Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
Hall of Fame
Wrong. Generally, evolution means "change."
In biology, it means "change in allele frequencies in a population over time."
Which is the way God creates new taxa.
I notice many creationist groups are willing to accept this for new species, genera, and families. Sometimes, they'll go a bit farther than that.
As most Christians acknowledge, there is no conflict between scripture and evolution.
Any feedback is appreciated and I'll try to adjust accordingly.
BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is an established scientific fact. It explains every observation concerning biodiversity on our planet and is not contradicted by anything in the natural world.
Acceptance of evolution and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive!
It is likely that weeds, diseases, viruses, and so forth were the results of sin entering the world after Adam fell. That does not in any way prove God did not create the universe and life on earth.That it doesn't really answer my question. I'm asking what you believe regarding the origin of pathogens, parasites, and pests.
As we see above, [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] believes they were specifically and deliberately created by God. Do you agree?
Darwin believe more the more advanced humans from the evolutionary process were destined to exterminate the lesser advanced humans, he called savages, in less than 300 years.Perhaps you'd do better to go learn about what Darwin wrote, instead of project your ignorance into the discussion.
Yeah, like that. You've been corrected time and time again about that, and you're still peddling the same old dishonesties.
As noble as this thread may be, people like you will jump in and start tossing falsehood about to muddy the water.
The Bible suggests God created the universe from nothing. Atheists and assorted secularists refuse to believe that and, instead, wish to believe that some form of matter or energy has always existed. Really? Matter has always existed but God has not? This is not science, it is speculation.As I told you earlier, I am only the messenger. What you choose to do with the message is up to you.
I'd have a go, but I'm still settling down from laughing at the absurdity of Mr. Brown's claim that a global flood happened a few thousand years ago because he says so, and for no other reason.
Your challenge is a Gish Gallop. All things from nothing? I've already given you the explanation for how there is anything, and how that anything could be thought of in terms of actually being nothing. Were you curious about that? No, all you wanted to do was to try and score points in your empty, mocking response. Far from it being the speaking with the tongues of men, I think it is the content-free babbling of creationists that shows they have no love and are the sounding brass and tinkling cymbals of 1 Corinthians 13.
Ask me a sensible question, or perhaps read some books.
Just because quacks see changes in different populations does not mean those populations are defying their genetic codes, changing their numbers of chromosomes, and taking on strange new features never before seen in history. One might as well surmise that monkeys descended from stupid humans as to surmise that stupid humans foolishly believe they descended from monkeys.And as was pointed out before, your question is a straw man (no one is saying complexity increases with every generation). Further, the answer to the first part (is life defying entropy) is "no".
Yes we do. Multiple people have posted direct observations of populations evolving. Just today I posted a description of the observed, closely studied, and documented evolution of multiple species of plants.
You simply saying "Nuh uh" is hardly a meaningful response.
What's the difference between a population "adapting" and a population evolving?
And you don't? If not, why then did you say "Try converting chaos into order in any system without adding any energy to the system"?
Then explain why going from separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms to a water molecule is not a decrease in entropy.
Personally, I have found it very difficult to discuss science with people that think that that they are descended from monkeys.Just because quacks see changes in different populations does not mean those populations are defying their genetic codes, changing their numbers of chromosomes, and taking on strange new features never before seen in history. One might as well surmise that monkeys descended from stupid humans as to surmise that stupid humans foolishly believe they descended from monkeys.
Hershkowitz and Gopher must not have found the remains of Methuselah who lived more than 900 years. But, of course, that was before the flood, and life expectancy was much different then.1. The oldest known human on record is Jeanne Calment of France, who died in 1997 at age 122. This is verified by reference to official documents. No older person has had the equivalent independent verification of age.
2. A 2008 study by Hershkowitz and Gopher on skeletal remains of two neolithic populations of 15,000 to 12,000 years before present, and 12,000 to 8,000 years before present showed life expectancy at birth to be 25 years, with a mean adult age at death of 32 years.
If we go by a standard of probability then we must assume the earth is far less than a billion years old due to the fact that if it was older than that the moon would have begun its recession for earth from inside the earth, using the known rate of recession. If probability is to be a factor then abiogenesis apart from God's intervention was impossible.No, but it establishes a standard of probity. Where are the independent records that confirm the claims that humans lived hundreds of years? Your claim does not meet that standard.
You are now making a new claim, that the dates in a peer-reviewed scientific paper are fantasy. That is a pretty serious accusation against professional scientists. Can you support it, or should they subpoena you to appear on a libel claim?
I stand by that as a disproof of the general claim that humans lived for hundreds of years in the past.
I look forward to your turn, where you defend your claim of 'accurate history'.
I take it you think Dr. Brown was wrong. Who do you think you are to flippantly disregard the wisdom of someone so highly respected among the scientific community?Right, yes I have read that before. Is that it? Is that the great dating of this global flood?
What a joke. It goes like this:
1. Let's all ASSUME there was a global flood within the past few thousand years
2. Let's all ASSUME that basically all the small bodies of the solar system flew off the surface of earth during that event
3. Even though several Halley-like comets go through perihelion each year, let's find the coincidence of the orbits of TWO of them within the past few thousand years and call that ALL of them.
4. Therefore there was a global flood in 3290 give or take 100 years.
5. A bishop added some impossible human lifespans together and agreed somewhat, but not reliably.
Seriously, is that the extent of it??
Extrapolations like this are always problematic.If we go by a standard of probability then we must assume the earth is far less than a billion years old due to the fact that if it was older than that the moon would have begun its recession for earth from inside the earth, using the known rate of recession.
A very small number of researchers have studied ice cores and their findings have hardly been irrefutably proven. In fact, scientific data has done more to disprove their conclusions than prove them. For example, consider the discovery of the Lost Squadron in Greenland.This is not science. You clearly have little idea about what it would take to establish a theory. Perhaps start with establishing a reasonable probability that there was actually a flood instead of assuming it then cherry picking the data you like while denying without justification the data you don't like.
The assumption about a global flood is disproved by ice cores ...
Y chromosome data proves human ancestors could not have emerged from chimp ancestors as early as 6 million years ago.. Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data show that humans have not been through a population bottleneck that recently.
Scientists made some erroneous assumptions about mitochondrial DNA which were later refuted by new evidence. That is so typical of science assumptions based upon Bible-rejecting philosophy. Evolution itself is fiction science based upon Bible-rejecting philosophy. Using known rates of mutations in mitochondrial DNA scientists erroneously arrived at an age for 'Mitochondrial Eve' at around 200,000 years. They could neither prove nor disprove their assumptions and the lazy secular scientific community simply but wrongly adopted the bad assumptions as fact.The assumption about a global flood is disproved by ice cores and dendrochronology. The assumption about asteroids flying off the earth is disproved on at least two points of the composition of meteorites. Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data show that humans have not been through a population bottleneck that recently.
The gorge cut by Niagara Falls is the right length to have been cut in about 7,000 years.I'm not sure how you have got yourself involved in this. I have some memory that you denied it was adding up genealogies that got to a few thousands of years ago global flood. It is RD who claimed that, as I recall. So perhaps it is he who should defend his claim that people did live for hundreds of years, given how central it is to the wider claim.
I acknowledge this is the wrong thread for me to reply to RD's verses, or for you to tell me that my claims about christianity are logically fallacious.
Alright then, divine threats noted.
I'm still keen to hear from you the details of how you claim a date for a global flood of a few thousand years ago.
The Chixulub theory was invented less than 50 years ago by men seeking to explain the extinction of dinosaurs while denying the universal flood. The additional volcanic eruption was added recently. Both theories are nothing but opinions supporting atheistic and humanistic theology, supported by cherry-picked misinterpreted data and not proven by irrefutable scientific facts.The question wasn't about beliefs. It was about a claim that there was a global flood. What makes you claim that?
There is only one idea about how a layer of iridium appeared around the earth because we know where and when the asteroid impact happened.
The geological column and estimates of billions of years are based upon atheistic foolishness and opinions, not facts. Here is one of many reasons the geological column foolishness is unscientific:What, in the 4300 ybp layer, and nowhere before that?