• 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.

The "miracle" of evolution is a myth - part 1

Right Divider

Body part
From Alate_One:
So here's a piece of evidence here:

services_photos_4_large.jpg



A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?


dorudon.jpg


Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?
When evolutionists see the world, they see it through "evolution colored glasses". They are so blinded by their own belief system, that all things must conform to that belief system. It's called confirmation bias and they have it big time.

Why do they call the bones in the whales flippers "fingers"? Because they assume that evolution took place to turn a hand into a flipper.
Why do they call the bones in the whales posterior area "hind legs"? Because they assume that evolution took place to turn what used to be hind legs into a small remaining set of bones.

https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/1843/whale-mating-in-the-hips/
https://news.usc.edu/68144/whale-reproduction-its-all-in-the-hips/

Do they have any actual evidence that this "evolutionary story" is true? No, but they believe it anyway.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Here's another excellent example of confirmation bias from Alate_One:
The fact that all life on earth uses the same genetic code? The fact that mitochondria and chloroplasts have DNA like bacteria, reproduce like bacteria and have ribosomes like bacteria, and have double membranes like they were swallowed by another cell? (To name just a few.)
AO cannot possibly see any other way but a descendant relationship whereby all life can use a common coding system. But, of course, there are other possibilities that do NOT require a descendant relationship; the same designer created the "kinds" using a common code.

Common code => common designer; not common code => descendant relationship.
 

Derf

Well-known member
From Alate_One:

When evolutionists see the world, they see it through "evolution colored glasses". They are so blinded by their own belief system, that all things must conform to that belief system. It's called confirmation bias and they have it big time.

Why do they call the bones in the whales flippers "fingers"? Because they assume that evolution took place to turn a hand into a flipper.
Why do they call the bones in the whales posterior area "hind legs"? Because they assume that evolution took place to turn what used to be hind legs into a small remaining set of bones.

https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/1843/whale-mating-in-the-hips/
https://news.usc.edu/68144/whale-reproduction-its-all-in-the-hips/

Do they have any actual evidence that this "evolutionary story" is true? No, but they believe it anyway.
What? You don't think those look like hind legs??
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
For informative purposes, here is Alate One's thread on the topic. A professor of biology in her own right and a former 'YECer' herself, she showed just how much an acceptance of actual science and having faith are far from mutually exclusive:


Also, another thread in a similar vein:

 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
Also, another thread in a similar vein:

From Alate_One:
Kind as actually used in the Bible IS species.
That is completely WRONG and SILLY at the same time.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Okay, then refute it with some some substance then.
Kinds are clearly much broader then species.
Species diverge from kinds.
We can easily see some kinds, like the cat kind or the dog kind.
But it is also clear that lion is not a tiger and Great Dane is not a chihuahua.
Would you like to argue that lions and tigers are not both a cat kind? Are they the same species?
Or that a Great Dane and a chihuahua are not a dog kind? Are they the same species?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Kinds are clearly much broader then species.
Species diverge from kinds.
We can easily see some kinds, like the cat kind or the dog kind.
But it is also clear that lion is not a tiger and Great Dane is not a chihuahua.
Would you like to argue that lions and tigers are not both a cat kind? Are they the same species?
Or that a Great Dane and a chihuahua are not a dog kind? Are they the same species?
The thread in question that I linked to explains all of this. Read it.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
That was substance. There’s just not much more to say than “silly” and “wrong”. Just like there wasn’t any substance to Alate_One’s considerably substanceless conjectures.
Well, no. Anyone with any sort of objectivity about them wouldn't define Alate's position as one without substance. Her scientific credentials are beyond reproach. (Oh, that must be 'hero worship' again or rather more, recognition). The juvenile asides et al all seem to stem from those who can't seem to handle in depth explanations that don't fit into a preconceived world view. Intriguing in some respects.
 

Derf

Well-known member
The juvenile asides et al all seem to stem from those who can't seem to handle in depth explanations that don't fit into a preconceived world view.
Yes, that’s what we’ve been saying. Alate_One’s preconceived world view can’t handle the in depth explanations given in Genesis, even though they fit the evidence much better than hers. She has to define “kinds” as something that no longer marks a boundary that isn’t crossed naturally, just so she can say the boundary IS crossed naturally.

It’s definitely a preconception problem, Dr Brain. But how are you going to correct it?
 

Right Divider

Body part
The thread in question that I linked to explains all of this. Read it.
So... I've been reading through that thread and what I find is NOT AO "schooling" anyone. What I find is the typical evolutionist rhetoric and many others in the thread completely refuted them.

If you'd like to pick a few of AO's "greatest hits" from that thread, we could discuss them in more detail.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Yes, that’s what we’ve been saying. Alate_One’s preconceived world view can’t handle the in depth explanations given in Genesis, even though they fit the evidence much better than hers. She has to define “kinds” as something that no longer marks a boundary that isn’t crossed naturally, just so she can say the boundary IS crossed naturally.

It’s definitely a preconception problem, Dr Brain. But how are you going to correct it?
What you may be unaware of is that Alate One is a former YEC. When she realized that the evidence was irreconcilable with the constraints of that belief system it caused her a crisis of faith, something she's been candid about on here. Thankfully, she realized that retaining faith and acknowledging the evidence for an old earth weren't mutually exclusive so there were no preconceived notions on her part, the opposite in fact.

OTOH, YEC begins with a preconceived notion, namely that the earth can't be any older than ten thousands years.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
So... I've been reading through that thread and what I find is NOT AO "schooling" anyone. What I find is the typical evolutionist rhetoric and many others in the thread completely refuted them.

If you'd like to pick a few of AO's "greatest hits" from that thread, we could discuss them in more detail.
I wouldn't expect you to classify AO's posts as anything other than 'evolutionist rhetoric' anyway RD. You're convinced that YEC is correct so it wouldn't matter what the evidence provided, it would never be enough to convince you anyway really. Thankfully, some have thrown away the shackles but unfortunately many are mired in it and will remain so.
 

Eric h

Well-known member
You're convinced that YEC is correct so it wouldn't matter what the evidence provided,

Evolution is not a big deal one way or the other. But how could it happen without God?

How could the eye evolve purely by a natural process and without a guiding hand?
 

Right Divider

Body part
I wouldn't expect you to classify AO's posts as anything other than 'evolutionist rhetoric' anyway RD. You're convinced that YEC is correct so it wouldn't matter what the evidence provided, it would never be enough to convince you anyway really. Thankfully, some have thrown away the shackles but unfortunately many are mired in it and will remain so.
Your opinions are poor at best.

If you'd like to show me the evidence for billions of years...
 
Top