• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

Eric h

Well-known member
I did not buy for a second, your contention that evolution has not been observed.
No observation from the first single cells of life to a full skeletal system. You just need a lot of imagination to think how this could happen without God.
Change of characteristic of a species over generations is observed all the time.
As long as you can dream up a starting point like an existing species, then evolutions seems to be possible. Start from single cell life billions of years ago. Or start from no life at the time of the Big Bang.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
No observation from the first single cells of life to a full skeletal system. You just need a lot of imagination to think how this could happen without God.

Evidence helps fuel the imagination. There is the fruit fly experiment where the flies adapted to no light conditions. Dark fly might not be a new species but it sure did evolve to the environment. A bacterium became able to metabolize citrate. Both life fprms became better able to survive.
As long as you can dream up a starting point like an existing species, then evolutions seems to be possible. Start from single cell life billions of years ago. Or start from no life at the time of the Big Bang.
True, Abiogenesis is hard. Single cell to multicellular is not that hard to imagine. Algae found to live in tandem and stay together even when original stimulus to join was removed.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
It is, when the thing under consideration is believed to be 'continuous' and 'quantitative' instead of 'qualitative' and 'categorical'. I believe that the generation of new species is categorical and so no amount of 'continuous' change along a continuous spectrum is going to convince me that 'evolution' can turn continuous change into categorical change. And the evidence doesn't require that I believe that evolution generated the species, it merely doesn't conflict with evolution, you would need to see true 'macro' evolution to positively demonstrate that evolution is capable of making categorical genetic changes where new species are generated.
Whether something is Continuous or categorical is really just an artifact of measurement, not a limit on reality. The loss of compatibility to mate is a threshold marker to define limit between species. Do you consider donkeys and horses the same species?
And even then, even that wouldn't rule out a six day creation occurring within the past ten thousand years.
Okay.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
No goo lead to me or anyone else.

The term "goo" implies a random collection of lifeless chemicals not intricately designed sperm cells, ovum and countless other things with millions of WILDLY complex biochemical machines working in concert to produce a new human life.

Clete
Divider seems to think microbes are just goo. Life around the undersea vents wasn't that gooey.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Speciation is often a gradualistic process rather than a discretely stepwise one. Asking when one species becomes another is sort of like asking when a color is blue, purple, or red.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Speciation is often a gradualistic process rather than a discretely stepwise one. Asking when one species becomes another is sort of like asking when a color is blue, purple, or red.
"When one species becomes another", or when a new species is generated?
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Seems simply a matter of semantics.
So how does that look? A mother of one species gives birth to or lays multiples both male and female who can only marry each other to multiply? Basically every species is ultimately a product of full sibling incest?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Evidence helps fuel the imagination.
When it comes to science, it's best to keep imagination completely out of it.
That's actually a major problem with the "theory" of evolution, it's almost entirely imagination.
There is the fruit fly experiment where the flies adapted to no light conditions.
Adaptation uses already existing genetic information. Nothing to see there.
Dark fly might not be a new species but it sure did evolve to the environment.
So here you use the usual evolutionist trick of equivocating terms. In this case "evolve" with "adapt". Shame on you.
A bacterium became able to metabolize citrate.
Again, an ADAPTATION based on ALREADY EXISTING genetic information.
Both life fprms became better able to survive.
Perhaps in once sense, but nothing NEW is coming into existence. There is no mechanism for building complex integrated systems based on accumulating mistakes.
True, Abiogenesis is hard.
No, based on a naturalistic philosophy (such as yours), it's IMPOSSIBLE.
Single cell to multicellular is not that hard to imagine.
That's because you have a vivid imagination and a complete lack of scientific knowledge.
Algae found to live in tandem and stay together even when original stimulus to join was removed.
Proving absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
Speciation is often a gradualistic process rather than a discretely stepwise one.
Speciation is not upward progress. So that is irrelevant.
Asking when one species becomes another is sort of like asking when a color is blue, purple, or red.
You're fixating on species which does nothing to help your "theory".
Speciation is completely compatible with the Creation Model of origins.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
...based on a naturalistic philosophy (such as yours), [abiogenesis is] IMPOSSIBLE.
"IMPOSSIBLE" is rhetoric. By their own admission the 'odds' are extremely long. "Impossibly" long, you'd say (I'd tend to agree), but this is an interpretation, that supports your own personal narrative, because "impossible" means to many people that the odds are zero----that there is zero-point-zero-zero-zero-infinity chance of it being true.
 

Right Divider

Body part
"IMPOSSIBLE" is rhetoric.
No, it's actually a fact.
By their own admission the 'odds' are extremely long. "Impossibly" long, you'd say (I'd tend to agree), but this is an interpretation, that supports your own personal narrative, because "impossible" means to many people that the odds are zero----that there is zero-point-zero-zero-zero-infinity chance of it being true.
The odds are zero.

There is not a single scientific fact that supports the idea of life from non-life based on natural processes.
 
Top