The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:08 am

RickD wrote:
TE wrote:
Our senses have evolved to function just they way they are designed to.

Designed to, by whom?


So out of my entire post, you found one word("design"), to comment on. Even when cherry-picking a post, questioning semantics is a bit desperate by any standards. In hindsight I should have said "..just the way they were MEANT TO FUNCTION". Clearly I won't make that mistake again. Obviously your question is an example of an argument using a false premise. It puts the conclusion as one of the premises. It has not been established that life IS DESIGNED. Therefore, "by whom" becomes irrelevant. It like if I asked you, "when did you stop beating your wife?" It makes the assumption that you in fact do beat your wife. By answering your question, I would be agreeing(without any evidence or facts) that all your premises are true and factual. Therefore, I can't answer it in the way you have framed it. So prove that life is designed, first.

The key words in my sentence were, "Our senses HAVE EVOLVED TO FUNCTION just the...". This means that senses from other organisms may have evolved to function in different ways. As long as our senses can assist in our survival strategies, they are doing what they meant to do. That was the meaning I had intended for you to get.

Again, were there any questions on the central topic, or the evolution of our senses from other species? I will try to watch the words that I use in the future. Don

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18593
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby RickD » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:25 am

trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
TE wrote:
Our senses have evolved to function just they way they are designed to.

Designed to, by whom?


So out of my entire post, you found one word("design"), to comment on. Even when cherry-picking a post, questioning semantics is a bit desperate by any standards. In hindsight I should have said "..just the way they were MEANT TO FUNCTION". Clearly I won't make that mistake again. Obviously your question is an example of an argument using a false premise. It puts the conclusion as one of the premises. It has not been established that life IS DESIGNED. Therefore, "by whom" becomes irrelevant. It like if I asked you, "when did you stop beating your wife?" It makes the assumption that you in fact do beat your wife. By answering your question, I would be agreeing(without any evidence or facts) that all your premises are true and factual. Therefore, I can't answer it in the way you have framed it. So prove that life is designed, first.

The key words in my sentence were, "Our senses HAVE EVOLVED TO FUNCTION just the...". This means that senses from other organisms may have evolved to function in different ways. As long as our senses can assist in our survival strategies, they are doing what they meant to do. That was the meaning I had intended for you to get.

Again, were there any questions on the central topic, or the evolution of our senses from other species? I will try to watch the words that I use in the future. Don

Seriously Don,

You're not going to last long around here if you continue the way you're posting.
I asked you a question about what you said, and you turned it into me arguing semantics, and claiming life is designed. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT WAS DESIGNED, NOT ME!

So, since you changed what you originally said, and you really meant, "just the way they were MEANT TO FUNCTION", please explain how life which wasn't designed, but began from chance and luck, has an actual way that is is "meant to function".

So now, life which you say began by chance and luck, has an actual purpose and meaning?
There's an actual purpose to Godless, random evolution?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4273
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby abelcainsbrother » Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:01 pm

trulyenlightened wrote:Topic 4: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

First we must make a few inductive and deductive assumptions, based on our intuition and common sense. We must accept that less complicated and specialized life-forms existed before more complex and specialized life-forms did.This would also mean that at one point in time there were no life-forms at all. A time before the most simplest of organism came along. This would mean that Apes and monkeys evolved before man did. We must also assume that millions of different early life forms, representing different species, did not spontaneously appear, or initially evolved independent of each other. Finally we must include time to allow the mechanisms for change to occur. Remember organisms must survive long enough to adapt to changes in their environment, in order to procreate and transfer that information to their offsprings.

The Theory of Evolution is the most consistent and accurate explanation, of the Origin of different Species(NOT life), and the process of Natural Selection(NOT survival of the fittest). The Origin of Species describes the mechanism that causes change. There are those that argue that a Theory is no more than a well argued bit of guesswork. But a capitalized "Theory" in science is much more than just that. In science, it is a group of principles and laws, developed over many years from rigorous testing. Such Theories are backed up with mathematical formulas and the convergence of evidence that when taken together, explains a series of observations. Gravity can be explained by a number of Theories(Newton, Einstein, Gravity Field, etc.), but no one say that Gravity does not exist. Biological evolution is supported by so much evidence from different scientific disciplines, that it is a fact every bit as true as gravity. The ToE is not about whether or not evolution occurs, but how it occurs. It is only our understanding of the process of evolution that has changed over time and will continue to change. Natural Selection has sometimes been reduced to a Tautology(the survival of those who survive), but this is an oversimplification. I will not be speaking about Artificial Selection, where humans choose which traits are desirable and which are not. I will focus only on Natural Selection, where traits that increase the likelihood of survival and reproduction will become more common within a species population.The truth is that individuals never survive. What survives is the process for making another individual. This resides in the genes found within the general population.

If we believe that the ToE is true, then we must expect the fossil records to demonstrate a progression of gradual changes in earlier species. We must expect that all species share a common chemistry and anatomy with each other. And the closer species are related, the more features/commonalities they will share. We must also expect that all species have a record of genetic changes over many generations. We would also expect to find and follow a record of the geographical distribution of all related species. Finally, we would expect that the geological, archeological, meteorological, and environmental sciences, be consistent with the evidence supporting Evolution. This evidence is supported overwhelmingly, by the convergence of evidence from many scientific disciplines(Genetics, Anatomy, Physiology, Paleontology, Molecular Biology, Chemistry(oxygen markers in fossils), Radiometry, Biochemistry, Physics, Molecular Biology, Molecular Physiology, Cell Biology, and General Biology). Guess what? This is exactly what we find.

It is not mere coincidence that 99% of the molecules that make up all living things, are made from only 6 of the 92 common elements. It is not coincidence that 99.9% of all organisms that lived on this planet are now extinct. It is not mere coincidence that DNA coding for amino acids are the same in all organisms. It is not coincidence that most biochemical processes are the same in all organisms. It is not coincident the function, or nonfunction of vestigial organs in humans and other organisms are still present. It is no coincidence why sexual reproduction evolved as being more favourable than asexual reproduction. I'm afraid that the debate over Evolution ended in the 19th Century, and Evolution won. Without it NOTHING makes any sense in Biology. Maybe you might be able to present an alternative explanation, that explains the Origin of Species, Natural Selection, or the Origin of the first Life?

However, if the ToE is not true and can somehow be falsified by any number of obvious ways, then all of Biology would no longer make any sense. The sum total of the advancements made in science, would be reduced to, "God did it". We would then have to explain why similarities exist among all species, past and present. We'd need to explain why all DNA coding for protein is the same in all species. We'd need to explain why Evolution appear as small changes over long periods of time? We'd need to explain why all the evidence indicate that there must exist a Universal Common Ancestor? We'd need to explain why isolated species evolved differently, than migratory species due to continental drift or other environmental factors.

I will provide more explanations and details, when addressing comments. If there are any. Don



Here is a big reason why I reject the Theory of Evolution.Evolution does not have a credibile mechanism for how life evolves.Variation amongst the populations is not even close to being evidence life evolves and yet scientists demonstrate normal variation amongst the populations and they use this evidence to cover everything else about evolution.This shows that scientists are seeing what they want to see because they believe life evolves.

But scientists demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations in the lab is just proving what was already known by plant and animal breeders for thousands of years hence corn,different kinds of roses and dogs. You see long before Charles Darwin assumed that this variation we see amongst populations can lead to big changes given enough time normal variation amongst the population was already known and well understood.

And yet scientists who believe life evolves go into a lab trying to prove and demonstrate life evolves but all they prove is what was already known - normal variation amongst the populations. But instead of realizing what they are doing they continue to push the evolution myth piling more and more evidence on top of a theory they are not even close to being able to demonstrate is true.

This is deceptive work being done by scientists because Charles Darwin used variation in the Origin of species to sell the idea life evolves and yet scientists today are using normal variation for evidence life evolves so that no progress at all has been made when it comes to the theory of evolution.

Normal variation amongst the populations is used to cover everything else about evolution and all of the evolution definitions like natural selection,speciation,macro-evolution,etc when they don't even know if life evolves.

So that things like natural selection,speciation,micro-evolution,etc are made up myths that no evidence will demonstrate because they have only proven normal variaton amongst the populations and everything else is assumed to be true based on this weak evidence that is not even close to being evidence that would demonstrate life evolves.

And I do not care how many scientists this offends because they should all be ashamed of themselves for pushing this evolution myth onto society.They need to be called out for their very deceptive nonsense science and they are only destroying the credibility of science by pushing a theory like this onto society. But they have been too stubborn to realize how much damage they have done to science and its credibility.

It is no wonder why people are being easily led to accept a flat earth.Indoctrination of society to accept the theory of evolution as true science will cause extreme skepticism to where people start believing that everything about science we have been led to believe cannot be trusted.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:28 am

RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
TE wrote:
Our senses have evolved to function just they way they are designed to.

Designed to, by whom?


So out of my entire post, you found one word("design"), to comment on. Even when cherry-picking a post, questioning semantics is a bit desperate by any standards. In hindsight I should have said "..just the way they were MEANT TO FUNCTION". Clearly I won't make that mistake again. Obviously your question is an example of an argument using a false premise. It puts the conclusion as one of the premises. It has not been established that life IS DESIGNED. Therefore, "by whom" becomes irrelevant. It like if I asked you, "when did you stop beating your wife?" It makes the assumption that you in fact do beat your wife. By answering your question, I would be agreeing(without any evidence or facts) that all your premises are true and factual. Therefore, I can't answer it in the way you have framed it. So prove that life is designed, first.

The key words in my sentence were, "Our senses HAVE EVOLVED TO FUNCTION just the...". This means that senses from other organisms may have evolved to function in different ways. As long as our senses can assist in our survival strategies, they are doing what they meant to do. That was the meaning I had intended for you to get.

Again, were there any questions on the central topic, or the evolution of our senses from other species? I will try to watch the words that I use in the future. Don

Seriously Don,

You're not going to last long around here if you continue the way you're posting.
I asked you a question about what you said, and you turned it into me arguing semantics, and claiming life is designed. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT WAS DESIGNED, NOT ME!

So, since you changed what you originally said, and you really meant, "just the way they were MEANT TO FUNCTION", please explain how life which wasn't designed, but began from chance and luck, has an actual way that is is "meant to function".

So now, life which you say began by chance and luck, has an actual purpose and meaning?
There's an actual purpose to Godless, random evolution?


If I made the same statement to any scientist, student, researcher, teacher, educator, or any non-creationist, they would all know, that stating that our senses(not life) have evolved to do what it was designed for, does not mean that someone must have designed our senses. We are talking about a biological function, not any man-made or artificial function. It should have been the "our senses have evolved to..", that should have given the true meaning away. If our senses are evolved, than how could they have been designed? Is your misinterpretation becoming any clearer? An important point you needed to ignored, to exploit one word out of context. We are not talking about who used or stated the word, "designed". We are talking about how you have misinterpreted the word to ask who is the designer? Clearly it means for most people, that our senses do what they were meant to do(receive and transmit stimuli). Which is what I explained to you, as well as to be more vigilant in what words I use in the future. I have not changed the meaning of my statement. What, in the colloquial and general sense, is the difference between "designed to function", and "meant to function"?

It is survival that is the driving force behind all living organisms. Their only purpose, from a biological perspective, is to survive and reproduce. All other functions are unnecessary. If you are looking for a purpose, from a naturalistic/ecological point of view, it would be to maintain the delicate balance in nature. We know what happens when this balance is tipped in one direction or another. Since we are the only species among the millions of other species that can even conceive of a God, I'd say that nature would not be considered Godly. I can't explain how life wasn't designed(which would assume that it was), anymore than I can explain how life really began. No one knows the answer to these questions, and no one ever will. I can only speak about what happened after life had started. Don

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:04 am

trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
TE wrote:
Our senses have evolved to function just they way they are designed to.

Designed to, by whom?


So out of my entire post, you found one word("design"), to comment on. Even when cherry-picking a post, questioning semantics is a bit desperate by any standards. In hindsight I should have said "..just the way they were MEANT TO FUNCTION". Clearly I won't make that mistake again. Obviously your question is an example of an argument using a false premise. It puts the conclusion as one of the premises. It has not been established that life IS DESIGNED. Therefore, "by whom" becomes irrelevant. It like if I asked you, "when did you stop beating your wife?" It makes the assumption that you in fact do beat your wife. By answering your question, I would be agreeing(without any evidence or facts) that all your premises are true and factual. Therefore, I can't answer it in the way you have framed it. So prove that life is designed, first.

The key words in my sentence were, "Our senses HAVE EVOLVED TO FUNCTION just the...". This means that senses from other organisms may have evolved to function in different ways. As long as our senses can assist in our survival strategies, they are doing what they meant to do. That was the meaning I had intended for you to get.

Again, were there any questions on the central topic, or the evolution of our senses from other species? I will try to watch the words that I use in the future. Don

Seriously Don,

You're not going to last long around here if you continue the way you're posting.
I asked you a question about what you said, and you turned it into me arguing semantics, and claiming life is designed. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT WAS DESIGNED, NOT ME!

So, since you changed what you originally said, and you really meant, "just the way they were MEANT TO FUNCTION", please explain how life which wasn't designed, but began from chance and luck, has an actual way that is is "meant to function".

So now, life which you say began by chance and luck, has an actual purpose and meaning?
There's an actual purpose to Godless, random evolution?


If I made the same statement to any scientist, student, researcher, teacher, educator, or any non-creationist, they would all know, that stating that our senses(not life) have evolved to do what it was designed for, does not mean that someone must have designed our senses. We are talking about a biological function, not any man-made or artificial function. It should have been the "our senses have evolved to..", that should have given the true meaning away. If our senses are evolved, than how could they have been designed? Is your misinterpretation becoming any clearer? An important point you needed to ignored, to exploit one word out of context. We are not talking about who used or stated the word, "designed". We are talking about how you have misinterpreted the word to ask who is the designer? Clearly it means for most people, that our senses do what they were meant to do(receive and transmit stimuli). Which is what I explained to you, as well as to be more vigilant in what words I use in the future. I have not changed the meaning of my statement. What, in the colloquial and general sense, is the difference between "designed to function", and "meant to function"?

It is survival that is the driving force behind all living organisms. Their only purpose, from a biological perspective, is to survive and reproduce. All other functions are unnecessary. If you are looking for a purpose, from a naturalistic/ecological point of view, it would be to maintain the delicate balance in nature. We know what happens when this balance is tipped in one direction or another. Since we are the only species among the millions of other species that can even conceive of a God, I'd say that nature would not be considered Godly. I can't explain how life wasn't designed(which would assume that it was), anymore than I can explain how life really began. No one knows the answer to these questions, and no one ever will. I can only speak about what happened after life had started. Don


"I asked you a question about what you said, and you turned it into me arguing semantics, and claiming life is designed. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT WAS DESIGNED, NOT ME!" Exactly WHERE did I claim that life was designed? Or is this another one of your necessary interpretations? Was that a red herring or a straw man? You simply took my word out of context, applied your own interpretation, accuse me of saying that IT WAS DESIGNED, and then ask me to explain who designed it. That is the most blatant, and textbook example of a straw man ever. Don

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:40 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:Topic 4: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

First we must make a few inductive and deductive assumptions, based on our intuition and common sense. We must accept that less complicated and specialized life-forms existed before more complex and specialized life-forms did.This would also mean that at one point in time there were no life-forms at all. A time before the most simplest of organism came along. This would mean that Apes and monkeys evolved before man did. We must also assume that millions of different early life forms, representing different species, did not spontaneously appear, or initially evolved independent of each other. Finally we must include time to allow the mechanisms for change to occur. Remember organisms must survive long enough to adapt to changes in their environment, in order to procreate and transfer that information to their offsprings.

The Theory of Evolution is the most consistent and accurate explanation, of the Origin of different Species(NOT life), and the process of Natural Selection(NOT survival of the fittest). The Origin of Species describes the mechanism that causes change. There are those that argue that a Theory is no more than a well argued bit of guesswork. But a capitalized "Theory" in science is much more than just that. In science, it is a group of principles and laws, developed over many years from rigorous testing. Such Theories are backed up with mathematical formulas and the convergence of evidence that when taken together, explains a series of observations. Gravity can be explained by a number of Theories(Newton, Einstein, Gravity Field, etc.), but no one say that Gravity does not exist. Biological evolution is supported by so much evidence from different scientific disciplines, that it is a fact every bit as true as gravity. The ToE is not about whether or not evolution occurs, but how it occurs. It is only our understanding of the process of evolution that has changed over time and will continue to change. Natural Selection has sometimes been reduced to a Tautology(the survival of those who survive), but this is an oversimplification. I will not be speaking about Artificial Selection, where humans choose which traits are desirable and which are not. I will focus only on Natural Selection, where traits that increase the likelihood of survival and reproduction will become more common within a species population.The truth is that individuals never survive. What survives is the process for making another individual. This resides in the genes found within the general population.

If we believe that the ToE is true, then we must expect the fossil records to demonstrate a progression of gradual changes in earlier species. We must expect that all species share a common chemistry and anatomy with each other. And the closer species are related, the more features/commonalities they will share. We must also expect that all species have a record of genetic changes over many generations. We would also expect to find and follow a record of the geographical distribution of all related species. Finally, we would expect that the geological, archeological, meteorological, and environmental sciences, be consistent with the evidence supporting Evolution. This evidence is supported overwhelmingly, by the convergence of evidence from many scientific disciplines(Genetics, Anatomy, Physiology, Paleontology, Molecular Biology, Chemistry(oxygen markers in fossils), Radiometry, Biochemistry, Physics, Molecular Biology, Molecular Physiology, Cell Biology, and General Biology). Guess what? This is exactly what we find.

It is not mere coincidence that 99% of the molecules that make up all living things, are made from only 6 of the 92 common elements. It is not coincidence that 99.9% of all organisms that lived on this planet are now extinct. It is not mere coincidence that DNA coding for amino acids are the same in all organisms. It is not coincidence that most biochemical processes are the same in all organisms. It is not coincident the function, or nonfunction of vestigial organs in humans and other organisms are still present. It is no coincidence why sexual reproduction evolved as being more favourable than asexual reproduction. I'm afraid that the debate over Evolution ended in the 19th Century, and Evolution won. Without it NOTHING makes any sense in Biology. Maybe you might be able to present an alternative explanation, that explains the Origin of Species, Natural Selection, or the Origin of the first Life?

However, if the ToE is not true and can somehow be falsified by any number of obvious ways, then all of Biology would no longer make any sense. The sum total of the advancements made in science, would be reduced to, "God did it". We would then have to explain why similarities exist among all species, past and present. We'd need to explain why all DNA coding for protein is the same in all species. We'd need to explain why Evolution appear as small changes over long periods of time? We'd need to explain why all the evidence indicate that there must exist a Universal Common Ancestor? We'd need to explain why isolated species evolved differently, than migratory species due to continental drift or other environmental factors.

I will provide more explanations and details, when addressing comments. If there are any. Don



Here is a big reason why I reject the Theory of Evolution.Evolution does not have a credibile mechanism for how life evolves.Variation amongst the populations is not even close to being evidence life evolves and yet scientists demonstrate normal variation amongst the populations and they use this evidence to cover everything else about evolution.This shows that scientists are seeing what they want to see because they believe life evolves.

But scientists demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations in the lab is just proving what was already known by plant and animal breeders for thousands of years hence corn,different kinds of roses and dogs. You see long before Charles Darwin assumed that this variation we see amongst populations can lead to big changes given enough time normal variation amongst the population was already known and well understood.

And yet scientists who believe life evolves go into a lab trying to prove and demonstrate life evolves but all they prove is what was already known - normal variation amongst the populations. But instead of realizing what they are doing they continue to push the evolution myth piling more and more evidence on top of a theory they are not even close to being able to demonstrate is true.

This is deceptive work being done by scientists because Charles Darwin used variation in the Origin of species to sell the idea life evolves and yet scientists today are using normal variation for evidence life evolves so that no progress at all has been made when it comes to the theory of evolution.

Normal variation amongst the populations is used to cover everything else about evolution and all of the evolution definitions like natural selection,speciation,macro-evolution,etc when they don't even know if life evolves.

So that things like natural selection,speciation,micro-evolution,etc are made up myths that no evidence will demonstrate because they have only proven normal variaton amongst the populations and everything else is assumed to be true based on this weak evidence that is not even close to being evidence that would demonstrate life evolves.

And I do not care how many scientists this offends because they should all be ashamed of themselves for pushing this evolution myth onto society.They need to be called out for their very deceptive nonsense science and they are only destroying the credibility of science by pushing a theory like this onto society. But they have been too stubborn to realize how much damage they have done to science and its credibility.

It is no wonder why people are being easily led to accept a flat earth.Indoctrination of society to accept the theory of evolution as true science will cause extreme skepticism to where people start believing that everything about science we have been led to believe cannot be trusted.



Are you suggesting that all student, researchers, teachers and educators, medical and pharmaceutical industries, horticultural, fishery and food industries, are all in collusion to hide the fact that there is no "credibile mechanism for how life evolves"? Do you really think that they all must be wrong, or simply supporting a myth?. You also choose to dismiss all the supporting evidence and data from all evolution-related scientific disciplines(chemistry, physics, biology, archeology, genetics, geology, paleontology, biochemistry, immunology, molecular biology, cell biology, biophysics, and bio-physiology). Either you know something that no one in any of these disciplines know, or you just think you do. Do you believe that microevolution within the population, will lead to macroevolution of the population? Evolution is anything that changes the frequency of the alleles within the gene pool. Anything that does this is Evolution, period.

I suspect going over each of the basic mechanism that allows changes to the allele frequency over time, would be a waste of time. I suppose explaining the functional mechanisms of Genes, Alleles, Mutations, Genetic Drift, Environmental and Climatic Effects, Natural Selection, Evidence for common descent, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, Nonrandom reproductions, and of other evolutionary adaptive mechanism would also be a waste of time. Maybe I can start first by explaining why no two organisms are alike, especially after birth.

Let's start with identical twins. Twins are genetic clones of one another. As they live their lives, their genome encounter viruses, which implants its genetic material into their genome. Now the individual genomes are no longer identical. They will then encounter radiation and mutagenic chemicals within their environment, which will further modify their genome differently. Transposons, already in their genome, will modify it even more. Since the process of DNA replication isn't perfect, and the mistakes that arise in this process, will further diverge the genomes. When these twins have children, they will combine their sets of genes with another set of genes, to produce an offspring with a different genome to either of their parents. And so on. This is how variation is introduced into the genome of all species. This is why each generation of the population becomes more diversified than the previous. This should explain the mechanism of how variety can appear in the genome of the individuals within a population. Next I will talk about the mechanism of how variety gives rise to new species. Don

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5912
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby Philip » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:17 am

Truly: Since we are the only species among the millions of other species that can even conceive of a God, I'd say that nature would not be considered Godly.


I haven't the foggiest as to what that statement means?

Truly: I can't explain how life wasn't designed(which would assume that it was), anymore than I can explain how life really began.


Which means that ANYONE arguing for a Godless universe is ridiculous - particularly if one uses science to assert such. Science cannot go there.

Truly: I can only speak about what happened after life had started.


And so, per the point and focus of this forum, spamming it up with "science talk" is irrelevant. If one is here to engage over the possible evidences in reality that may point to God, that's great. But if someone merely wants to regurgitate textbook scenarios concerning what would have been SECONDARY issues involving evolutionary scenarios and their assertions - heck, point people to a textbook. But pages and pages of talking about what ALREADY existed, and how mechanisms and organisms SUBSEQUENTLY interacted, but only AFTER 10 billion years of NO life yet on earth - these have absolutely nothing to do with God or any assertions He does not exist. And I think Truly has acknowledged this. So, then why go on about it, as if has anything to say about why ANYTHING exists, how anything can, how the characteristics and functionalities of what instantly appeared at the Big Bang was possible? Answering how those things could even exist, instantly appear, and instantly begin functioning as they did - THOSE are the questions that really matter.

Evolution talk is but a circus sideshow compared to the questions of what came first and how - least as far as this board is concerned. If processes occurring only after the fact of physical matter and existence is one's focus, they would be better off frequenting an evolution forum. Arguments over secondary and totally dependent things and processes are totally irrelevant to the questions surrounding God's existence. We here on G&S have seen countless people come on to argue for the non-existence of God, and then they almost immediately, pointlessly and relentlessly start spamming up the site with their analysis of evolutionary processes - as if they even matter. As per the FAR more important question and the forum's central purposes - they don't!

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4273
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby abelcainsbrother » Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:34 pm

trulyenlightened wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:Topic 4: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

First we must make a few inductive and deductive assumptions, based on our intuition and common sense. We must accept that less complicated and specialized life-forms existed before more complex and specialized life-forms did.This would also mean that at one point in time there were no life-forms at all. A time before the most simplest of organism came along. This would mean that Apes and monkeys evolved before man did. We must also assume that millions of different early life forms, representing different species, did not spontaneously appear, or initially evolved independent of each other. Finally we must include time to allow the mechanisms for change to occur. Remember organisms must survive long enough to adapt to changes in their environment, in order to procreate and transfer that information to their offsprings.

The Theory of Evolution is the most consistent and accurate explanation, of the Origin of different Species(NOT life), and the process of Natural Selection(NOT survival of the fittest). The Origin of Species describes the mechanism that causes change. There are those that argue that a Theory is no more than a well argued bit of guesswork. But a capitalized "Theory" in science is much more than just that. In science, it is a group of principles and laws, developed over many years from rigorous testing. Such Theories are backed up with mathematical formulas and the convergence of evidence that when taken together, explains a series of observations. Gravity can be explained by a number of Theories(Newton, Einstein, Gravity Field, etc.), but no one say that Gravity does not exist. Biological evolution is supported by so much evidence from different scientific disciplines, that it is a fact every bit as true as gravity. The ToE is not about whether or not evolution occurs, but how it occurs. It is only our understanding of the process of evolution that has changed over time and will continue to change. Natural Selection has sometimes been reduced to a Tautology(the survival of those who survive), but this is an oversimplification. I will not be speaking about Artificial Selection, where humans choose which traits are desirable and which are not. I will focus only on Natural Selection, where traits that increase the likelihood of survival and reproduction will become more common within a species population.The truth is that individuals never survive. What survives is the process for making another individual. This resides in the genes found within the general population.

If we believe that the ToE is true, then we must expect the fossil records to demonstrate a progression of gradual changes in earlier species. We must expect that all species share a common chemistry and anatomy with each other. And the closer species are related, the more features/commonalities they will share. We must also expect that all species have a record of genetic changes over many generations. We would also expect to find and follow a record of the geographical distribution of all related species. Finally, we would expect that the geological, archeological, meteorological, and environmental sciences, be consistent with the evidence supporting Evolution. This evidence is supported overwhelmingly, by the convergence of evidence from many scientific disciplines(Genetics, Anatomy, Physiology, Paleontology, Molecular Biology, Chemistry(oxygen markers in fossils), Radiometry, Biochemistry, Physics, Molecular Biology, Molecular Physiology, Cell Biology, and General Biology). Guess what? This is exactly what we find.

It is not mere coincidence that 99% of the molecules that make up all living things, are made from only 6 of the 92 common elements. It is not coincidence that 99.9% of all organisms that lived on this planet are now extinct. It is not mere coincidence that DNA coding for amino acids are the same in all organisms. It is not coincidence that most biochemical processes are the same in all organisms. It is not coincident the function, or nonfunction of vestigial organs in humans and other organisms are still present. It is no coincidence why sexual reproduction evolved as being more favourable than asexual reproduction. I'm afraid that the debate over Evolution ended in the 19th Century, and Evolution won. Without it NOTHING makes any sense in Biology. Maybe you might be able to present an alternative explanation, that explains the Origin of Species, Natural Selection, or the Origin of the first Life?

However, if the ToE is not true and can somehow be falsified by any number of obvious ways, then all of Biology would no longer make any sense. The sum total of the advancements made in science, would be reduced to, "God did it". We would then have to explain why similarities exist among all species, past and present. We'd need to explain why all DNA coding for protein is the same in all species. We'd need to explain why Evolution appear as small changes over long periods of time? We'd need to explain why all the evidence indicate that there must exist a Universal Common Ancestor? We'd need to explain why isolated species evolved differently, than migratory species due to continental drift or other environmental factors.

I will provide more explanations and details, when addressing comments. If there are any. Don



Here is a big reason why I reject the Theory of Evolution.Evolution does not have a credibile mechanism for how life evolves.Variation amongst the populations is not even close to being evidence life evolves and yet scientists demonstrate normal variation amongst the populations and they use this evidence to cover everything else about evolution.This shows that scientists are seeing what they want to see because they believe life evolves.

But scientists demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations in the lab is just proving what was already known by plant and animal breeders for thousands of years hence corn,different kinds of roses and dogs. You see long before Charles Darwin assumed that this variation we see amongst populations can lead to big changes given enough time normal variation amongst the population was already known and well understood.

And yet scientists who believe life evolves go into a lab trying to prove and demonstrate life evolves but all they prove is what was already known - normal variation amongst the populations. But instead of realizing what they are doing they continue to push the evolution myth piling more and more evidence on top of a theory they are not even close to being able to demonstrate is true.

This is deceptive work being done by scientists because Charles Darwin used variation in the Origin of species to sell the idea life evolves and yet scientists today are using normal variation for evidence life evolves so that no progress at all has been made when it comes to the theory of evolution.

Normal variation amongst the populations is used to cover everything else about evolution and all of the evolution definitions like natural selection,speciation,macro-evolution,etc when they don't even know if life evolves.

So that things like natural selection,speciation,micro-evolution,etc are made up myths that no evidence will demonstrate because they have only proven normal variaton amongst the populations and everything else is assumed to be true based on this weak evidence that is not even close to being evidence that would demonstrate life evolves.

And I do not care how many scientists this offends because they should all be ashamed of themselves for pushing this evolution myth onto society.They need to be called out for their very deceptive nonsense science and they are only destroying the credibility of science by pushing a theory like this onto society. But they have been too stubborn to realize how much damage they have done to science and its credibility.

It is no wonder why people are being easily led to accept a flat earth.Indoctrination of society to accept the theory of evolution as true science will cause extreme skepticism to where people start believing that everything about science we have been led to believe cannot be trusted.



Are you suggesting that all student, researchers, teachers and educators, medical and pharmaceutical industries, horticultural, fishery and food industries, are all in collusion to hide the fact that there is no "credibile mechanism for how life evolves"? Do you really think that they all must be wrong, or simply supporting a myth?. You also choose to dismiss all the supporting evidence and data from all evolution-related scientific disciplines(chemistry, physics, biology, archeology, genetics, geology, paleontology, biochemistry, immunology, molecular biology, cell biology, biophysics, and bio-physiology). Either you know something that no one in any of these disciplines know, or you just think you do. Do you believe that microevolution within the population, will lead to macroevolution of the population? Evolution is anything that changes the frequency of the alleles within the gene pool. Anything that does this is Evolution, period.

I suspect going over each of the basic mechanism that allows changes to the allele frequency over time, would be a waste of time. I suppose explaining the functional mechanisms of Genes, Alleles, Mutations, Genetic Drift, Environmental and Climatic Effects, Natural Selection, Evidence for common descent, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, Nonrandom reproductions, and of other evolutionary adaptive mechanism would also be a waste of time. Maybe I can start first by explaining why no two organisms are alike, especially after birth.

Let's start with identical twins. Twins are genetic clones of one another. As they live their lives, their genome encounter viruses, which implants its genetic material into their genome. Now the individual genomes are no longer identical. They will then encounter radiation and mutagenic chemicals within their environment, which will further modify their genome differently. Transposons, already in their genome, will modify it even more. Since the process of DNA replication isn't perfect, and the mistakes that arise in this process, will further diverge the genomes. When these twins have children, they will combine their sets of genes with another set of genes, to produce an offspring with a different genome to either of their parents. And so on. This is how variation is introduced into the genome of all species. This is why each generation of the population becomes more diversified than the previous. This should explain the mechanism of how variety can appear in the genome of the individuals within a population. Next I will talk about the mechanism of how variety gives rise to new species. Don



Yes they are all wrong but have been seduced by evolution.We can go over it and the only thing that will be demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.As a matter of fact the latter part of your post is explaining normal variation amongst the population of humans and yet you are trying to claim this is evolution.It is not evolution,not even close to evolution.Yet here you are claiming it is evolution. Charles Darwin sold the idea life evolves based on variation and yet here you are 150 years later using it for evidence life evolves.It cannot be evidence because Charles Darwin used variation to sell the idea that life will eventually evolve. It is why evolution became a scientific theory.And so you must show and demonstrate how variation leads to live evolving over time,not use variation for evidence life evolves.So that you have made no progress at all in science since Charles Darwin when it comes to evolution.

Tell me how what you described about the twins is any different than the many different dog breeds.It is no different at all and yet you're using it for evidennce that life evolves just as I said you would and it will be the same thing if we go forward with this discussion. Every example you can give for evidence will be examples of just normal variation amongst the population with lies thrown in to make it more believable.

If you want to get into speciation? Know that not all dogs can breed and yet you'll claim certian life evolved when it can no longer breed.Yet a German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed amongst the population of dogs and yet you cannot claim either one has evolved and the only thing demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.

This is the case with every example of evidence given for examples and evidence life evolves. This is why I'm pointing it out. You must assume so much when the only thing you're demonstrating is normal variation amongst a population to believe it can eventually lead to one kind of life changing into another kind of life over time. There is no ebvidence that even comes close to demonstrating this because it is just normal variation amongst the populations being used for evidence. This is not a credible mechanism for how life evolves,not even close. You are assuming so much based on this weak evidence,you have alot of faith that life will eventually evolve. The evidence for evolution really proves the bible true when it tells us that God created and made kinds to produce after its kind.This is what normal variation amongst the populations prove,not evolution.

Viruses produce viruses,bacteria produces bacteria,humans produce humans,salamanders produce salamanders,finches produce finches,rats produce rats,fruit flies produce fruit flies,cats produce cats,and on and on and on in evidence for evolution. And yet just because there is variation you think it means it will evolve eventually. It is nonsense thinking. No pun intended.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:01 am

Philip wrote:
Truly: Since we are the only species among the millions of other species that can even conceive of a God, I'd say that nature would not be considered Godly.


I haven't the foggiest as to what that statement means?

Truly: I can't explain how life wasn't designed(which would assume that it was), anymore than I can explain how life really began.


Which means that ANYONE arguing for a Godless universe is ridiculous - particularly if one uses science to assert such. Science cannot go there.

Truly: I can only speak about what happened after life had started.


And so, per the point and focus of this forum, spamming it up with "science talk" is irrelevant. If one is here to engage over the possible evidences in reality that may point to God, that's great. But if someone merely wants to regurgitate textbook scenarios concerning what would have been SECONDARY issues involving evolutionary scenarios and their assertions - heck, point people to a textbook. But pages and pages of talking about what ALREADY existed, and how mechanisms and organisms SUBSEQUENTLY interacted, but only AFTER 10 billion years of NO life yet on earth - these have absolutely nothing to do with God or any assertions He does not exist. And I think Truly has acknowledged this. So, then why go on about it, as if has anything to say about why ANYTHING exists, how anything can, how the characteristics and functionalities of what instantly appeared at the Big Bang was possible? Answering how those things could even exist, instantly appear, and instantly begin functioning as they did - THOSE are the questions that really matter.

Evolution talk is but a circus sideshow compared to the questions of what came first and how - least as far as this board is concerned. If processes occurring only after the fact of physical matter and existence is one's focus, they would be better off frequenting an evolution forum. Arguments over secondary and totally dependent things and processes are totally irrelevant to the questions surrounding God's existence. We here on G&S have seen countless people come on to argue for the non-existence of God, and then they almost immediately, pointlessly and relentlessly start spamming up the site with their analysis of evolutionary processes - as if they even matter. As per the FAR more important question and the forum's central purposes - they don't!


Thank you Philip, and I appreciate your words and opinions. My comment only meant that no other animal on the planet shows any evidence of conceiving of a God. Since we are only one of millions of other species, it would seem that the conception of a God is not a necessary ingredient for survival. Therefore Nature is motivate without the need of God, thus unGodly. This was in response to another comment made. I do not speak on the existence of God, because I don't know enough to offer any insight. If 4 Billion people on the planet believe in the existence of God, then there must be something to it. They can't all be wrong. So I speak only about topics that I do know something about. Maybe there are those that share a different opinion than yours, and want to understand Evolution from a scientific perspective. As far as spamming, I only asked for one thread for those interested in visiting, but unfortunately that was out of my control. So I'm not spamming. If I posted my ideas on other threads, then I would be spamming.

My comments have nothing to do with whether a God exists or not. A person's beliefs provides many positive social, emotional, and psychological benefits(security, sense of belonging, purpose, wisdom, a moral framework, sense of community, unity, etc.). Of course there are the negative aspects(separatism, exclusivism, censorship, obedience, inspired conflicts((the killing of Atheists in Bangladesh)), mistrust/distrust, closed-mindedness, etc.), that are hard to ignore.

All I'm saying is there might be some that may share an interest in both Religion and science. My students and colleagues claim that my method of teaching is a lot easier to understand than many textbooks. Although, I do recommend textbooks as an optional aid for a more detailed understanding. I really expected that those that read my topics, are sincerely interested in what I am saying. I did not expect all this unwarranted vitriol and latent invectives. Since overwhelmingly, it is moderators that are making comments on my thread, I don't see the justification for such unwarranted fears. But, as I have said before, if no one visits my thread, then I am effectively muted. If this is your purpose, then eventually the threat will end. If you would like to censor all opinions other than your own, then simply say in your screening process, "No Non-Christians, No Skeptics, No Atheist, and No Critical Thinkers allowed". This would alleviate all other dissenting opinions, and maintain Religious exclusivity. Of course you would then be no different than any other radical organization or ideology(Klu Klux Clan, IRA, Black Radical Congress, Radical Feminism, Racists Organizations, Cultism, Radical Islam, etc.). They also censor any and all dissenting opinions. Exclusivity in society, only leads to social separatism and mistrust/distrust. We have seen the results of exclusivism in the pasts(slavery, radicalism, racism, antisemitism, women's suffrage, social and religious intolerance, nazism, segregation, lynchings, wars, etc). This is what happens when only one point of view is allowed. It was amazing how quickly the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses changed their practice, when they were threatened with paying taxes, because of their policy of not allowing other races into their higher levels of faith(by Biblical interpretation), simply because of their race. This was a blatant example of Religious discrimination and intolerance.

I would never have posted anything at all, if I hadn't seen your thread about the extraordinary scientific proof that proved the existence of God. So, are you suggesting that I post only non-scientific, metaphysical and philosophical mumbo-jumbo, or go elsewhere? We all live in the same human society, and we all need and depend on each other for our survival. So social interaction is inevitable. So rather than sow the make-believe seeds of self-serving logic, just to justify another banning, just don't visit the thread. Especially, if the the strength of your belief seems this easily threatened. Don

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:57 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:Topic 4: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

First we must make a few inductive and deductive assumptions, based on our intuition and common sense. We must accept that less complicated and specialized life-forms existed before more complex and specialized life-forms did.This would also mean that at one point in time there were no life-forms at all. A time before the most simplest of organism came along. This would mean that Apes and monkeys evolved before man did. We must also assume that millions of different early life forms, representing different species, did not spontaneously appear, or initially evolved independent of each other. Finally we must include time to allow the mechanisms for change to occur. Remember organisms must survive long enough to adapt to changes in their environment, in order to procreate and transfer that information to their offsprings.

The Theory of Evolution is the most consistent and accurate explanation, of the Origin of different Species(NOT life), and the process of Natural Selection(NOT survival of the fittest). The Origin of Species describes the mechanism that causes change. There are those that argue that a Theory is no more than a well argued bit of guesswork. But a capitalized "Theory" in science is much more than just that. In science, it is a group of principles and laws, developed over many years from rigorous testing. Such Theories are backed up with mathematical formulas and the convergence of evidence that when taken together, explains a series of observations. Gravity can be explained by a number of Theories(Newton, Einstein, Gravity Field, etc.), but no one say that Gravity does not exist. Biological evolution is supported by so much evidence from different scientific disciplines, that it is a fact every bit as true as gravity. The ToE is not about whether or not evolution occurs, but how it occurs. It is only our understanding of the process of evolution that has changed over time and will continue to change. Natural Selection has sometimes been reduced to a Tautology(the survival of those who survive), but this is an oversimplification. I will not be speaking about Artificial Selection, where humans choose which traits are desirable and which are not. I will focus only on Natural Selection, where traits that increase the likelihood of survival and reproduction will become more common within a species population.The truth is that individuals never survive. What survives is the process for making another individual. This resides in the genes found within the general population.

If we believe that the ToE is true, then we must expect the fossil records to demonstrate a progression of gradual changes in earlier species. We must expect that all species share a common chemistry and anatomy with each other. And the closer species are related, the more features/commonalities they will share. We must also expect that all species have a record of genetic changes over many generations. We would also expect to find and follow a record of the geographical distribution of all related species. Finally, we would expect that the geological, archeological, meteorological, and environmental sciences, be consistent with the evidence supporting Evolution. This evidence is supported overwhelmingly, by the convergence of evidence from many scientific disciplines(Genetics, Anatomy, Physiology, Paleontology, Molecular Biology, Chemistry(oxygen markers in fossils), Radiometry, Biochemistry, Physics, Molecular Biology, Molecular Physiology, Cell Biology, and General Biology). Guess what? This is exactly what we find.

It is not mere coincidence that 99% of the molecules that make up all living things, are made from only 6 of the 92 common elements. It is not coincidence that 99.9% of all organisms that lived on this planet are now extinct. It is not mere coincidence that DNA coding for amino acids are the same in all organisms. It is not coincidence that most biochemical processes are the same in all organisms. It is not coincident the function, or nonfunction of vestigial organs in humans and other organisms are still present. It is no coincidence why sexual reproduction evolved as being more favourable than asexual reproduction. I'm afraid that the debate over Evolution ended in the 19th Century, and Evolution won. Without it NOTHING makes any sense in Biology. Maybe you might be able to present an alternative explanation, that explains the Origin of Species, Natural Selection, or the Origin of the first Life?

However, if the ToE is not true and can somehow be falsified by any number of obvious ways, then all of Biology would no longer make any sense. The sum total of the advancements made in science, would be reduced to, "God did it". We would then have to explain why similarities exist among all species, past and present. We'd need to explain why all DNA coding for protein is the same in all species. We'd need to explain why Evolution appear as small changes over long periods of time? We'd need to explain why all the evidence indicate that there must exist a Universal Common Ancestor? We'd need to explain why isolated species evolved differently, than migratory species due to continental drift or other environmental factors.

I will provide more explanations and details, when addressing comments. If there are any. Don



Here is a big reason why I reject the Theory of Evolution.Evolution does not have a credibile mechanism for how life evolves.Variation amongst the populations is not even close to being evidence life evolves and yet scientists demonstrate normal variation amongst the populations and they use this evidence to cover everything else about evolution.This shows that scientists are seeing what they want to see because they believe life evolves.

But scientists demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations in the lab is just proving what was already known by plant and animal breeders for thousands of years hence corn,different kinds of roses and dogs. You see long before Charles Darwin assumed that this variation we see amongst populations can lead to big changes given enough time normal variation amongst the population was already known and well understood.

And yet scientists who believe life evolves go into a lab trying to prove and demonstrate life evolves but all they prove is what was already known - normal variation amongst the populations. But instead of realizing what they are doing they continue to push the evolution myth piling more and more evidence on top of a theory they are not even close to being able to demonstrate is true.

This is deceptive work being done by scientists because Charles Darwin used variation in the Origin of species to sell the idea life evolves and yet scientists today are using normal variation for evidence life evolves so that no progress at all has been made when it comes to the theory of evolution.

Normal variation amongst the populations is used to cover everything else about evolution and all of the evolution definitions like natural selection,speciation,macro-evolution,etc when they don't even know if life evolves.

So that things like natural selection,speciation,micro-evolution,etc are made up myths that no evidence will demonstrate because they have only proven normal variaton amongst the populations and everything else is assumed to be true based on this weak evidence that is not even close to being evidence that would demonstrate life evolves.

And I do not care how many scientists this offends because they should all be ashamed of themselves for pushing this evolution myth onto society.They need to be called out for their very deceptive nonsense science and they are only destroying the credibility of science by pushing a theory like this onto society. But they have been too stubborn to realize how much damage they have done to science and its credibility.

It is no wonder why people are being easily led to accept a flat earth.Indoctrination of society to accept the theory of evolution as true science will cause extreme skepticism to where people start believing that everything about science we have been led to believe cannot be trusted.



Are you suggesting that all student, researchers, teachers and educators, medical and pharmaceutical industries, horticultural, fishery and food industries, are all in collusion to hide the fact that there is no "credibile mechanism for how life evolves"? Do you really think that they all must be wrong, or simply supporting a myth?. You also choose to dismiss all the supporting evidence and data from all evolution-related scientific disciplines(chemistry, physics, biology, archeology, genetics, geology, paleontology, biochemistry, immunology, molecular biology, cell biology, biophysics, and bio-physiology). Either you know something that no one in any of these disciplines know, or you just think you do. Do you believe that microevolution within the population, will lead to macroevolution of the population? Evolution is anything that changes the frequency of the alleles within the gene pool. Anything that does this is Evolution, period.

I suspect going over each of the basic mechanism that allows changes to the allele frequency over time, would be a waste of time. I suppose explaining the functional mechanisms of Genes, Alleles, Mutations, Genetic Drift, Environmental and Climatic Effects, Natural Selection, Evidence for common descent, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, Nonrandom reproductions, and of other evolutionary adaptive mechanism would also be a waste of time. Maybe I can start first by explaining why no two organisms are alike, especially after birth.

Let's start with identical twins. Twins are genetic clones of one another. As they live their lives, their genome encounter viruses, which implants its genetic material into their genome. Now the individual genomes are no longer identical. They will then encounter radiation and mutagenic chemicals within their environment, which will further modify their genome differently. Transposons, already in their genome, will modify it even more. Since the process of DNA replication isn't perfect, and the mistakes that arise in this process, will further diverge the genomes. When these twins have children, they will combine their sets of genes with another set of genes, to produce an offspring with a different genome to either of their parents. And so on. This is how variation is introduced into the genome of all species. This is why each generation of the population becomes more diversified than the previous. This should explain the mechanism of how variety can appear in the genome of the individuals within a population. Next I will talk about the mechanism of how variety gives rise to new species. Don



Yes they are all wrong but have been seduced by evolution.We can go over it and the only thing that will be demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.As a matter of fact the latter part of your post is explaining normal variation amongst the population of humans and yet you are trying to claim this is evolution.It is not evolution,not even close to evolution.Yet here you are claiming it is evolution. Charles Darwin sold the idea life evolves based on variation and yet here you are 150 years later using it for evidence life evolves.It cannot be evidence because Charles Darwin used variation to sell the idea that life will eventually evolve. It is why evolution became a scientific theory.And so you must show and demonstrate how variation leads to live evolving over time,not use variation for evidence life evolves.So that you have made no progress at all in science since Charles Darwin when it comes to evolution.

Tell me how what you described about the twins is any different than the many different dog breeds.It is no different at all and yet you're using it for evidennce that life evolves just as I said you would and it will be the same thing if we go forward with this discussion. Every example you can give for evidence will be examples of just normal variation amongst the population with lies thrown in to make it more believable.

If you want to get into speciation? Know that not all dogs can breed and yet you'll claim certian life evolved when it can no longer breed.Yet a German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed amongst the population of dogs and yet you cannot claim either one has evolved and the only thing demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.

This is the case with every example of evidence given for examples and evidence life evolves. This is why I'm pointing it out. You must assume so much when the only thing you're demonstrating is normal variation amongst a population to believe it can eventually lead to one kind of life changing into another kind of life over time. There is no ebvidence that even comes close to demonstrating this because it is just normal variation amongst the populations being used for evidence. This is not a credible mechanism for how life evolves,not even close. You are assuming so much based on this weak evidence,you have alot of faith that life will eventually evolve. The evidence for evolution really proves the bible true when it tells us that God created and made kinds to produce after its kind.This is what normal variation amongst the populations prove,not evolution.

Viruses produce viruses,bacteria produces bacteria,humans produce humans,salamanders produce salamanders,finches produce finches,rats produce rats,fruit flies produce fruit flies,cats produce cats,and on and on and on in evidence for evolution. And yet just because there is variation you think it means it will evolve eventually. It is nonsense thinking. No pun intended.


Darwin did not understand the mechanism by which all things changed over time. We do. It is human intervention that is the source of the different breeds of dogs, not evolution. Although it is the principles of evolution that are being used. The twins were an example of how even individuals with the exact same genome, can acquire variance in their genome through natural processes. Do you know WHY species can only reproduce their own offsprings? Why man cannot produce apes and vise-versa? By understanding the WHY, you would understand more about the importance of genetic variances and DNA replication. This would aso give you deeper insight into the process of natural selection. Also, remember that natural variation is different than artificial variation. I am only talking about natural variances in the population.

Regarding your "not all dogs can breed", ALL dogs can interbreed. The definition of a species, "is a population of animals that can interbreed and produce a viable and fertile offspring". There is only ONE SPECIES OF DOG(Canis lupus). What you are referring to are the different breeds of dogs. But if there was a dog that couldn't breed with another dog, then it would technically not be in the same species, therefore, it would not be a dog. Although there might be some obvious mechanical problems during the mating and gestation period, but there is NO problem with canine conception. Your information is clearly and obviously false. They are called "teacup chihuahua", if you care to see what they look like. Speciation is the mechanism that produces different species, not different breeds within the same species.

Science is not trying to sell anyone anything. It uses the same scientific methods to interpret the data and evidence it receives, so it can best explain some natural phenomenon. If you can provide a more scientific explanation, then good on you. If not, then I can only appreciate your opinion. Don

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18593
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby RickD » Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:47 am

trulyenlightened wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:Designed to, by whom?


So out of my entire post, you found one word("design"), to comment on. Even when cherry-picking a post, questioning semantics is a bit desperate by any standards. In hindsight I should have said "..just the way they were MEANT TO FUNCTION". Clearly I won't make that mistake again. Obviously your question is an example of an argument using a false premise. It puts the conclusion as one of the premises. It has not been established that life IS DESIGNED. Therefore, "by whom" becomes irrelevant. It like if I asked you, "when did you stop beating your wife?" It makes the assumption that you in fact do beat your wife. By answering your question, I would be agreeing(without any evidence or facts) that all your premises are true and factual. Therefore, I can't answer it in the way you have framed it. So prove that life is designed, first.

The key words in my sentence were, "Our senses HAVE EVOLVED TO FUNCTION just the...". This means that senses from other organisms may have evolved to function in different ways. As long as our senses can assist in our survival strategies, they are doing what they meant to do. That was the meaning I had intended for you to get.

Again, were there any questions on the central topic, or the evolution of our senses from other species? I will try to watch the words that I use in the future. Don

Seriously Don,

You're not going to last long around here if you continue the way you're posting.
I asked you a question about what you said, and you turned it into me arguing semantics, and claiming life is designed. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT WAS DESIGNED, NOT ME!

So, since you changed what you originally said, and you really meant, "just the way they were MEANT TO FUNCTION", please explain how life which wasn't designed, but began from chance and luck, has an actual way that is is "meant to function".

So now, life which you say began by chance and luck, has an actual purpose and meaning?
There's an actual purpose to Godless, random evolution?


If I made the same statement to any scientist, student, researcher, teacher, educator, or any non-creationist, they would all know, that stating that our senses(not life) have evolved to do what it was designed for, does not mean that someone must have designed our senses. We are talking about a biological function, not any man-made or artificial function. It should have been the "our senses have evolved to..", that should have given the true meaning away. If our senses are evolved, than how could they have been designed? Is your misinterpretation becoming any clearer? An important point you needed to ignored, to exploit one word out of context. We are not talking about who used or stated the word, "designed". We are talking about how you have misinterpreted the word to ask who is the designer? Clearly it means for most people, that our senses do what they were meant to do(receive and transmit stimuli). Which is what I explained to you, as well as to be more vigilant in what words I use in the future. I have not changed the meaning of my statement. What, in the colloquial and general sense, is the difference between "designed to function", and "meant to function"?

It is survival that is the driving force behind all living organisms. Their only purpose, from a biological perspective, is to survive and reproduce. All other functions are unnecessary. If you are looking for a purpose, from a naturalistic/ecological point of view, it would be to maintain the delicate balance in nature. We know what happens when this balance is tipped in one direction or another. Since we are the only species among the millions of other species that can even conceive of a God, I'd say that nature would not be considered Godly. I can't explain how life wasn't designed(which would assume that it was), anymore than I can explain how life really began. No one knows the answer to these questions, and no one ever will. I can only speak about what happened after life had started. Don


"I asked you a question about what you said, and you turned it into me arguing semantics, and claiming life is designed. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT WAS DESIGNED, NOT ME!" Exactly WHERE did I claim that life was designed? Or is this another one of your necessary interpretations? Was that a red herring or a straw man? You simply took my word out of context, applied your own interpretation, accuse me of saying that IT WAS DESIGNED, and then ask me to explain who designed it. That is the most blatant, and textbook example of a straw man ever. Don

Where did you claim life was designed?

Here:
Our senses have evolved to function just they way they are designed to.


If you don't mean what you actually say, don't go blaming others for misunderstanding you.

Thin ice. Thin ice.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:34 am

RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
So out of my entire post, you found one word("design"), to comment on. Even when cherry-picking a post, questioning semantics is a bit desperate by any standards. In hindsight I should have said "..just the way they were MEANT TO FUNCTION". Clearly I won't make that mistake again. Obviously your question is an example of an argument using a false premise. It puts the conclusion as one of the premises. It has not been established that life IS DESIGNED. Therefore, "by whom" becomes irrelevant. It like if I asked you, "when did you stop beating your wife?" It makes the assumption that you in fact do beat your wife. By answering your question, I would be agreeing(without any evidence or facts) that all your premises are true and factual. Therefore, I can't answer it in the way you have framed it. So prove that life is designed, first.

The key words in my sentence were, "Our senses HAVE EVOLVED TO FUNCTION just the...". This means that senses from other organisms may have evolved to function in different ways. As long as our senses can assist in our survival strategies, they are doing what they meant to do. That was the meaning I had intended for you to get.

Again, were there any questions on the central topic, or the evolution of our senses from other species? I will try to watch the words that I use in the future. Don

Seriously Don,

You're not going to last long around here if you continue the way you're posting.
I asked you a question about what you said, and you turned it into me arguing semantics, and claiming life is designed. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT WAS DESIGNED, NOT ME!

So, since you changed what you originally said, and you really meant, "just the way they were MEANT TO FUNCTION", please explain how life which wasn't designed, but began from chance and luck, has an actual way that is is "meant to function".

So now, life which you say began by chance and luck, has an actual purpose and meaning?
There's an actual purpose to Godless, random evolution?


If I made the same statement to any scientist, student, researcher, teacher, educator, or any non-creationist, they would all know, that stating that our senses(not life) have evolved to do what it was designed for, does not mean that someone must have designed our senses. We are talking about a biological function, not any man-made or artificial function. It should have been the "our senses have evolved to..", that should have given the true meaning away. If our senses are evolved, than how could they have been designed? Is your misinterpretation becoming any clearer? An important point you needed to ignored, to exploit one word out of context. We are not talking about who used or stated the word, "designed". We are talking about how you have misinterpreted the word to ask who is the designer? Clearly it means for most people, that our senses do what they were meant to do(receive and transmit stimuli). Which is what I explained to you, as well as to be more vigilant in what words I use in the future. I have not changed the meaning of my statement. What, in the colloquial and general sense, is the difference between "designed to function", and "meant to function"?

It is survival that is the driving force behind all living organisms. Their only purpose, from a biological perspective, is to survive and reproduce. All other functions are unnecessary. If you are looking for a purpose, from a naturalistic/ecological point of view, it would be to maintain the delicate balance in nature. We know what happens when this balance is tipped in one direction or another. Since we are the only species among the millions of other species that can even conceive of a God, I'd say that nature would not be considered Godly. I can't explain how life wasn't designed(which would assume that it was), anymore than I can explain how life really began. No one knows the answer to these questions, and no one ever will. I can only speak about what happened after life had started. Don


"I asked you a question about what you said, and you turned it into me arguing semantics, and claiming life is designed. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT WAS DESIGNED, NOT ME!" Exactly WHERE did I claim that life was designed? Or is this another one of your necessary interpretations? Was that a red herring or a straw man? You simply took my word out of context, applied your own interpretation, accuse me of saying that IT WAS DESIGNED, and then ask me to explain who designed it. That is the most blatant, and textbook example of a straw man ever. Don

Where did you claim life was designed?

Here:
Our senses have evolved to function just they way they are designed to.


If you don't mean what you actually say, don't go blaming others for misunderstanding you.

Thin ice. Thin ice.


If I say that the wings on a bird has evolved to function the way they were designed to, does this have the same meaning as "all birds are designed"? Of course not. If I say that the human eye has evolved to function in the way it was design to, does this also have the same meaning as "all humans are designed"? Of course not. This is an equivocation and composition fallacy, since I was speaking only about our senses, NOT ABOUT ALL LIFE. Nowhere in that sentence is the word "life" even mentioned. In fact, the word, "life" is not mentioned anywhere in the post. There is no evidence to support a biological Designer, or anything that is biologically designed. There is only evidence of things that have biologically evolved from being less specialized/complex, to becoming more specialized/complex. However, if I had said, that APS brake discs have technically evolved to function in the way it was designed to, you could ask who designed them. Or, you can even stretch it and ask who designed cars, since both have designers.

As far as thin ice, I'm sure you can make up any reason you'd like to maintain power, order and control. But the truth will always find its way to the surface, no matter how much you try to suppress it. I will be more vigilant in the future, and watch the words that I use. This should avoid any further misunderstandings or misrepresentations. So, unless you can provide any objective evidence of anything that was specifically biologically designed, or what the design(blueprint) looks like, I'm going to have to go with all living functions/things have evolved naturally. Finally, I never blame anyone for misunderstanding anything I say. But once I understand the author's true meaning, I simply move on without the blame game. Don

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5912
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby Philip » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:41 am

Truly: I would never have posted anything at all, if I hadn't seen your thread about the extraordinary scientific proof that proved the existence of God. So, are you suggesting that I post only non-scientific, metaphysical and philosophical mumbo-jumbo, or go elsewhere?


Of course not - many Christians believe evolution was God's process. And for me, personally, what science can teach us merely magnifies my belief in God, and in the impossibility that what came into existence could have done so without an immensly powerful Superinitellgence who would HAVE to pre-exist ALL things and be eternal.

Truly: So rather than sow the make-believe seeds of self-serving logic...


Truly, I'd say YOUR logic in how you look at the evidence serves to supprt your unbelief, correct?

Truly: Just to justify another banning, just don't visit the thread.


Simple, just be respectful and there's no need to fear a ban.

Truly: Especially, if the the strength of your belief seems this easily threatened.


Wrong - speaking of evolution views is certainly not threatening to my Christian beliefs - as I've said, there is a wide variety of views of Christians on that topic. My point is that going on relentlessly in detail about it is rather pointless, at least in regards to the far more important questions it doesn't address (does God exist and Who is He?)- which is the main focus of the forum.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4273
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby abelcainsbrother » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:51 pm

trulyenlightened wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:Topic 4: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

First we must make a few inductive and deductive assumptions, based on our intuition and common sense. We must accept that less complicated and specialized life-forms existed before more complex and specialized life-forms did.This would also mean that at one point in time there were no life-forms at all. A time before the most simplest of organism came along. This would mean that Apes and monkeys evolved before man did. We must also assume that millions of different early life forms, representing different species, did not spontaneously appear, or initially evolved independent of each other. Finally we must include time to allow the mechanisms for change to occur. Remember organisms must survive long enough to adapt to changes in their environment, in order to procreate and transfer that information to their offsprings.

The Theory of Evolution is the most consistent and accurate explanation, of the Origin of different Species(NOT life), and the process of Natural Selection(NOT survival of the fittest). The Origin of Species describes the mechanism that causes change. There are those that argue that a Theory is no more than a well argued bit of guesswork. But a capitalized "Theory" in science is much more than just that. In science, it is a group of principles and laws, developed over many years from rigorous testing. Such Theories are backed up with mathematical formulas and the convergence of evidence that when taken together, explains a series of observations. Gravity can be explained by a number of Theories(Newton, Einstein, Gravity Field, etc.), but no one say that Gravity does not exist. Biological evolution is supported by so much evidence from different scientific disciplines, that it is a fact every bit as true as gravity. The ToE is not about whether or not evolution occurs, but how it occurs. It is only our understanding of the process of evolution that has changed over time and will continue to change. Natural Selection has sometimes been reduced to a Tautology(the survival of those who survive), but this is an oversimplification. I will not be speaking about Artificial Selection, where humans choose which traits are desirable and which are not. I will focus only on Natural Selection, where traits that increase the likelihood of survival and reproduction will become more common within a species population.The truth is that individuals never survive. What survives is the process for making another individual. This resides in the genes found within the general population.

If we believe that the ToE is true, then we must expect the fossil records to demonstrate a progression of gradual changes in earlier species. We must expect that all species share a common chemistry and anatomy with each other. And the closer species are related, the more features/commonalities they will share. We must also expect that all species have a record of genetic changes over many generations. We would also expect to find and follow a record of the geographical distribution of all related species. Finally, we would expect that the geological, archeological, meteorological, and environmental sciences, be consistent with the evidence supporting Evolution. This evidence is supported overwhelmingly, by the convergence of evidence from many scientific disciplines(Genetics, Anatomy, Physiology, Paleontology, Molecular Biology, Chemistry(oxygen markers in fossils), Radiometry, Biochemistry, Physics, Molecular Biology, Molecular Physiology, Cell Biology, and General Biology). Guess what? This is exactly what we find.

It is not mere coincidence that 99% of the molecules that make up all living things, are made from only 6 of the 92 common elements. It is not coincidence that 99.9% of all organisms that lived on this planet are now extinct. It is not mere coincidence that DNA coding for amino acids are the same in all organisms. It is not coincidence that most biochemical processes are the same in all organisms. It is not coincident the function, or nonfunction of vestigial organs in humans and other organisms are still present. It is no coincidence why sexual reproduction evolved as being more favourable than asexual reproduction. I'm afraid that the debate over Evolution ended in the 19th Century, and Evolution won. Without it NOTHING makes any sense in Biology. Maybe you might be able to present an alternative explanation, that explains the Origin of Species, Natural Selection, or the Origin of the first Life?

However, if the ToE is not true and can somehow be falsified by any number of obvious ways, then all of Biology would no longer make any sense. The sum total of the advancements made in science, would be reduced to, "God did it". We would then have to explain why similarities exist among all species, past and present. We'd need to explain why all DNA coding for protein is the same in all species. We'd need to explain why Evolution appear as small changes over long periods of time? We'd need to explain why all the evidence indicate that there must exist a Universal Common Ancestor? We'd need to explain why isolated species evolved differently, than migratory species due to continental drift or other environmental factors.

I will provide more explanations and details, when addressing comments. If there are any. Don



Here is a big reason why I reject the Theory of Evolution.Evolution does not have a credibile mechanism for how life evolves.Variation amongst the populations is not even close to being evidence life evolves and yet scientists demonstrate normal variation amongst the populations and they use this evidence to cover everything else about evolution.This shows that scientists are seeing what they want to see because they believe life evolves.

But scientists demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations in the lab is just proving what was already known by plant and animal breeders for thousands of years hence corn,different kinds of roses and dogs. You see long before Charles Darwin assumed that this variation we see amongst populations can lead to big changes given enough time normal variation amongst the population was already known and well understood.

And yet scientists who believe life evolves go into a lab trying to prove and demonstrate life evolves but all they prove is what was already known - normal variation amongst the populations. But instead of realizing what they are doing they continue to push the evolution myth piling more and more evidence on top of a theory they are not even close to being able to demonstrate is true.

This is deceptive work being done by scientists because Charles Darwin used variation in the Origin of species to sell the idea life evolves and yet scientists today are using normal variation for evidence life evolves so that no progress at all has been made when it comes to the theory of evolution.

Normal variation amongst the populations is used to cover everything else about evolution and all of the evolution definitions like natural selection,speciation,macro-evolution,etc when they don't even know if life evolves.

So that things like natural selection,speciation,micro-evolution,etc are made up myths that no evidence will demonstrate because they have only proven normal variaton amongst the populations and everything else is assumed to be true based on this weak evidence that is not even close to being evidence that would demonstrate life evolves.

And I do not care how many scientists this offends because they should all be ashamed of themselves for pushing this evolution myth onto society.They need to be called out for their very deceptive nonsense science and they are only destroying the credibility of science by pushing a theory like this onto society. But they have been too stubborn to realize how much damage they have done to science and its credibility.

It is no wonder why people are being easily led to accept a flat earth.Indoctrination of society to accept the theory of evolution as true science will cause extreme skepticism to where people start believing that everything about science we have been led to believe cannot be trusted.



Are you suggesting that all student, researchers, teachers and educators, medical and pharmaceutical industries, horticultural, fishery and food industries, are all in collusion to hide the fact that there is no "credibile mechanism for how life evolves"? Do you really think that they all must be wrong, or simply supporting a myth?. You also choose to dismiss all the supporting evidence and data from all evolution-related scientific disciplines(chemistry, physics, biology, archeology, genetics, geology, paleontology, biochemistry, immunology, molecular biology, cell biology, biophysics, and bio-physiology). Either you know something that no one in any of these disciplines know, or you just think you do. Do you believe that microevolution within the population, will lead to macroevolution of the population? Evolution is anything that changes the frequency of the alleles within the gene pool. Anything that does this is Evolution, period.

I suspect going over each of the basic mechanism that allows changes to the allele frequency over time, would be a waste of time. I suppose explaining the functional mechanisms of Genes, Alleles, Mutations, Genetic Drift, Environmental and Climatic Effects, Natural Selection, Evidence for common descent, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, Nonrandom reproductions, and of other evolutionary adaptive mechanism would also be a waste of time. Maybe I can start first by explaining why no two organisms are alike, especially after birth.

Let's start with identical twins. Twins are genetic clones of one another. As they live their lives, their genome encounter viruses, which implants its genetic material into their genome. Now the individual genomes are no longer identical. They will then encounter radiation and mutagenic chemicals within their environment, which will further modify their genome differently. Transposons, already in their genome, will modify it even more. Since the process of DNA replication isn't perfect, and the mistakes that arise in this process, will further diverge the genomes. When these twins have children, they will combine their sets of genes with another set of genes, to produce an offspring with a different genome to either of their parents. And so on. This is how variation is introduced into the genome of all species. This is why each generation of the population becomes more diversified than the previous. This should explain the mechanism of how variety can appear in the genome of the individuals within a population. Next I will talk about the mechanism of how variety gives rise to new species. Don



Yes they are all wrong but have been seduced by evolution.We can go over it and the only thing that will be demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.As a matter of fact the latter part of your post is explaining normal variation amongst the population of humans and yet you are trying to claim this is evolution.It is not evolution,not even close to evolution.Yet here you are claiming it is evolution. Charles Darwin sold the idea life evolves based on variation and yet here you are 150 years later using it for evidence life evolves.It cannot be evidence because Charles Darwin used variation to sell the idea that life will eventually evolve. It is why evolution became a scientific theory.And so you must show and demonstrate how variation leads to live evolving over time,not use variation for evidence life evolves.So that you have made no progress at all in science since Charles Darwin when it comes to evolution.

Tell me how what you described about the twins is any different than the many different dog breeds.It is no different at all and yet you're using it for evidennce that life evolves just as I said you would and it will be the same thing if we go forward with this discussion. Every example you can give for evidence will be examples of just normal variation amongst the population with lies thrown in to make it more believable.

If you want to get into speciation? Know that not all dogs can breed and yet you'll claim certian life evolved when it can no longer breed.Yet a German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed amongst the population of dogs and yet you cannot claim either one has evolved and the only thing demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.

This is the case with every example of evidence given for examples and evidence life evolves. This is why I'm pointing it out. You must assume so much when the only thing you're demonstrating is normal variation amongst a population to believe it can eventually lead to one kind of life changing into another kind of life over time. There is no ebvidence that even comes close to demonstrating this because it is just normal variation amongst the populations being used for evidence. This is not a credible mechanism for how life evolves,not even close. You are assuming so much based on this weak evidence,you have alot of faith that life will eventually evolve. The evidence for evolution really proves the bible true when it tells us that God created and made kinds to produce after its kind.This is what normal variation amongst the populations prove,not evolution.

Viruses produce viruses,bacteria produces bacteria,humans produce humans,salamanders produce salamanders,finches produce finches,rats produce rats,fruit flies produce fruit flies,cats produce cats,and on and on and on in evidence for evolution. And yet just because there is variation you think it means it will evolve eventually. It is nonsense thinking. No pun intended.


Darwin did not understand the mechanism by which all things changed over time. We do. It is human intervention that is the source of the different breeds of dogs, not evolution. Although it is the principles of evolution that are being used. The twins were an example of how even individuals with the exact same genome, can acquire variance in their genome through natural processes. Do you know WHY species can only reproduce their own offsprings? Why man cannot produce apes and vise-versa? By understanding the WHY, you would understand more about the importance of genetic variances and DNA replication. This would aso give you deeper insight into the process of natural selection. Also, remember that natural variation is different than artificial variation. I am only talking about natural variances in the population.

Regarding your "not all dogs can breed", ALL dogs can interbreed. The definition of a species, "is a population of animals that can interbreed and produce a viable and fertile offspring". There is only ONE SPECIES OF DOG(Canis lupus). What you are referring to are the different breeds of dogs. But if there was a dog that couldn't breed with another dog, then it would technically not be in the same species, therefore, it would not be a dog. Although there might be some obvious mechanical problems during the mating and gestation period, but there is NO problem with canine conception. Your information is clearly and obviously false. They are called "teacup chihuahua", if you care to see what they look like. Speciation is the mechanism that produces different species, not different breeds within the same species.

Science is not trying to sell anyone anything. It uses the same scientific methods to interpret the data and evidence it receives, so it can best explain some natural phenomenon. If you can provide a more scientific explanation, then good on you. If not, then I can only appreciate your opinion. Don



Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim.This proves speciation is a lie like I told you about in my former post. This is one lie to make evolution more believable. It is dishonesty and it really hurts their credibility about other things they claim about evolution. Botoom line is It is normal variation amongst the population of dog. See this is what I mean

.And it does not matter if Darwin did not understand the mechanism like you claim.You were supposed to demonstrate that because there is variation amongst the populations it can lead to one kind of life changing into a new and different kind of life over time just like Darwin believed.Once this was not demonstrated evolution should have been falsified and kicked to the curb. But instead they use normal variation amongst the populations for evidence today.I mean not even Darwin used it for evidence and yet you do it today 150 years later.

Just because scientists held on and protected evolution while piling more and more evidence and myths up on evolution does not make the lack of a credibile mechanism go away.The problem still exists and looking into DNA like you suggest won't change anything because all you're explaining is normal variation amongst the population when examining the DNA.

I mean because there is normal variation amongst the populations we know the DNA varies in reproduction in order to produce variation but all you're doing is watching the DNA as normal variation amongst the population is being produced then claiming it is evidence life evolves.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:53 pm

Philip wrote:
Truly: I would never have posted anything at all, if I hadn't seen your thread about the extraordinary scientific proof that proved the existence of God. So, are you suggesting that I post only non-scientific, metaphysical and philosophical mumbo-jumbo, or go elsewhere?


Of course not - many Christians believe evolution was God's process. And for me, personally, what science can teach us merely magnifies my belief in God, and in the impossibility that what came into existence could have done so without an immensly powerful Superinitellgence who would HAVE to pre-exist ALL things and be eternal.

Truly: So rather than sow the make-believe seeds of self-serving logic...


Truly, I'd say YOUR logic in how you look at the evidence serves to supprt your unbelief, correct?

Truly: Just to justify another banning, just don't visit the thread.


Simple, just be respectful and there's no need to fear a ban.

Truly: Especially, if the the strength of your belief seems this easily threatened.


Wrong - speaking of evolution views is certainly not threatening to my Christian beliefs - as I've said, there is a wide variety of views of Christians on that topic. My point is that going on relentlessly in detail about it is rather pointless, at least in regards to the far more important questions it doesn't address (does God exist and Who is He?)- which is the main focus of the forum.


I am always respectful and tolerant of others views, opinions, and Beliefs. However since my very first post, I have received nothing but disrespect, labels, a ban, insults, and intolerance. I'm then told that it is my own fault for expecting to be welcomed with open arms, and to stop whining and whinging about it(thicker skin). So excuse me if I can't see past the obvious double standards. I also do not fear being banned, anymore than I fear death, both seem inevitable based on the evidence.

I also have my own personal beliefs(universal subjectivity), but they will always remain my personal beliefs. Whenever you make truth claims that are not based on belief, then you must be able to support those claims. If you had stated that the scientific evidence supporting the existence of God was based only on your Belief, I would never have written my first post. My posts are far less detailed than they are intuitive and common sense. I try to avoid using scientific details, unless someone request more specific details. Also, it IS the evidence and logic that serves my beliefs, not my un-beliefs. It is the lack of evidence and logic that serves my un-beliefs.

My topic IS the rationale behind Evolution. How do I explain this evolutionary rationale in a Biblical metaphysical sense? The function of my thread is to provide an explanations for many natural phenomenon, from a scientific perspective. I don't know if God started the process of Evolution or not, so I can't comment. If my posts are relentless and pointless, then you are under no obligation to visit or read them. And, if everyone on the forum feels the same way you do, then there will be no reason for me to be here. So as long as people continue to post comments in my threads, I will continue to be polite enough to respond back. So, if you are here just to tell me that my post are too detailed and pointless, or what the main focus of the forum is, then your opinion is noted. Or did you have a specific question, objection, or comment relating to the ToE? Don


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests