts in genetic divisions, further separating Genetic Dan and Aaron, from the Genetic Pools of Manasseh, Judah, and Ephraim.

Spiritually speaking, at some level because humanity is allowed to have "Free Will", a slightly more archaic version of the Human Experience is more valuable as a compliment to the judgment program for some, then the more modern version. This differences genetically are small enough not to mean anything spiritually, outside of the realm of "Free Will", but they are consistent enough to create major divides in the biological function and limitation. Humanity has not evolved its sciences enough to make these differences clear, the Antichrist whoever he is does not want humanity to go into this direction. Its already to late given the timetable, however, just about all distractions from killing and attempting to kill the Antichrist on a daily basis are essentially absent, so there is more than enough of this activity to remove any qualms from the God Head about eliminating more then 95% of human life on earth in less then the few days we have remaining.

(Small Dehumanization statement is being attached: A Portion of Genetic Dan and Aaron have the ability to inherit the New Universe ... the gospel does not promote dehumanization as a consequence of "Free Will", more then it promotes Free Will as a consequence of the Judgement)
I really try to follow your posts, and I'm usually relatively sharp. I get lost in your meaning every time, though. I guess that's how some feel about my posts.

popsthebuilder
August 9th, 2015, 05:21 PM
Yes, I do. I believe in the evolution of the universe. It is called Expansion.

I believe in the evolution of the species: Human evolution through culture, intellect, education and growth of population. And evolution of the irrational animals through mutation and adaptation which affects man also; but animals are not affected by the human evolution of culture, intellect and education.
So you think that man hasn't had any effect on the evolution of other living beings?

The Barbarian
August 9th, 2015, 05:22 PM
How did women become genetically distinct if they were cloned from men? Where did the second copy of the x-chromosome come from if chromosome duplication causes such illness as has been discussed already?

I guess he thinks it was magic. I can never understand why YECs can't figure out that God made nature to get things done. Even when He says it in Genesis, they won't believe Him.

everready
August 9th, 2015, 05:31 PM
I guess he thinks it was magic. I can never understand why YECs can't figure out that God made nature to get things done. Even when He says it in Genesis, they won't believe Him.

Jesus didn't use nature, he spoke and it was done.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


everready

6days
August 9th, 2015, 07:28 PM
Darwin was a YEC until he learnt better. :Plain:
Geneticist John Sanford and others were atheist evolutionists until they learned better.
And re Darwin... too bad he took theology, but never 'learned' scripture. He never did understand that God's Word provides the answers to things he struggled with such as human suffering and death.

6days
August 9th, 2015, 09:25 PM
How did women become genetically distinct if they were cloned from men? Where did the second copy of the x-chromosome come from if chromosome duplication causes such illness as has been discussed already?

I guess he thinks it was magic. I can never understand why YECs can't figure out that God made nature to get things done. Even when He says it in Genesis, they won't believe Him.
Nope... God's Word doesn't say He used magic.

You seem not to know God's Word... nor science.

God's Word
'And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” Gen 2:7

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.” Gen 2:21–22


Science
Obviously Eve was not a perfect clone... She was female. Adam was male

gcthomas
August 10th, 2015, 01:29 AM
Science
Obviously Eve was not a perfect clone... She was female. Adam was male

Except that you YEC guys tell us that chromosome duplication is extremely harmful to health. Either it is our isn't dangerous. Which is it?

Stripe
August 10th, 2015, 01:42 AM
Y'see? Evolutionists hate even acknowledging that a challenge to their precious religion exists.

MichaelCadry
August 10th, 2015, 03:05 AM
Nope... God's Word doesn't say He used magic.

You seem not to know God's Word... nor science.

God's Word
'And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” Gen 2:7

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.” Gen 2:21–22


Science
Obviously Eve was not a perfect clone... She was female. Adam was male


Dear 6days,

From what I understand, that was after God did wondrous things in the Universe, and critters, and other creatures to change by His Own Power. This micro-evolution is just to lead you to macro-evolution. If the living thing needs to 'adapt', He is in charge of the process that is necessary each time. He adds the genome, or RNA, or molecule, or atom needed to make the change(s) as needed. Angels cannot help them 'adapt'. Only God or Jesus can help them adapt. It takes a change in 'chemistry.'

Good For You, 6days!! You're Incomparable!!

Michael

Jonahdog
August 10th, 2015, 04:47 AM
Science
Obviously Eve was not a perfect clone... She was female. Adam was male

Channeling Donald Trump?

The Barbarian
August 10th, 2015, 07:30 AM
Barbarian muses:
I guess he thinks it was magic. I can never understand why YECs can't figure out that God made nature to get things done. Even when He says it in Genesis, they won't believe Him.


You seem not to know God's Word... nor science.

Well, let's take a look...

Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

See, no magic. He just used nature to created living things from non-living things.

Read your Bible.

Jose Fly
August 10th, 2015, 10:16 AM
there is no natural selection

6days says natural selection is real.


there is no evolution, or speciation

6days has posted examples of populations evolving, including rapid speciation events. He claims that natural selection, populations evolving, and speciation are all part of the "Biblical model".

Is he right?

nonanomanon
August 10th, 2015, 10:26 AM
Dear 6days,

From what I understand, that was after God did wondrous things in the Universe, and critters, and other creatures to change by His Own Power. This micro-evolution is just to lead you to macro-evolution. If the living thing needs to 'adapt', He is in charge of the process that is necessary each time. He adds the genome, or RNA, or molecule, or atom needed to make the change(s) as needed. Angels cannot help them 'adapt'. Only God or Jesus can help them adapt. It takes a change in 'chemistry.'

Good For You, 6days!! You're Incomparable!!

Michael

Evidence of the Last Evolutionary Period Recorded in the Gospel?

(Brief Summary Enclosed in Parenthesis Isolating Naphtali in Daniel 9's Figures)

"144,000 of Benjamin" = 1290, 1335, 1600, 1775
"200,000,000 of Naphtali" = 2300

Article Link (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111898&page=3) ... ... ... ... We've removed the figure of 2300 as a reference to the 6000 of Benjamin that are given Heavenly Salvation because, 2300 identifies with Joseph since it is listed in the description. (2Samuel21:19-20, 24x6=144,000 of Benjamin, and "Six" = 6000 of Benjamin Saved) (Judges 20 that lists the 144,000 of Benjamin, and it says in Judges 20:15 that 6000 of Benjamin is Saved in this Creation Program).

We will attempt to prove that 2300 is a reference to Evolutionary Cycles or the Last Evolutionary Cycle in this Creation, since it does not Correspond to Heavenly Salvation ... ... ... ... very small public safety notice reminding of the immediately cleansing of that portion of the population based on the level of force, Link (http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k492/psalmsamuel/stateID.jpg). Commentary Enclosed in Parenthesis)

DANIEL 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain [saint] which spake, How long [shall be] the vision [concerning] the daily [sacrifice], and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
DANIEL 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
LUKE 17:16 And fell down on [his] face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan.
LUKE 17:17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where [are] the nine?

144,000 of Reuben
144,000 of Benjamin
144,000 of Joseph
200,000,000 of Naphtali

Naphtali is the snare for Dan and Aaron, in the extreme sense that their genetic lines have the most resemblance to the period before the Homosapien, so that they are operating with a version of spiritual awareness that seems to isolate them from the truth of the spirituality in the gospel (the simple truth of the gospel's position). For this reason Naphtali as a spiritual classification is isolated from the "66 Souls Saved before the Foundation of the Earth (Reuben recorded in Luke 3), and the "6000 Souls Saved in the Creation Process (Benjamin for the 6000's years of Earth under the Homosapien), and in part the "Body of Satan" (a picture of Joseph, saved at the end of time). ... ... ... ... Euthanasia of Dan and Aaron is a consequence of Free Will, beyond the design of the Law's ability to mitigate the end of their lives as the gospel sees them. (As we've stated, their drive to kill themselves, by using force against the Antichrist, is the greater from of suicide, the "lives don't matter campaigns" and assaults against mankind is the lesser form of suicide).

Significance of 2300 of Naphtali?

Noah is the 10th Generation of Genesis 5, that introduces the Flood Waters, and Cleanses the Evolutionary Track, (Luke 17:16-17, Daniel 8:14) ... ... ... ... Noah's Life Span is 950 Years x 365 = 346750 Years x 24 Hours Per Day = 8322000 Hours / 3600 Sumerian Sar = 2300 of Naphtali in Daniel 8:14.


Nevertheless, other archaeological delegations in Mesopotamia doubted this wonderful intuition. The
mud layer where there were no room signs indicated, indeed, a flood. But, while the deposits of Ur and
al- 'Ubaid suggested the flood between the 3500 and the 4000 a.C, a discovered similar deposit later in
Kis was considered that it had formed in the neighborhood of the 2800 a.C. The same date (2800 a.C.)
was considered for found mud layers in Erek and Shuruppak, the city of Noah sumerio.
-12th Planet, Zechariah Sitchin, Chapter 14 When the Gods Fled the Earth

(3600 Hours is 150 Days of Star Wormwood, the Sumarians classified this as an Evolutionary Epoch) ... ... ... ... The Last Evolutionary Cycle ended, in 2300 B.C. (Not 2800 B.C. or maybe just about). With the events recorded in the Book of Genesis with Joseph.

About 4000 B.C. Noah's Evolutionary Epoch Ended
About 2300 B.C. Joseph's Evolutionary Epoch Ended
(No Evolutionary Epoch attributed to the other prophets if we follow Luke 17:16-17)

Beyond the creation of the Homosapien, that ended with Noah. God began to protect the Cascausian and Asian races from spiritual corruption, by giving them an ability to see the spirituality in the stars. As the genetic lines of Dan and Aaron fell into greater spiritual generational sin, God moved to protect the potential. So it is impossible for Genetic Dan and Aaron to be moved by the testimony of the Antichrist in the same way for this reason ... ... ... ... or for the most part for them to not to be motivated to kill to some level. This is simply a reality of what has transpired. That withstanding, we do not know until tomorrow if shane and the others will be returned or not, as we move towards the final reconciliations of Genetic Dan and Aaron, with the language of the gospel.

(God came close to introducing another Evolutionary Period with Moses, which is why he had put down so many ... ... ... ... if God would of continued to euthanized the dominant form of Genetic Dan in the earth, then God would of also evolved the caucasian and asian races into another level ... ... ... ... coincidentally, when the Holocaust was completed the dominant forms of Genetic Dan and Aaron, were pushed down a rung/step or two on the spirituality scale, that is what they were after, and achieved ... ... ... ... the opposite is also true, but the war on terrorism will not produce any fruit, since we are on a timetable with the extermination of more then 95% of human life on earth in less then about 15 days from tomorrow)

nonanomanon
August 10th, 2015, 11:35 AM
http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Funerals+Held+Amish+Girls+Murdered+Pennsylvania+fV hduxpxrcFl.jpg
Amish Isolation Genetic Decay Prevention. Article Link (http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/C8XDEiZ7Wdy/Funerals+Held+Amish+Girls+Murdered+Pennsylvania/fVhduxpxrcF).

GENESIS 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
GENESIS 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall [a child] be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

This is a restatement of Luke 17:16-17, in which God attempts to make a distinction in the Evolutionary Track. God declares now that spiritual wickedness or being unequally yolked can cause genetic malformation and illness.

When the European population began to populate the early USA, their populations had never been grouped so close together to specific ethnic divisions of the population. Genetic illness had been observed like it has never before been observed, infertility rates sky rocketed. Based on this belief, the Amish people cleansed all human life within a certain perimeter, that could cause this genetic malfunction. This follows the reclusive nature of the albino whites in Africa, they do in order to protect themselves from genetic decay. This side of the gospel provides validity to segregation in white neighbors, hospitals and in couples, and families. As apart of the protection of basic human rights.

(Slavery ... Civil Rights ... Equal Opportunity ... Terrorism ... Lives Don't Matter Campaigns ... Glory Killing, not yet at this level) They have simply created an excuse to become more inclusive into areas of society by creating a need that has to be satisfied. ... ... ... ... Some couples are told by their doctors to find a different neighborhood to move into, to assist in their fertility ... ... ... ... or likewise people go to remote areas, for months seeking miracle cures, and that in itself is the miracle cure, they simply needed some space from certain kinds and groups of people. (if shane and the others return ... you can take a small blood sample nothing much, the antichrist is perfectly ok despite the chemical and electrical treatment and the attempted conditioning, but he does not want the attention, since he is mitigating a public threat to society, whoever he is, and where ever he is in the earth).

The Barbarian
August 10th, 2015, 11:56 AM
This is already known in nature. Populations that commonly inbreed, have very few harmful recessive genes. The reason is, such genes would be rapidly removed from the population by natural selection.

On the other hand, harmful recessives are of little consequence in populations where outbreeding is the norm.

Stripe
August 10th, 2015, 12:03 PM
6days says natural selection is real.6days has posted examples of populations evolving, including rapid speciation events. He claims that natural selection, populations evolving, and speciation are all part of the "Biblical model".Is he right?

Evolutionists will do anything to avoid a challenge to their precious religion.

Jose Fly
August 10th, 2015, 12:50 PM
And apparently creationists can't figure out whether populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection are part of the "Biblical model".

Of course, in creationist world it's still up for dispute whether the earth moves, so that tells us what sort of people creationists are. :chuckle:

Stripe
August 10th, 2015, 01:09 PM
And apparently creationists can't figure out whether populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection are part of the "Biblical model".Sounds like something fairly simply resolved: Read the Bible and show us what it says to this subject. :up:


Of course, in creationist world it's still up for dispute whether the earth moves, so that tells us what sort of people creationists are. :chuckle:

No, it's not.

Meanwhile, evolutionists will do anything to avoid addressing the challenges their precious religion faces.

Jose Fly
August 10th, 2015, 01:20 PM
Sounds like something fairly simply resolved: Read the Bible and show us what it says to this subject.

I'm not a Christian, so I don't care what the Bible says. I'm noting that you creationists can't even figure out whether populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection are part of the "Biblical model of creation".


No, it's not.

Yes it is. There are several creationists at ToL who believe in a stationary earth.

Stripe
August 10th, 2015, 01:42 PM
I don't care what the Bible says.We know. However, if you were serious about your moronic challenge, you would do your research. :up:


I'm noting that you creationists can't even figure out whether populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection are part of the "Biblical model of creation".Therefore, something. :idunno:

When you've got a rational argument to make, we'll be right here.


Yes it is.

Nope.

Meanwhile, evolutionists will do everything in their power to avoid facing up to the challenges to their precious religion.

popsthebuilder
August 10th, 2015, 02:10 PM
Jesus didn't use nature, he spoke and it was done.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


everready
That doesn't excuse evolution or nature. It encompasses them.

popsthebuilder
August 10th, 2015, 02:18 PM
E solution doesn't happen in phases. It is the advancment of existence to the best of its ability based in time,and environment. It is of God as all existence is. Thanks.

Jose Fly
August 10th, 2015, 04:05 PM
We know. However, if you were serious about your moronic challenge, you would do your research.

It's not up to me to resolve creationists' internal inconsistencies. If you can't figure it out, that's your problem.


Therefore, something
Therefore whether populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection are part of the "Biblical model of creation" isn't a settled issue among creationists. And that's just hilarious.


Nope.
Yep. Plenty of creationists here believe in a stationary earth.

6days
August 10th, 2015, 06:01 PM
It's not up to me to resolve creationists' internal inconsistencies.
Jose... And, its not up to us to resolve evolutionists internal inconsistencies.
It is sorta fun though pointing out how often science has proven evolutionist arguments wrong and God's Word to be truth.

6days
August 10th, 2015, 06:06 PM
I'm noting that you creationists can't even figure out whether populations evolving, speciation.
We note that you evolutionists can't even agree on definitions to words such as speciation. :chuckle:

alwight
August 10th, 2015, 06:20 PM
We note that you evolutionists can't even agree on definitions to words such as speciation. :chuckle:I think there is currently some debate on whether YECs are a separate species? :think:

The Barbarian
August 10th, 2015, 06:32 PM
We note that you evolutionists can't even agree on definitions to words such as speciation.

It's one of the most devastating failures of creationism. As Darwin noted, if evolution is correct, it should be almost impossible to define a species, since they would in many cases, be evolving into new species, leaving only blurry lines between groups.

If creationism were true, it would be easy to define species. This is an embarrassing and intractable problem for creationists, who cannot explain why Darwin's prediction was confirmed.

6days
August 10th, 2015, 06:36 PM
I think there is currently some debate on whether YECs are a separate species? :think:
Yes..... Its true. Our halo's set us apart. :ha: However, interbreeding does take place with non-haloists... They do produce fertile offspring.

Alwight... I assume by your joking 'reply' that you agree ... there is some debate amongst evolutionists over words such as 'species'.

Jose Fly
August 10th, 2015, 10:28 PM
its not up to us to resolve evolutionists internal inconsistencies.

Um, no one in evolutionary biology cares what you do or don't do. Creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant.


We note that you evolutionists can't even agree on definitions to words such as speciation.

It's the evolution of a new species.

The question is however, are populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection parts of the "Biblical model of creation"? Stripe says they aren't, you say they are.

Stripe
August 10th, 2015, 11:53 PM
It's not up to me to resolve creationists' internal inconsistencies.Then feel free to butt out. :up:


Therefore whether populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection are part of the "Biblical model of creation" isn't a settled issue among creationists. And that's just hilarious.Great. When you've got something useful to contribute, let us know. :up:


Yep. Plenty of creationists here believe in a stationary earth.Names. :up:

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 01:34 AM
Yes..... Its true. Our halo's set us apart. :ha: However, interbreeding does take place with non-haloists... They do produce fertile offspring.

Alwight... I assume by your joking 'reply' that you agree ... there is some debate amongst evolutionists over words such as 'species'.Darwinian evolution rather requires that there is some blurring around the edges 6days else speciation wouldn't happen.
But YECs like Neanderthals will probably only be a dead end unless given a protected species status. :Plain:

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 02:47 AM
Darwinian evolution ... requires that there is some blurring around the edges ... else speciation wouldn't happen.Question-begging nonsense. You cannot justify the use of a non-definition because your theory predicts it should exist.


YECs like Neanderthals will probably only be a dead end unless given a protected species status.

Given that they have been persecuted for 2,000 years at least, I doubt the belief is going anywhere fast.

And it is evolutionism that is protected; just try questioning it in a school or university.

The Barbarian
August 11th, 2015, 06:14 AM
Question-begging nonsense. You cannot justify the use of a non-definition because your theory predicts it should exist.

As you learned earlier, evolutionary theory predicts that there should be no hard definition of "species.' Darwin himself pointed this out. It is a major flaw in creationism, which predicts well-defined taxa.

That was Kurt Wise's point. It's a serious problem for creationists, one that has never been satisfactorily answered.

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 07:58 AM
Question-begging nonsense. You cannot justify the use of a non-definition because your theory predicts it should exist.Only your YEC based misinterpretation is nonsense Stripe :rolleyes:.
It may have been a somewhat circular argument if it wasn't for the fact that the margins between what may be considered as different species being indistinct is actually very well evidenced in say "Ring Species".


Given that they have been persecuted for 2,000 years at least, I doubt the belief is going anywhere fast.

And it is evolutionism that is protected; just try questioning it in a school or university.Apparently science teachers and university professors typically prefer to teach and lecture science based in fact and evidence rather than adherence to myths and legends from ancient scripture, I suggest you get over it or get with it. :up:

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 08:09 AM
Only your YEC based misinterpretation is nonsense Stripe.Adding tu quoque to your list of irrational arguments doesn't help you.


It may have been a somewhat circular argument if it wasn't for the fact that the margins between what may be considered as different species being indistinct is actually very well evidenced in say "Ring Species".:darwinsm:

We are under no compulsion to agree that there is any such thing as a "species" until you clearly define it. And that you demand we have to accept evolutionism to justify leaving "species" undefined shows how utterly bankrupt your views are.


Apparently science teachers and university professors typically prefer to teach and lecture science based in fact and evidence rather than adherence to myths and legends from ancient scripture, I suggest you get over it or get with it. :up:
Meanwhile, my point stands. Evolutionism is protected, while YECs have been persecuted for 2,000 years. Your notion that creationism will soon be dead is utterly laughable.

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 08:59 AM
Adding tu quoque to your list of irrational arguments doesn't help you.
Since I have concluded that whatever science may offer will simply be considered as trumped by your well established YEC adherence to a literal Genesis (however rigorous and factually supported the science), then my expressed opinion here is imo more than supported by your past record. A new thread doesn't give you a clean slate Stripe. :nono:


:darwinsm:

We are under no compulsion to agree that there is any such thing as a "species" until you clearly define it. And that you demand we have to accept evolutionism to justify leaving "species" undefined shows how utterly bankrupt your views are. The royal "we" was it?
King of the fundies perhaps Stripe? :chuckle:
Ad Hominem? surely not...

I doubt that a "species" could ever be reasonably defined for your satisfaction Stripe because nothing must ever be allowed to detract from the YEC approved "Kinds" of course, but perhaps you can help sort that out with a nice clear and succinct YEC definition of "Kinds"?


Meanwhile, my point stands. Evolutionism is protected, while YECs have been persecuted for 2,000 years. Your notion that creationism will soon be dead is utterly laughable.While YECism otoh is protected by ignorance, blind faith and misinformation you might well be right.:Plain:

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 09:06 AM
Since I have concluded that whatever science may offer will simply be considered as trumped by your well established YEC adherence to a literal Genesis (however rigorous and factually supported the science), then my expressed opinion here is imo more than supported by your past record. A new thread doesn't give you a clean slate Stripe.Great. When you're ready to speak science and evidence, let us know. However, if you're just going to emote, that's gotten boring real quick. :yawn:


I doubt that a "species" could ever be reasonably defined for your satisfaction Stripe because nothing must ever be allowed to detract from the YEC approved "Kinds" of course, but perhaps you can help sort that out with a nice clear and succinct YEC definition of "Kinds"?Easy. A kind is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.

So, what is a species?

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 09:13 AM
Easy. A kind is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.

So, what is a species?Hold on, you haven't defined "Kinds" at all, you've simply baldly asserted that more modern creatures shared a particular common "Kind". :AMR:

6days
August 11th, 2015, 09:15 AM
As*you learned earlier, evolutionary theory predicts that there should be no hard definition of "species.' Darwin himself pointed this out. It is a major flaw in creationism, which predicts well-defined taxa.

Once again ... you demonstrate lack of knowledge of the Bible, then create a strawman to defend your belief system. As has been pointed out to you numerous times the biblical model is rapid adaptation. It is entirely consistent with the biblical model that we see numerous groups of very similar animals, some which have lost the ability to interbreed.*

'Species' is simply a term used by Biblical creationist*Carolus Linnaeus to define a group that can interbreed producing fertile offspring. We sometimes see breeding between organisms labelled as separate species (different finches as example). *But finches can't breed with cats..... humans can't breed with chimps. In Genesis 1, God tells us ten times that He created things after their kind.*

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 09:16 AM
Hold on, you haven't defined "Kinds" at all, you've simply baldly asserted that more modern creatures shared a particular common "Kind". :AMR:

Nope. Try reading again. If you do not know what any of those big words means, feel free to ask. :thumb:

Meanwhile, what is a species?

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 09:21 AM
Nope. Try reading again. If you do not know what any of those big words means, feel free to ask. :thumb:
I win then, by Stripe insult to my intelligence. :cigar:


Meanwhile, what is a species?
Easy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 09:26 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Great, so "differing measures are often used."

How are we supposed to have a discussion when you do not know what you are talking about?

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 09:31 AM
Great, so "differing measures are often used."

How are we supposed to have a discussion when you do not know what you are talking about?Like you can define a "Kind"?

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 09:32 AM
Like you can define a "Kind"?

A kind is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population. That means we can take today's population of people and in 10 years say that all of the descendants produced by it are of the same kind.

See how easy it is to define something?

Your turn. :up:

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 09:37 AM
A kind is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population. That means we can take today's population of people and in 10 years say that all of the descendants produced by it are of the same kind.

See how easy it is to define something?

Your turn. :up:
OK so there were original "Kinds" how about you now do what I asked and define them?
Doggy Kind, Kitty Kind, Monkey Kind isn't really good enough btw.

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 09:48 AM
How about you now do what I asked and define them?

Evolutionists hate reading.

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 09:51 AM
Evolutionists hate reading.
:rolleyes:
I'm not the one who is claiming that there is always a clear distinction, that in fact it's often blurred around the edges, you seem to be the one who thinks that original "kinds" convenienntly don't need any definition at all.

:wave:

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 09:55 AM
I'm not the one who is claiming that there is always a clear distinction, that in fact it's often blurred around the edges, you seem to be the one who thinks that original "kinds" convenienntly don't need any definition at all.
Evolutionists hate reading.

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 10:34 AM
Evolutionists hate reading.

:deadhorse:

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 11:07 AM
So, you aren't going to tell us what you mean when you say "species"? You're just going to keep using the term as if your implied demand that your evolutionism be assumed is reasonable.

YECs prefer a rational discussion; we will clearly define our terms up front and stick with them until they are shown untenable.

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 12:44 PM
So would it be fair to say that the definition of "species" is a vague and malleable term that can be used to group organisms?

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 01:26 PM
So, you aren't going to tell us what you mean when you say "species"? You're just going to keep using the term as if your implied demand that your evolutionism be assumed is reasonable.Most non YECs at least seem to have very little problem in understanding the scientific definition of a species similar to that Wiki link I posted earlier. Which is basically centred on individuals being of the same species if they can produce viable offspring. There is clearly a few minor points of difference on some of the detail of course, but it nevertheless remains a largely workable definition for more reasonable people to use.
However the typical YEC is much more interested in any possible discrepancies that can be picked at than in anything else, since ultimately anything that tends toward the common ancestry of all life and an old Earth must automatically be presumed wrong however good and rigorous the science is, if a literal Genesis says otherwise.


YECs prefer a rational discussion; we will clearly define our terms up front and stick with them until they are shown untenable.
This from AiG's statement of faith rather says otherwise:


"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

The above says that a literal Genesis will always trump any science even if it cannot be faulted. A more honest and informed YEC like Kurt Wise knows when science cannot be faulted and says so but simply chooses to believe the Bible anyway by faith alone not rationality.

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 01:33 PM
Most non YECs at least seem to have very little problem in understanding the scientific definition of a species similar to that Wiki link I posted earlier.The "definition" that says there is no clear definition?

And "most people say" is nothing approaching a rational argument. What you need to do is put a stake in the ground and defend your position.


Which is basically centred on individuals being of the same species if they can produce viable offspring. There is clearly be a few minor points of difference on some of the detail of course, but it nevertheless remains a largely workable definition for more reasonable people to use.Definitions don't work that way. We are talking science. When you make a claim, you have to defend that claim. Are you willing to defend your position using the "reproduction" definition of species?


However the typical YEC is much more interested in any possible discrepancies that can be picked at than in anything else, since ultimately anything that tends toward the common ancestry of all life and an old Earth must automatically be presumed wrong however good and rigorous the science is, if a literal Genesis says otherwise.
:yawn:

Wake us up when you're done emoting.

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 01:37 PM
The "definition" that says there is no clear definition?

And "most people say" is nothing approaching a rational argument. What you need to do is put a stake in the ground and defend your position.

Definitions don't work that way. We are talking science. When you make a claim, you have to defend that claim. Are you willing to defend your position using the "reproduction" definition of species?


:yawn:

Wake us up when you're done emoting.

:deadhorse:

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 01:43 PM
:deadhorse:

So you're plain not interested in answering, right?

Are you prepared to pick a definition of "species" and stick to it in a conversation?

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 01:47 PM
So you're plain not interested in answering, right?

Are you prepared to pick a definition of "species" and stick to it in a conversation?Perhaps you just hate to read what I wrote Stripe, Morton's demon (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton's_demon) no doubt. :Plain:

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 01:59 PM
Perhaps you just hate to read what I wrote Stripe, Morton's demon (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton's_demon) no doubt. :Plain:

So you're going to stick with the definition that says there is no set definition, right?

Would it be fair to say that your definition of "species" is a vague and malleable term that can be used to group organisms?

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 02:18 PM
So you're going to stick with the definition that says there is no set definition, right?

Would it be fair to say that your definition of "species" is a vague and malleable term that can be used to group organisms?You would no doubt like to spread any slight differences as far as you possibly can Stripe, but as I pointed out there is no real practical problem at least for more rational people who perhaps don't find it necessary to adhere literally to an ancient scripture.

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 02:31 PM
You would no doubt like to spread any slight differencesSlight difference in what? I'm asking you what you mean when you use the word "species." It looks like you want it to mean a number of different things, requiring an assumption of your evolution.

Is that accurate? Do you hold that "species" is a malleable term?

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 02:50 PM
Slight difference in what? I'm asking you what you mean when you use the word "species." It looks like you want it to mean a number of different things, requiring an assumption of your evolution.

Is that accurate? Do you hold that "species" is a malleable term?


Most non YECs at least seem to have very little problem in understanding the scientific definition of a species similar to that Wiki link I posted earlier. Which is basically centred on individuals being of the same species if they can produce viable offspring. There is clearly a few minor points of difference on some of the detail of course, but it nevertheless remains a largely workable definition for more reasonable people to use.:Plain:

6days
August 11th, 2015, 04:27 PM
Most non YECs at least seem to have very little problem in understanding the scientific definition of a species similar to that Wiki link I posted earlier.*Which is basically centred on individuals being of the same species if they can produce viable offspring.....

Such a flexible definition becomes somewhat silly when evutionists look at bones thousands of years old and try determine species. Scientists continually are reclassifying*live organisms..IE. *with huge anatomical differences between male and female sometimes; or between members of same species (poodle and great dane).*


An example of the silliness is with Neandertals. Even though they are similar to many modern humans, evolutionary assumptions lead to them being called a different species. Archaeological discoveries and DNA evidence show their humanity and show we are Neandertal descendants. But in spite of the evidence, many evutionists are reluctant to admit Neandertals are as fully human as us. ( They are descendants of Adam and Eve, as we are.)

Cruciform
August 11th, 2015, 04:29 PM
Evolutionists hate reading.
"Biblical Creationists" hate thinking.

The Barbarian
August 11th, 2015, 04:37 PM
Such a flexible definition becomes somewhat silly when evutionists look at bones thousands of years old and try determine species.

As Darwin predicted, it is often difficult or impossible. Creationism predicts neat and easily defined species. Evolutionary theory predicts that a hard definition of species is impossible. This is one of the reasons that creationism is not accepted by science.


Scientists continually are reclassifying*live organisms..IE. *with huge anatomical differences between male and female sometimes; or between members of same species (poodle and great dane).*

You've been misled. Poodles and great danes are not considered separate species.


An example of the silliness is with Neandertals. Even though they are similar to many modern humans, evolutionary assumptions lead to them being called a different species.

As you saw, creationists called them apes. In fact, genetic analysis shows them to be one of three subspecies of H. sapiens, with anatomically modern humans and denisovans.


Archaeological discoveries and DNA evidence show their humanity and show we are Neandertal descendants.

Not all of us. Most Europeans have a few Neandertal genes. But many humans do not. The two subspecies mingled mostly in Europe and West Asia.


But in spite of the evidence, many evutionists are reluctant to admit Neandertals are as fully human as us.

Show us that. Since genetic analysis has shown how close they are, scientists have acknowledged them to be subspecies of our own species.

Perhaps you're thinking of Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, who thought that blacks were genetically inferior in intellect and spirituality to other humans.

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 05:11 PM
Such a flexible definition becomes somewhat silly when evutionists look at bones thousands of years old and try determine species. Scientists continually are reclassifying*live organisms..IE. *with huge anatomical differences between male and female sometimes; or between members of same species (poodle and great dane).YECs probably aren't too interested in a reasonable working definition imo, they're only interested in that which might show some possible conjecture, no matter how trivial or unimportant. A bone of contention is better than conceding anything possibly dangerous to a literal Genesis perhaps?;)

Huge anatomical differences couldn't reasonably be expected to happen naturally imo.
Mind you I've just thought of the Black Widow spider now. :think:
Arguably a very early human might not be easily able to produce a viable offspring with a modern human, it isn't always an easy thing to define. Why creationists would insist that only a clear definition will do has probably more to do with defending their YEC doctrine than in any concession to factual reality.


An example of the silliness is with Neandertals. Even though they are similar to many modern humans, evolutionary assumptions lead to them being called a different species. Archaeological discoveries and DNA evidence show their humanity and show we are Neandertal descendants. But in spite of the evidence, many evutionists are reluctant to admit Neandertals are as fully human as us. ( They are descendants of Adam and Eve, as we are.)As far as I know many of us carry Neanderthal DNA, so some viable offspring must have emerged, it rather depends on the similarity of specific DNA. But face it they were physically different in many ways, how your A&E might have looked I'll let you decide for yourself. ;)

flintstoned
August 11th, 2015, 05:33 PM
evolution is just the religion atheists are using today

So Christians who believe in evolution, therefore believe in two religions?

6days
August 11th, 2015, 06:03 PM
..., but as I pointed out there is no real practical problem ....
Google "species problem"..
.
You will find thongs such as "One common, but sometimes difficult, question is how best to decide which species an*organism*belongs to, because reproductively isolated groups may not be readily recognizable"

Jonahdog
August 11th, 2015, 06:11 PM
Google "species problem"..
.
You will find thongs such as "One common, but sometimes difficult, question is how best to decide which species an*organism*belongs to, because reproductively isolated groups may not be readily recognizable"
Oh my goodness, science is not always totally accurate. How can we then proceed? Scientific understanding changes as more information about the real world becomes known. My oh my, would we not all be better off just accepting the cobbled together group of ancient myth?


Uh, probably not.

alwight
August 11th, 2015, 06:17 PM
Google "species problem"..
.
You will find thongs such as "One common, but sometimes difficult, question is how best to decide which species an*organism*belongs to, because reproductively isolated groups may not be readily recognizable"
Yes that was something from the wiki link I posted earlier. Most of the time however there really isn't too much of a practical problem for us except for biologists, or YECs perhaps.:juggle:

Jose Fly
August 11th, 2015, 07:24 PM
Then feel free to butt out.

Nah, it's far too amusing.


Names.

There's PneumaPsucheSoma, Aimiel, 1mind1spirit, fzappa13, and a few that seemed to be non-committal as to whether the earth moves.

Jose Fly
August 11th, 2015, 07:25 PM
Your notion that creationism will soon be dead is utterly laughable.

What are you talking about? Creationism has been 100% scientifically irrelevant for over a century.

Jose Fly
August 11th, 2015, 07:27 PM
OAs has been pointed out to you numerous times the biblical model is rapid adaptation. It is entirely consistent with the biblical model that we see numerous groups of very similar animals, some which have lost the ability to interbreed.

That sounds an awful lot like speciation via evolution.

Jose Fly
August 11th, 2015, 07:28 PM
A kind is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.

So all life on earth is the same "kind". Glad we could figure that out.

Stripe
August 11th, 2015, 08:37 PM
Which is basically centred on individuals being of the same species if they can produce viable offspring.
This is a vague description. What you need to do is put a stake in the ground and be willing to defend it. That is how science works. See, I gave you a definition up front that is easy to understand and useful, so I don't have a hard time explaining it or applying it.

Trying to get something substantial from an evolutionist is like pulling teeth.

The Barbarian
August 11th, 2015, 08:42 PM
Once again ... you demonstrate lack of knowledge of the Bible, then create a strawman to defend your belief system.

I'm just pointing out the facts. Creationism says that there are "kinds" and each kind was separately created. If this were true, species would be easy to define. On the other hand, as you learned, Darwin's theory requires that species be impossible to define in a way that covers all things.

This is one of the reasons why scientists don't accept creationism.


As has been pointed out to you numerous times the biblical model is rapid adaptation.

Give us that verse. Sounds like more of your additions to the Bible.

The Barbarian
August 11th, 2015, 08:45 PM
This is a vague description. What you need to do is put a stake in the ground and be willing to defend it.

Darwin's claim was that species should be impossible to define in every case. As you know, his claim has been verified. You're now demanding that science prove something it has shown to be false.


That is how science works.

No, that's not how it works. A theory is only about the claims it actually makes. You're trying to invent new claims and demand science verify them for you.

Since you were unable to come up with a testable definition that fits every case, you've essentially verified Darwin's claim.

alwight
August 12th, 2015, 03:02 AM
This is a vague description. What you need to do is put a stake in the ground and be willing to defend it. That is how science works. See, I gave you a definition up front that is easy to understand and useful, so I don't have a hard time explaining it or applying it.
Nonsense, I've explained what I think is the scientific position to my understanding and which makes sense to me, not put a stake in the ground. If my understanding is faulty then I have no intention of mindlessly holding my ground regardless.
Clearly you never intend to budge from your stake in the ground however many times you are shown that your YEC notions are faulty.

JosephR
August 12th, 2015, 03:23 AM
Nonsense, I've explained what I think is the scientific position to my understanding and which makes sense to me, not put a stake in the ground. If my understanding is faulty then I have no intention of mindlessly holding my ground regardless.
Clearly you never intend to budge from your stake in the ground however many times you are shown that your YEC notions are faulty.

i love honesty,and you are it :)

Stripe
August 12th, 2015, 04:34 AM
Nonsense, I've explained what I think is the scientific position to my understanding and which makes sense to me, not put a stake in the ground. If my understanding is faulty then I have no intention of mindlessly holding my ground regardless.Science doesn't work by declaring that definitions of words you use need not be definitions. What you need is an idea that is testable and falsifiable. Adopting a stance that lets you bring in exceptions every time a challenge is issued shows that you have no idea what science is.


Clearly you never intend to budge from your stake in the ground however many times you are shown that your YEC notions are faulty.:yawn:

Wake us up when you're done emoting.

6days
August 12th, 2015, 09:23 AM
Poodles and great danes are not considered separate species.
Try reading slower... that's what I said.

alwight
August 12th, 2015, 09:24 AM
Science doesn't work by declaring that definitions of words you use need not be definitions. :liberals:


What you need is an idea that is testable and falsifiable. :up:


Adopting a stance that lets you bring in exceptions every time a challenge is issued shows that you have no idea what science is.This from someone who will reject any science, however rigorous and well evidenced, should it happen to clash with a literal interpretation of a particular ancient scripture is a bit more than rich.:rolleyes:

However, science involves the explanation of evidence and facts, and sometimes one simple explanation does not fully cover all of it. There may not be one simple all inclusive definition of "species" but that doesn't mean that anyone is equivocating about it or being dishonest. Science at least is very capable of honestly adapting to all the facts and evidence.
What is being dishonest imo is dyed-in-the-wool YECs who would whinge and whine that science or Darwinian evolution has a problem because the definition of "species" is just a bit too vague (or woolly?) for them to accept ...but YECs won't accept any science if it contradicts Genesis!
If, somehow, the evidence instead seemed to suggest a young Earth and a miraculous creation of "kinds" a few thousand years ago then so be it let's change science, ...but since it plainly doesn't then that is why it is not science, not because science conspires against the truth.


:yawn:

Wake us up when you're done emoting.King fundie nods off again. :king:

6days
August 12th, 2015, 09:30 AM
YECs probably aren't too interested in a reasonable working definition
Wasn't it a Biblical creationist who is the father of modern taxonomy?

The point is that evolutionists seem to want concise definitions, (no problem) but bristle when they realize they have even bigger problems with definitions.*



Huge anatomical differences couldn't reasonably be expected to happen naturally imo.

God created organisms with great diversity...so much so that biologists sometimes have had difficulty knowing that the male and female are the same species. *With difficulties such as that between live observable animals, calling old bones a separate species is often based on evolutionary assumptions...not the scientific method.



Arguably a very early human might not be easily able to produce a viable offspring with a modern human, it isn't always an easy thing to define.

* *We are all descendants of "early humans"... We even know their names.*



As far as I know many of us carry Neanderthal DNA, so some viable offspring must have emergedNot "many"... its pretty much all of us, excluding Africans.*


*But face it they were physically different in many ways
Neandertals we're a distinct people group not unlike pygmies and others who are distinct. Neandertal skeletal differences fall within the range of some modern humans. Evolutionists attempt to deny the humanity of Neandertals, even though science has shown we are their descendants. (Not unlike how evolutionists in the past denied humanity of black people calling them savages who would someday be eliminated, or who thought women weren't as highly evolved as men. )

God's Word correct thousands of years ago...Correct now. All humanity is one blood.

Stripe
August 12th, 2015, 09:38 AM
This from someone who will reject any science, however rigorous and well evidenced, should it happen to clash with a literal interpretation of a particular ancient scripture is a bit more than rich.Nope.

Your stance is non-scientific, using terms that you can shift about when challenged. I have put my stake in the ground. If it is shown untenable, I will be forced to move it.


There may not be one simple all inclusive definition of "species" but that doesn't mean that anyone is equivocating about it or being dishonest.Definitions, by definition, define an idea. Tell us what your idea is and put a word to it. If you do not want to use "species," fine. :up:


Science at least is very capable of honestly adapting to all the facts and evidence.Nope. Science is throwing out ideas based on the evidence.


What is being dishonest imo is dyed-in-the-wool YECs who would whinge and whine that science or Darwinian evolution has a problem because the definition of "species" is just a bit too vague (or woolly?) for them to accept ...but YECs won't accept any science if it contradicts Genesis!:yawn:

Wake us up when you're done emoting.

alwight
August 12th, 2015, 10:07 AM
Nope.

Your stance is non-scientific, using terms that you can shift about when challenged. I have put my stake in the ground. If it is shown untenable, I will be forced to move it.
Stripe, fundies like you are obliged to adhere to a literal Genesis, come hell or high water admit it, it cannot be allowed to be wrong, whatever science may rigorously conclude. That is the only reason why you reject "species" for "kinds", be honest, rationality doesn't come into it.


Definitions, by definition, define an idea. Tell us what your idea is and put a word to it. If you do not want to use "species," fine. :up:"Species" as it stands is more than adequate to explain the idea for most rational people including me.


Nope. Science is throwing out ideas based on the evidence.You think that science is dishonest because it throws out (falsifies?) ideas based in evidence?

Stripe
August 12th, 2015, 10:30 AM
Stripe, fundies like you are obliged to adhere to a literal Genesis, come hell or high water admit it, it cannot be allowed to be wrong, whatever science may rigorously conclude. That is the only reason why you reject "species" for "kinds", be honest, rationality doesn't come into it.

Nope. Evidence, remember? That's what science is concerned with.

On the other hand, you are yet to provide anything remotely approaching a rational contribution to a scientific discussion; even vacillating on whether there is a definition of "species."

Forget being able to challenge any of your ideas; you haven't suggested anything concrete that might be tested.

However, the YEC camp has provided a clear and concise definition of "kind," which has shown itself to be useful as a tool to determine fact from fiction.


"Species" as it stands is more than adequate to explain the idea for most rational people including me.And yet you will not explain what it is. You just use the term and carry a myriad of definitions from which you can pluck a suitable one to deny any challenge to your precious religion exists.


You think that science is dishonest because it throws out (falsifies?) ideas based in evidence?:chuckle:

I've not used the word "dishonest" in this thread.

That would be you; desperate to deflect attention from the paucity of your ideas.

alwight
August 12th, 2015, 10:48 AM
Wasn't it a Biblical creationist who is the father of modern taxonomy?Darwin was a Biblical creationist at one time.:idea:


The point is that evolutionists seem to want concise definitions, (no problem) but bristle when they realize they have even bigger problems with definitions.About God and YECism? Seems to me what is actually required is some evidence beyond what some people believe from ancient scripture, it needn't be perfect. :nono:


God created organisms with great diversity...so much so that biologists sometimes have had difficulty knowing that the male and female are the same species. *With difficulties such as that between live observable animals, calling old bones a separate species is often based on evolutionary assumptions...not the scientific method.Some specific evidence might be nice and we might find out how their conclusions were arrived at.


* *We are all descendants of "early humans"... We even know their names.*
You might believe you do, but I personally have my doubts that your ancient scripture is as reliable as you want it to be, myth/legend and historical fact are not necessarily the same thing.


Not "many"... its pretty much all of us, excluding Africans.*Sounds interesting what is your source?


Neandertals we're a distinct people group not unlike pygmies and others who are distinct. Neandertal skeletal differences fall within the range of some modern humans. Evolutionists attempt to deny the humanity of Neandertals, even though science has shown we are their descendants. (Not unlike how evolutionists in the past denied humanity of black people calling them savages who would someday be eliminated, or who thought women weren't as highly evolved as men. )
Who and when exactly is attempting to deny their humanity? You wouldn't be going back to the 19th century would you, things have moved on a bit since then?


God's Word correct thousands of years ago...Correct now. All humanity is one blood.If you say so. :rolleyes:

alwight
August 12th, 2015, 11:05 AM
Nope. Evidence, remember? That's what science is concerned with.

On the other hand, you are yet to provide anything remotely approaching a rational contribution to a scientific discussion; even vacillating on whether there is a definition of "species."

Forget being able to challenge any of your ideas; you haven't suggested anything concrete that might be tested.

However, the YEC camp has provided a clear and concise definition of "kind," which has shown itself to be useful as a tool to determine fact from fiction.
Stripe, I doubt that there will ever be a rational scientific definition of "species" that you will not quibble with. The existing scientific explanation should be quite good enough for reasonable people, but sadly you are obliged to quibble with any such definition. The fact is that in your world there can only be "kinds", however well and comprehensively "species" are defined for you.

Stripe
August 12th, 2015, 11:19 AM
I doubt that there will ever be a rational scientific definition of "species."That seems likely. Wiki admits that the term is highly variable. I've seen as many as 14 definitions for the word. You can't even decide whether you're going to define it as organisms that can reproduce or stick with the "no definition" nonsense.


that you will not quibble with.To talk science, you need to be precise and consistent in the words you use. Introducing a word that so readily disguises the fact that what you are talking about is constant equivocation is the antithesis of science.

In this very thread, evolutionists have used the word "species" as if it is evidence for what they believe, when what they believe requires a malleable term to insulate their ideas from challenges.


The existing scientific explanation should be quite good enough for reasonable people.Because you say so? Or are you going to issue an appeal to popularity?

"Species" is not a scientific term until you define it. You cannot define it as a myriad of things and then use it as if it is a solid concept.


You are obliged to quibble with any such definition.You haven't provided a definition. You've vacillated between nonsense and equivocation.


The fact is that in your world there can only be "kinds", however well and comprehensively "species" are defined for you.Nope. I'd be happy to talk about "species" if you are willing to stick with a definition.

However, evolutionists are at their happiest when they can waffle on about nonsense; it helps them keep their distance from the challenges they face.

YECs have raised a number of challenges to the evolutionary model and they have been systematically ignored. You blokes aren't doing science; you're protecting a religion.

If you defined "species," we'd raise a whole lot more. Added incentive for you to keep spouting noise.

alwight
August 12th, 2015, 11:25 AM
Since Stripe is now to resorting to editing my text to say something else then :wave2:.

Stripe
August 12th, 2015, 11:26 AM
Since Stripe is now to resorting to editing my text to say something else then :wave2:.

:wave2:

Whadda :loser:

james84
August 12th, 2015, 12:36 PM
Evolution doesn't bother me the more and more I understand how the world works and how God could have made things come about

Stripe
August 12th, 2015, 12:55 PM
Evolution doesn't bother me the more and more I understand how the world works and how God could have made things come about

Great. Another moron who has invented his own god.

james84
August 12th, 2015, 12:55 PM
Yeah stripe, that's it. Stop reading scripture as a science textbook

Stripe
August 12th, 2015, 01:02 PM
Yeah stripe, that's it. Stop reading scripture as a science textbook

Why? It's got more scientific content than three years of a geology degree.

Ever been schooled in a hard science, or were you just planning on using your feelings as evidence?

james84
August 12th, 2015, 01:03 PM
No stripe, I just don't care for the false science young earthers use. I would like a honest examination and not that has to be the way it was

Stripe
August 12th, 2015, 01:05 PM
I would like a honest examination.

So you thought you'd open up with a "poisoning the well" fallacy? :AMR:

How about this: You point out one large-scale geomorphological feature in terrain view on Google Maps and I will show you how it points to the Biblical account and denies your nascent evolutionism. :up:

The Barbarian
August 12th, 2015, 01:05 PM
Wasn't it a Biblical creationist who is the father of modern taxonomy?

A creationist, but of course not a YE creationist. That wasn't invented until the 20th century. He did discover the nested hierarchy of taxa that only happens in case of common descent.

He was shook when his investigation showed that there was no essential difference between humans and other apes:

I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character, by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I should have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so.
Carolus Linnaeus
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/05/23/linnean-quote-of-the-day/


The point is that evolutionists seem to want concise definitions, (no problem)

As you know, evolutionary theory says that there should be no possible definition of "species" that applies in all cases. Stipe claims there is one, (as creationism requires), but can't show it to us. Maybe you will?

Originally Posted by alwight
As far as I know many of us carry Neanderthal DNA, so some viable offspring must have emerged


Not "many"... its pretty much all of us, excluding Africans.*

And many creationists argued that Africans aren't fully human, so it's not surprising you think so.


God's Word correct thousands of years ago...Correct now. All humanity is one blood.

That's not what creationists have said. Agassiz, for example, denied that blacks had a common ancestor with other humans. The director of the ICR claimed that blacks have a genetic character that makes them intellectually and spiritually inferior to other humans.

The Barbarian
August 12th, 2015, 01:12 PM
How about this: You point out one geomorphological feature in terrain view on Google Maps and I will show you how it points to the Biblical account and denies your nascent evolutionism.

I will assume you mean your revision of the Biblical account.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.Bi5DuXIO8fFSHKszLUspIg&pid=15.1&P=0

Hairpin turns and vertical walls close to a kilometer high. Explain how a sudden flood did this.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.VWJGrA3%2bzb6NSKsFCYBfJw&pid=15.1&P=0

New Zealand is composed of volcanic islands, formed by eruptions along a convergent boundary between plates. There are no possible ways land animals could have gotten there, no lost land bridges or other routes. And accordingly, until humans got there, only birds and bats among vertebrates, lived there.

So the Moas had to have flown there, and then evolved to a flightless condition.

Stripe
August 12th, 2015, 01:25 PM
Blablarian and his "kilometer-high vertical walls" again. :chuckle:

Stripe
August 12th, 2015, 01:33 PM
:mock: Allwrong.

The Barbarian
August 12th, 2015, 01:39 PM
Stipe challenges:

How about this: You point out one geomorphological feature in terrain view on Google Maps and I will show you how it points to the Biblical account and denies your nascent evolutionism.

(Barbarian shows him two)

(Stipe runs away from his own challenge)

Q.E.D.

Jonahdog
August 12th, 2015, 04:44 PM
:mock: Allwrong.

Because?

6days
August 12th, 2015, 05:11 PM
Darwin was a Biblical creationist at one time

Darwin was a creationist perhaps but with poor Biblical knowledge.*

But, that is simply your attempt at moving goalposts. You suggested creationists aren't interested in taxonomy. I asked if it wasn't a Biblical creationist who is considered the father of taxonomy.*


About God and YECism? Seems to me what is actually required is*some*evidence beyond what some people believe from ancient scripture
Evidence is everywhere Alwight.*

Look at the heavens....
"The heavens declare the glory of God "

Look at the world around you.*
"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

*Look at evidence from genetics, archaeology, geology, biology, chemistry, paleontology etc.*





Not "many"... its pretty much*all*of us, {descendants of Neandertals}excluding Africans.
Sounds interesting what is your source?
Yes... it is very interesting since evolutionists once claimed Neandertals were dimwitted, stooped over hairy creatures incapable of breeding with humans.*

"If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of*Molecular Biology and Evolution."
http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.htm




Neandertals we're a distinct people group not unlike pygmies and others who are distinct. Neandertal skeletal differences fall within the range of some modern humans. Evolutionists attempt to deny the humanity of Neandertals, even though science has shown we are their descendants. (Not unlike how evolutionists in the past denied humanity of black people calling them savages who would someday be eliminated, or who thought women weren't as highly evolved as men. )

Who and when exactly is attempting to deny their humanity? You wouldn't be going back to the 19th century would you, things have moved on a bit since then?

19th century? No... August 2015 evolutionists still try portray Neandertals as less than ourselves.*





God's Word correct thousands of years ago...Correct now. All humanity is one blood.
If you say so.*
No... God's Word says so, and science helps confirm it.

6days
August 12th, 2015, 05:35 PM
Evolution doesn't bother me the more and more I understand how the world works and how God could have made things come aboutEvolution SHOULD bother you as a Christian if you are referring to common ancestry beliefs which contradict God's Word. God's Word explains that Jesus, Last Adam, had to physically die to defeat curse of physical death, caused by sin of first Adam, who was "at the beginning of creation".
Accepting common ancestry beliefs leads to a compromised and illogical gospel. Better to accept God's Word and the science supporting it..

Jonahdog
August 12th, 2015, 06:29 PM
Evolution SHOULD bother you as a Christian if you are referring to common ancestry beliefs which contradict God's Word. God's Word explains that Jesus, Last Adam, had to physically die to defeat curse of physical death, caused by sin of first Adam, who was "at the beginning of creation".
Accepting common ancestry beliefs leads to a compromised and illogical gospel. Better to accept God's Word and the science supporting it..

Except science does not support your particular deity's word. Nice try but remains irrational

Daniel1611
August 12th, 2015, 06:32 PM
I can't accept such nonsense as evolution. The more you listen to their nonsense, the less sense it makes. There are plenty of non Christians that reject evolution as well.

alwight
August 12th, 2015, 06:51 PM
Darwin was a creationist perhaps but with poor Biblical knowledge.

But, that is simply your attempt at moving goalposts. You suggested creationists aren't interested in taxonomy. I asked if it wasn't a Biblical creationist who is considered the father of taxonomy.
My point was really that when Darwin was young most people in his society would probably have been creationists, the Bible was at the time the most accepted explanation for life. But we know better these days of course, modern life evolved over many millions of years and wasn't magically created. ;)


Evidence is everywhere Alwight
Yes, the ground we walk on contains so many different forms of evidence.


Look at the heavens....
"The heavens declare the glory of God "
A view of the distant past is still available to see right now from the depths of space, light from billions of years ago is only just getting here now. Confirmation of the great age of the universe of course, even if a god had something to do with it.


Look at the world around you.*
"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."
I think that the world probably accreted rather than was miraculously created. Why that could only mean your version of God I really do not know.


Look at evidence from genetics, archaeology, geology, biology, chemistry, paleontology etc.
Yes a clear record of Darwinian evolution and the great age of the Earth is well evidenced.



Yes... it is very interesting since evolutionists once claimed Neandertals were dimwitted, stooped over hairy creatures incapable of breeding with humans.
I think that view has rather receded somewhat these days.


"If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of*Molecular Biology and Evolution."
http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.htmNew in 2011 anyway.


19th century? No... August 2015 evolutionists still try portray Neandertals as less than ourselves.Really, why would they do that do you think? I don't.


No... God's Word says so, and science helps confirm it.I hear you but I don't hear God. :nono:

6days
August 12th, 2015, 07:07 PM
*...YE creationist. That wasn't invented until the 20th century.
Your argument was shown to be dishonest before... I would think your argument might evolve a bit.



He (Carolus Linnaeus )did discover the nested hierarchy of taxa that only happens in case of common descent.
Besides being wrong... its a totally different argument than what was being discussed.

User Name
August 12th, 2015, 07:08 PM
Because?

Because... just because! Isn't that good enough of a reason for you?

Stripe
August 12th, 2015, 07:44 PM
Because... just because! Isn't that good enough of a reason for you?

:troll:

Isn't there a Wiki link you should be preparing?

The Barbarian
August 12th, 2015, 08:22 PM
6days writes:

19th century? No... August 2015 evolutionists still try portray Neandertals as less than ourselves.

We'll know that when you show us something from the literature that says so. You're making stuff up again, aren't you?

As you know, creationists called Neandertals "apes", and didn't even consider them human.

But modern genetics, with DNA analysis shows that they are a subspecies of H. sapiens.

Remember, give us that cite from the literature. Assuming you didn't just make it up.

6days
August 12th, 2015, 08:26 PM
My point was really that when Darwin was young most people in his society would probably have been creationists
Perhaps true... and it's an interesting point. Darwin seems to have been heavily influenced by evolutionists that preceded him such as Patrick Matthew and his grandfather Erasmus.



the Bible was at the time the most accepted explanation for life. But we know better these days of course, modern life evolved over many millions of years and wasn't magically created.
Science helps us understand that the universe and life didn't magically pop into existence. Science helps us understand our universe and life are evidence of an Intelligent Creator.



A view of the distant past is still available to see right now from the depths of space, light from billions of years ago is only just getting here now.

That is your belief based on the 'religion' of God didn't do it. My belief is that God stretched the heavens out. Evidence for my 'religion' includes mature galaxies in what you believe is the distant past.*




Look at the world around you.
"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."
I think that the world probably*accreted*rather than was miraculously created. Why that could only mean your version of God I really do not know.

You think the world accreted because you believe in Goldilocks stories 'it was just right'. You essentially need to believe that our universe which appears designed, was uncaused. You have an illogical belief, because everything we know which begins to exist..... always has a cause. You believe, it would seem, that nothing caused everything and that life comes from non life.




Look at evidence from genetics, archaeology, geology, biology, chemistry, paleontology etc.Yes a clear record of Darwinian evolution and the great age of the Earth is well evidenced.
Shifting the goalposts... you asked for evidence, but you suddenly shift to interpretation of evidence.*

(Evidence from genetics, astronomy, geology etc provide excellent evidence for the truth of God's Word and the young earth)




Yes... it is very interesting since evolutionists once claimed Neandertals were dimwitted, stooped over hairy creatures incapable of breeding with humans.
I think that view has rather receded somewhat these days.
Thanks to science some of those evolutionary beliefs have receded. *





"If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of*Molecular Biology and Evolution."

http://news.discovery.com/human/gene...hal-110718.htm
New in 2011 anyway.
What does the date have to do with what we were discussing? You asked for evidence that we are descendants of Neandertals.*





...evolutionists still try portray Neandertals as less than ourselves.
Really, why would they do that do you think?
Simple.... evolutionists believe human intelligence and humanity evolved from apes. So it's a tough pill when science shows Neandertals as human as you and I... That is the Biblical model.*

The Barbarian
August 12th, 2015, 08:29 PM
Barbarian observes:
YE creationist. That wasn't invented until the 20th century.

6days writes:
Your argument was shown to be dishonest before...

Well, let's take a look...

The Protestant consensus since the time of the Reformation has been that the physical universe and its history are real, not illusory. As God’s creation, the physical world conveys genuine information about the Creator and can serve to inform our interpretations of the Bible. Therefore, when geologists (many of them devout Christians) in the early 1800’s found that the rock layers showed the earth to be far older than the 6000 years derived from a literal reading of Genesis, Bible-believing Christians did not ignore, suppress, or lie about these findings. Rather, they adjusted their interpretation of the relevant Bible passages away from a simplistic literal reading, just as they had done 200 years earlier with the verses that depicted a stationary earth. Through about 1960, nearly all Christians, including conservative Old Testament scholars and most fundamentalists, were comfortable with interpretations of Genesis which accommodated an earth that was many millions of years old.

Today’s young earth creationism is based on “Flood geology”. Flood geology, which teaches that most sedimentary rock layers were deposited in a single global Flood about 2500 B.C., was developed in its modern form in the early twentieth century by Seventh-day Adventist George M. Price to conform to visions of a six-day creation reported by Adventist prophetess Ellen White. Despite being advised by geologists that it was incorrect, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris took over Price’s Flood geology and repackaged it in The Genesis Flood (1961), which rapidly became dogma among conservative Protestants. Like White, Whitcomb and Morris assumed their interpretation of the Bible was infallible, which justified ignoring and distorting any scientific findings which did not agree with their Flood geology.

Thus, modern young earth creationism did not develop from improved Bible exegesis or new geological findings. Rather, it derives from extra-biblical revelation or assumptions, and scientific claims known at the time to be false. This approach is at odds with the historic Christian understanding of God’s works and God’s Word.
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/exposing-the-roots-of-young-earth-creationism/

But you already know this. Do you think repeated denial will help you?

Barbarian observes:
He (Carolus Linnaeus )did discover the nested hierarchy of taxa that only happens in case of common descent. And he wrote that he probably should have classified humans as apes.


Besides being wrong...

That's testable. Give us an example in nature. Prediction: no such example will be forthcoming.

Jose Fly
August 12th, 2015, 10:25 PM
However, the YEC camp has provided a clear and concise definition of "kind," which has shown itself to be useful as a tool to determine fact from fiction.

Yep, and by your definition, all life on earth is the same "kind".

alwight
August 13th, 2015, 04:05 AM
My point was really that when Darwin was young most people in his society would probably have been creationists
Perhaps true... and it's an interesting point. Darwin seems to have been heavily influenced by evolutionists that preceded him such as Patrick Matthew and his grandfather Erasmus.
The idea of some form of evolution clearly didn't start with Charles Darwin, but the possibilities of evolution by natural selection only became more realistic after the famous pioneer of geology James Hutton showed the great age of the Earth as evidenced in the ground.
When evidence is brought together from all fields of natural science the wider picture can be seen more clearly.



the Bible was at the time the most accepted explanation for life. But we know better these days of course, modern life evolved over many millions of years and wasn't magically created.
Science helps us understand that the universe and life didn't magically pop into existence. Science helps us understand our universe and life are evidence of an Intelligent Creator.Science hasn't exactly replaced any god but afaic it has debunked YECism as a by-product.



A view of the distant past is still available to see right now from the depths of space, light from billions of years ago is only just getting here now.
That is your belief based on the 'religion' of God didn't do it. My belief is that God stretched the heavens out. Evidence for my 'religion' includes mature galaxies in what you believe is the distant past.Rubbish, that is my belief based on science, the observable evidence and the speed of light, not whether a god was behind it originally or not.





Look at the world around you.
"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."
I think that the world probably*accreted*rather than was miraculously created. Why that could only mean your version of God I really do not know.
You think the world accreted because you believe in Goldilocks stories 'it was just right'. You essentially need to believe that our universe which appears designed, was uncaused. You have an illogical belief, because everything we know which begins to exist..... always has a cause. You believe, it would seem, that nothing caused everything and that life comes from non life.I don't claim to have any beliefs about the ultimate cause of the universe but I see no reason to have a very specific supernatural belief.
I therefore restrict my beliefs to only those based in the physically possible rather than the miraculous.





Look at evidence from genetics, archaeology, geology, biology, chemistry, paleontology etc.
Yes a clear record of Darwinian evolution and the great age of the Earth is well evidenced.
Shifting the goalposts... you asked for evidence, but you suddenly shift to interpretation of evidence.*

(Evidence from genetics, astronomy, geology etc provide excellent evidence for the truth of God's Word and the young earth)If there is a rational alternative naturalistic explanation then what you rush to conclude is evidence of your God is not in fact evidence of anyone's specific god or even a god.





Yes... it is very interesting since evolutionists once claimed Neandertals were dimwitted, stooped over hairy creatures incapable of breeding with humans.
I think that view has rather receded somewhat these days.
Thanks to science some of those evolutionary beliefs have receded.
I don't see Neanderthals as being particularly relevant to Darwinian evolution, just an incidental feature of interest. They simply show that forms of human life also adapt, come and go just as with other life.





"If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of*Molecular Biology and Evolution."

http://news.discovery.com/human/gene...hal-110718.htm

New in 2011 anyway.
What does the date have to do with what we were discussing? You asked for evidence that we are descendants of Neandertals.*You did quote it as new, that's all, no need to bristle.





...evolutionists still try portray Neandertals as less than ourselves.
Really, why would they do that do you think?
Simple.... evolutionists believe human intelligence and humanity evolved from apes. So it's a tough pill when science shows Neandertals as human as you and I... That is the Biblical model.Actually I don't really like to be labelled "evolutionist" simply because I believe that Darwinian evolution happens to provide the best rational explanation for life as we know it.
"Atheist" however is OK. ;)
OK, to you I may be an "evolutionist" while you are to me a "Young Earth Creationist" but it isn't what I am and I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, if asked then that is my explanation and rationale based in natural science. If you see more sense in believing in a specific supernatural YE creation and can shrug off all the contradicting science perhaps by remaining ignorant of it, then that's your business.
Neanderthals, like us were apes, evolved Great Apes and thus perfectly consistent with Darwinian evolution, who lived and died out a great many years before your supposed global flood and creation.

Stripe
August 13th, 2015, 04:55 AM
Yep, and by your definition, all life on earth is the same "kind".

See how a definition works? People can use it no matter what they believe. It is useful to express the differences between conflicting ideas; evolutionists must believe there is only one kind, but creationists believe there were many created kinds. Science.

However, species has no set definition. We hear it said that it needs no definition, there is no definition or there is a myriad of definitions. Not science.

The Barbarian
August 13th, 2015, 06:12 AM
Stipe finally admits:

However, species has no set definition.

Wouldn't it have been better to just admit from the start, that you didn't have a definition? Yes, it's an embarrassing problem for creationism, which predicts discrete taxa. But it's better to face up to problems.


We hear it said that it needs no definition

Evolutionary theory, starting with Darwin, predicts that there can be no universally-applicable definition. This is another reason scientists reject creationism. The world does not look as creationism predicts it to be.

There are all sorts of working definitions, but as Darwin said, they are all tentative, and subject to revision. This might seem bothersome, but God is not obliged to make the world fit anyone's expectations.

alwight
August 13th, 2015, 08:06 AM
Contrary to what Stripe will tell us, that the definition of "kinds" is easy, Creation Wiki seems to think otherwise:


"The project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds is not easy, because it is in essence a historical project, in which the evidence is strictly limited by the evidence available today. This problem is analogous to the problems in constructing phylogenetic trees, where evolutionary biologists struggle to determine which criteria should be used in determining how life is related."
http://www.creationwiki.org/Created_kind

This is the complete list of creationist "Kinds" according to Creation Wiki:

"Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and *****.
Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.

Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order, with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.[10]
Humanity — Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer of the University of Munich concluded that H. erectus/H. ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) genus Homo."

Notice that although humanity is listed at the bottom creationists are apparently far too ashamed of our common ape heritage to include "Hominoidea" as a "kind", best keep quiet no one will ever notice. :chuckle: