• 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.

Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I suppose I should point out that the origin of life had nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution. He assumed life began somehow,and described how it changed over time.

And ignored scripture in favor of his evidence-free notions.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Wrong. Generally, evolution means "change."

Nope. You do not face people who claim that things do not change. You face a challenge to the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

Darwinists will do anything to insulate themselves from science — ie, working to falsify ideas.

In biology, it means "change in allele frequencies in a population over time."

Which is just "change" with lots of superfluous babble around it to give the impression of a well-reasoned theory. For example, there is no difference between the ideas conveyed by the word "change" and the phrase "change over time." The "over time" is entirely redundant. Allele frequencies can't change in anything but a population, so that gets rid of "in a population." And Darwinists will commonly point to changes that have nothing to do with genetics and claim evolution. I once saw a Darwinist suggest that a bird changing its song was "speciation." It's safe to read "change in allele frequencies in a population over time" as simply "change."

But Darwinists are not challenged to defend the idea that things change. They just want the discussion to be that because they cannot survive in a discussion without their obfuscations and other fallacies...

Which is the way God creates new taxa.

Other fallacies such as question begging.

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.

And the fallacy of asserting what someone else believes as if it is relevant to the discussion.

As most Christians acknowledge, there is no conflict between scripture and evolution.

And the Darwinist favorite — the appeal to popularity.

When will they learn to engage rationally?
 

marke

Well-known member
Any feedback is appreciated and I'll try to adjust accordingly.

Proposition


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!

Right off the bat we are on the wrong foot. Biological evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, except where non-species changing adaptations are called "evolution" just to try to give false legitimacy to Darwin's fictionary science speculations about species changes.
 

marke

Well-known member
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?
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.
 

marke

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
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.
We came pretty close with the Australian aboriginals and the Maori
 

marke

Well-known member
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.

Stuart
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.
 

marke

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

Right Divider

Body part
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.
Personally, I have found it very difficult to discuss science with people that think that that they are descended from monkeys.
 

marke

Well-known member
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.

Stuart
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.
 

marke

Well-known member
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'.

Stuart
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.
 

marke

Well-known member
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??

Stuart
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 Divider

Body part
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.
Extrapolations like this are always problematic.
 

marke

Well-known member
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 ...
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.


"Many years later a group of WWII veterans and enthusiastic military aircraft guys decided to find the lost squadron on the Greenlandic Icecap. It was easy to find the area by using the coordinates from the rescue mission, but it wasn’t easy to find the airplanes, expected to be around or about 15-20 meters under the surface according to the precipitation data for the last 50 years (1942-92).
But there must be something wrong with the precipitation data because the squadron was found at a depth of 268 feet (about 90 meters) under the surface of the Icecap."

Notice the fact "But there must be something wrong" with the scientific calculation. Of course Bible-rejecters think the precipitation data must have been wrong, but that is silly since precipitation data and accumulations rates have been measured the whole time since the planes were lost. What the secularists overlooked is that the ice core assumptions were wrong and had never been disproven before due to the fact that they had never before had a way to test their assumptions using actual datable standards.

Another evidence that disproves ice core assumptions is found in Alaska where flattened tropical forests lie beneath 2,000' of frozen muck filled with the debris from that broken tropical forest.


“Though the ground is frozen for 1,900 feet down from the surface at Prudhoe Bay, everywhere the oil companies drilled around this area they discovered an ancient tropical forest. It was in frozen state, not in petrified state. It is between 1,100 and 1,700 feet down. There are palm trees, pine trees, and tropical foliage in great profusion. In fact, they found them lapped all over each other, just as though they had fallen in that position.” (Williams, Lindsey, The Energy Non-Crisis, 1980, p. 54.)
 

marke

Well-known member
. Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data show that humans have not been through a population bottleneck that recently.
Y chromosome data proves human ancestors could not have emerged from chimp ancestors as early as 6 million years ago.

A recent high-profile article in the journal Nature released the results of a study with implications that shocked the scientific community because they contradict long-held claims of human-chimp DNA similarity.1 A previous Acts & Facts article showed that much of the research surrounding the often touted claims of 98 percent (or higher) DNA similarity between chimps and humans has been based on flawed and biased research.2 The problem is that the similarity has been uncertain because no one has performed an unbiased and comprehensive DNA similarity study until now. And the results are not good news for the story of human evolution.
 

marke

Well-known member
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.
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.

When investigations into these questions began a few decades ago, optimism was high regarding the possibility of pinpointing that first mother's date. But studies have since shown that the data alone are not enough to provide an answer. A certain number of starting assumptions are required, and when researchers' different assumptions are applied, the data can yield very different "ages" for Mitochondrial Eve. A review of the earliest calculations, published in the evolutionary journal Science in 1998, showed that:
Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. No one thinks that's the case, but at what point should models switch from one mtDNA time zone to the other?1
 

marke

Well-known member
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.

Stuart
The gorge cut by Niagara Falls is the right length to have been cut in about 7,000 years.
 

marke

Well-known member
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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/science/dinosaurs-extinction-meteorite-volcano.html
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.
 

marke

Well-known member
What, in the 4300 ybp layer, and nowhere before that?
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:

4. Soft Sediment Deformation: The sedimentary layers are deformed in places. These layers bend like a wave or contort in a downward or upward fashion. How does hard, brittle rock bend without cracking? According to the worldwide Flood model there were, during the Flood, heat and sediments falling out, giving a layering effect. The sediments were soft and could be molded easily at the beginning of this process. They gradually settled and hardened in the way we see them today.
 
Top