Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    It's not true, life did not start as a single celled creature and "evolve" into a man.
    You can't even assume, for the sake of argument, that you could be wrong and think about what could be possible?

    Even the simplest heart is vastly complex and is part of an even vastly more complete SYSTEM. How did the very first "heart" evolve where none existed before AND when it also requires so much more than just itself?
    I told you what a simple heart looks like. It's just a blood vessel surrounded by a few muscle cells that pulsate at regular intervals.



    The only "arguments" you've presented are personal incredulity and simple rejection of any evidence I post.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



    - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
      You can't even assume, for the sake of argument, that you could be wrong and think about what could be possible?
      You can't even believe God when He tells us what He did?

      Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
      I told you what a simple heart looks like. It's just a blood vessel surrounded by a few muscle cells that pulsate at regular intervals.

      The only "arguments" you've presented are personal incredulity and simple rejection of any evidence I post.
      Once again you oversimplify how the heart works and how extremely complex systems can "evolve".

      They just magically "pulsate at regular interval"? I guess that these magic "regular interval pulsations" just somehow "evolve" at the right time and in the right way based on random mutations?

      It is any wonder creationists mock evolutionist ideas?
      All of my ancestors are human.
      Originally posted by Squeaky
      That explains why your an idiot.
      Originally posted by God's Truth
      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
        How do you define "complex" life forms?
        Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
        If God had wanted to clearly distinguish different life forms, He could have given each group a different genetic code or a different functional format.
        How do you define "life forms"?

        Is a dog a life form?
        Is a group of dogs a life form?
        Last edited by 7djengo7; October 13, 2019, 05:32 PM.
        What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
          You can't even believe God when He tells us what He did?
          The way it is written, isn't a "I did it exactly this way". It's God speaking and the earth brings forth, but all of it is in a poetic structure. So your question would be like me asking why you don't believe that rain literally falls from windows. Or that there was a literal dome in the sky.

          Once again you oversimplify how the heart works and how extremely complex systems can "evolve".
          I'm not talking about the human heart, I'm talking about a worm heart.

          They just magically "pulsate at regular interval"? I guess that these magic "regular interval pulsations" just somehow "evolve" at the right time and in the right way based on random mutations?
          This isn't magic. There's a specific molecular mechanism to do this. Which is relatively complex but it originates from even simpler structures that move single cells around - the cytoskeleton. Of course, muscles in general would evolve from the structures of the cytoskeleton. Not all animals alive today have hearts, but most have muscles. Heart cells grown in culture do pulsate on their own without the structure of an actual heart.




          It is any wonder creationists mock evolutionist ideas?
          Do you ever wonder why creationists are mocked by scientists all over the world? Because your ideas have no basis in evidence from the natural world.

          Besides, you never present evolutionary ideas as they are, you always try to attack a straw man version whenever possible. That's not at all necessary with YEC ideas.
          “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



          - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
            If evolution is true, an entire organism evolves.
            Originally posted by chair View Post
            The theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants. It deals with populations.
            What a tangled web y'all weave! Alate_One affirms that an organism evolves while chair denies that an organism evolves.
            What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
              Do you ever wonder why creationists are mocked by scientists all over the world?
              Do you ever wonder why Bible-believers take your pretensions to being a Christian with a grain of salt, at best?

              It's simple: Because, as you proudly display--by your unrelenting championing of nonsense, falsehood, and fairy tales, against the Bible--you heartily despise God's Word.
              What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                The way it is written, isn't a "I did it exactly this way".
                God gives enough details to know that all life did NOT descend from a single common ancestor.

                Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                It's God speaking and the earth brings forth, but all of it is in a poetic structure.
                Falsely pretending that Genesis 1 &2 are "poetic" is no explanation.

                Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                So your question would be like me asking why you don't believe that rain literally falls from windows. Or that there was a literal dome in the sky.
                See how easy it is to spot ACTUAL poetic structure?

                Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                I'm not talking about the human heart, I'm talking about a worm heart.
                Did you major in creative writing?
                All of my ancestors are human.
                Originally posted by Squeaky
                That explains why your an idiot.
                Originally posted by God's Truth
                Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                  There is no such thing as a genome of a "wider banana family".
                  Of course there is.

                  If you have a non-diverse genome it's the genome of an individual, period.
                  We're talking about populations.

                  Any individual organism can only contain a certain set of genes.
                  That's nice.

                  There is a reason why there is a science called population genetics.
                  That's what we're talking about.

                  A population can contain far more versions of a gene than an individual can.
                  That's nice.

                  This is why genetic diversity in a population is important. Without diversity in a population, you are literally missing genetic information.
                  Once again, you're seeking to talk about something else. We're not talking about the state of a population's genome, we're talking about what happens as it diversifies. Diversification makes it worse. It was better before it diversified. That does not make the initially creates genome bad.

                  Try to address the issue as it is presented. Beating up a challenge that was not issued is silly.

                  Your assertions have no basis in reality.
                  Of course they do. Bananas today were cultivated from bananas of the past. Pretending that today's bananas are representative of bananas of the past is obviously silly.

                  The problem for Bananas is any one banana variety is every individual plant is virtually identical to any other.
                  All of those varieties came from a common ancestor population. So the question is: Which has greater integrity — the previous population that spawned what we have today or today's greater diversity, which is heading for extinction?

                  The variety name of almost all global bananas is Cavendish. However Cavendish was a replacement for an older banana variety, Gros Michel which wasn't immune to a now global strain of Panama disease. So Cavendish replaced it because it was immune to the disease, a better variety. Well the disease has now changed and Cavendish isn't immune to this new version. And since Cavenish Bananas are all the same, they're all going to die from the disease without lots of chemical sprays (expensive).
                  It's great that you can switch on teacher mode at the drop of a hat, but are you ever going to address a challenge sensibly?

                  Replacing Cavendish is difficult because Bananas generally don't produce seeds at all so generating new varieties (variation) is difficult. The only way to solve this problem is VARIATION. Any time a disease appears, if there is variation, some individuals will survive. Without variation the population goes extinct or can only survive where the disease is not present.
                  Those that survive will have even less ability to adapt to further changes to their environment. Ie, the genetic integrity will diminish.

                  Simple entropy.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • BTW, sheep and goats are of the same kind, ie, they are all descended from a common ancestor population.
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Alate_One
                      There are a lot of distinguished historians that reject the holocaust. Do you really want this as your argument?
                      A lot of *distinguished historians*? Besides Harry Elmer Barnes? Name them.

                      Originally posted by Alate_One
                      And the claims are?
                      The claim is:
                      There’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.

                      The claim and support are here.

                      Originally posted by Yorzhik
                      Yes you did. When you said "I realize some people think DNA is just like "code" but it really isn't... biology is analog" You are claiming that 4 symbols that can be combined to command physical things is somehow "analog".
                      Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                      I'm going to answer this alone since both you and Stripe seem to be confused on this point. Here is the problem. This is wrong. Adenine Thymine Guanine and Cytosine are NOT just symbols. They are chemicals and their chemical nature determines much of the genome's function.
                      Nothing I said specifies ATGC as *JUST* symbols (please note I'm saying they are symbols and also more than symbols). Nothing I said specifies that ATGC are not chemicals. Nothing I said specifies that ATGC are not chemical in nature and interact with the rest of the cell chemically.

                      The entire foundation of your post does not rebut what I said, and you aren't addressing the challenge being raised against common descent.

                      You cannot emulate the function of DNA by emulating only one of the functions of bases.
                      Yes and no. You can emulate parts of any code system that has discrete functions. And DNA has plenty of them. But of course the more you can emulate, the more you can understand. This neither rebuts nor addresses the challenge.

                      Example - Darwin's finches. They differ in the shape of their beaks. How is the beak shape made different? By how much a particular master control protein binds to a spot on DNA and how much protein is made by a specific gene. A tiny difference in that binding can change the amount of protein, a few hours more expression, creates most of the difference between the long beak of a cactus finch and the thick heavy beak of a ground finch.

                      The same kind of change created the human ability to digest milk as adults and produce amylase in our saliva. Regulatory changes are hard for scientists to detect because they don't operate as a simple code like codons and amino acids produced by them. The physical placement of regions of DNA inside of the cell is also important, some genes are close to one another, and others are not with proteins binding to them. The availability of specific regions of DNA to proteins is determined by the proteins binding to them and to the chemical modifications to the bases - epigenetics. You could model all of this in a computer theoretically but you would have to model all of DNA function as well as proteins and spatial organization, not just the order of ATGC.
                      Please, save yourself the time telling us how complicated the system is. No matter how complicated it is, it isn't magic.

                      Mind you this entire argument is basically for you to try to say, "see a computer scientist can understand DNA, therefore his opinion matters and evolution must be wrong." None of which follows from your argument, even if it were accurate.
                      No. The point of my argument is to say that DNA isn't magic. We can emulate enough of it to show that random mutations plus natural selection will not result in common descent.

                      So the question remains: Can you name a breakthrough that was made because they didn't view DNA as code?
                      Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                      Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                        Do creatures--individual animals--evolve?
                        Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                        Not in the sense of biological evolution no.
                        Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                        If evolution is true, an entire organism evolves.
                        What (if anything) would you say is the difference between an individual animal and an entire organism?
                        What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                          Species evolve together and organ systems evolve together.
                          So, which is "the theory of evolution" about? The evolution of species, OR, the evolution of organ systems?
                          What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                            So, which is "the theory of evolution" about? The evolution of species, OR, the evolution of organ systems?
                            They believe that random damage can be selected to create anything and everything. Pretty crazy, right?
                            All of my ancestors are human.
                            Originally posted by Squeaky
                            That explains why your an idiot.
                            Originally posted by God's Truth
                            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                              They believe that random damage can be selected to create anything and everything. Pretty crazy, right?
                              Apparently so, seeing just how much random damage they are inadvertently dealing to their own, idiotic, irrational, anti-Christ worldview--by their attempts to prop it up and save face for it.
                              What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post

                                I think there are some pretty clear contextual clues in the garden of eden story that tell you that Adam and Eve and their children weren't the only people on earth at the time. Lot's wife, statements about "everyone who finds Cain" will kill him etc.
                                Some more bible context before 'theorizing:'
                                1) Genesis 5:5
                                2) Genesis 1:28
                                3) Though you've a hard time with Christian websites, this one is important.
                                A lot of people are bothered by 'incest' but every race starts this way, even in Evolution else there would be no speciation. It requires a viable reproduction. Incest later in the Bible is about sin (perhaps mostly related to health problems due to the curse of sin on the planet).
                                4) Your answer needs to be scripturally astute or it is nothing for no consideration whatsoever. As before, one who starts a thread like this must not simply say 'love Jesus' without that being demonstrable with biblical awareness else one must ask "what kind of love, does this one love Jesus with?"
                                Last edited by Lon; October 13, 2019, 08:16 PM.
                                My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                                Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                                Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                                Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                                No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                                Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                                ? Yep

                                Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                                ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                                Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X